Talk:General Discussion/@comment-25189003-20150318124951/@comment-114.124.32.15-20150320102901

^ The myth of Bill Gates single-mindedly pursuing a path in computer science to the point of ignoring school is probably another one invented by motivators. Gates was actually a generalist in college. He studied (classical) Greek and Latin and is fluent in them, for instance. He also took some courses in management and of all things, world literature. In a recent interview he actualy said that he regretted not taking in more languages (Mandarin, Arabic, etc) when in college. So, yeah, not a single-minded pursuit of all things computer-related. More of a relaxed and unfocused approach, really. What actually happened was that Bill Gates is one of those people who took only subjects he liked in college, went to classes to learn them, then ignored the whole points/credits system. In other words, he is the exact opposite of the goal/achievement-oriented person motivators tell you to become.

You see really smart and talented people do this a lot. Basically they just learn for the fun of it, then when they've mastered a subject they don't feel the need to prove it to anyone, so they ignore things like exams and evaluations. Well, Gates actually took his Greek and Latin exams and aced them, though. The problem with this kind of approach to college is that people doing it tend to end up lacking credits to graduate because they simply don't have the inclination or motivation to take those mandatory classes they actually need to pass to get those credits. Bill Gates had this problem as well. In the end he just up and left. Of course, the problem for us mere mortals if we tried to follow this approach is that we're not Bill Gates. The reason WE need to be goal-oriented is because we're not geniuses who can invent new approaches to digital computing at 19 while learning two totally useless languages (unless you're a Catholic or Orthodox priest) on the side just for the heck of it. We need that degree, goddamnit!

Also, from accounts by Microsoft employees, Bill Gates wasn't exactly the work-and-persevere kind of guy when he lead Microsoft. He was more laid back. He's very focused in business, yes, but the credit for perseverance should go to underappreciated Steve Ballmer. During the US antitrust assault against Microsoft, Gates was ready to throw in the towel several times, but Ballmer insisted on fighting all the way to the end.

Steve Jobs was a different sort of guy entirely. Jobs was the singleminded-pursuit kind of guy, which was how he identified niches to dominate in the gadget wars. He also relied strongly on his ability to push people on board his schemes - including his customers. However, Steve Jobs' model is also not a good one to follow if you're an introvert. you need a certain level of extrovertion and a skill to persuade - probably even con - people into following your vision. Basically, Steve Jobs was a super-talented marketing person. He wasn't as technically-competent as people have been led to believe. Most of Apple's technologies were bought from other companies, for instance. His skill as a tech developer relied on being able to identify the potential in other people's work.

Both these men are admirable, but they're admirable because of who they UNIQUELY are. They're actually very bad role models if you think about it a bit, because it's almost impossible for the average person to emulate their success without possessing the specific talents that allowed them to succeed in life. We're not all geniuses.