(1) I don't think you would be interested in the answers to those questions if the article was about an ordinary man. The only redeeming feature of the story is that it's about a famous genius that died recently. Remove that and tell me that story isn't inane.
(2) You're attempting to study the character of a man whose work interests you. It has turned out that his character is that of an ordinary man who acts with humanity. This is completely unsurprising but you assert that this is 'interesting'. The belief that this story is significant and unusual is utterly unbelievable to me. It suggests that many people believe that those that are considered geniuses or visionaries are somehow completely different from normal men and may not socialize or empathize with others in the same way as a normal human being.
(3) The really interesting thing about this thread is that there are so many people that (a) are trying to judge his character -- I believe that this might be because we seek our highest values in celebrities, (b) believe that they can analyze his character from just a few recounted events, (c) elevate leaders to the level that they need to be deliberately humanized with stories for others to realize that they're "just like you and me".
Please help me understand how you and others think.
I think the story is better taken as a lesson in both humility, and finding happiness rather than an example of Steve's benevolence. The reason is that this man had very legitimate reasons to take this interaction negatively: He's the famous CEO of the company they are standing in front of, and they didn't recognize him. He's battling a serious illness, rather publicly, and they don't seem to think this could be imposing. His time is incredibly important to him, both in the fact that he is CEO, but also because of his health, he's working fast to try and get everything in order to secure the future success of his company. From his point of view, he could've viewed them as ignorant people who are wasting his very limited time, and he would be right on some level.
He could've said no or simply ignored them, and he would've have legitimate excuse to do so - but the fact that he didn't says something about him. I think a lot of people assume that what that says is "because he wasn't a jerk, it makes him a nice person" but I think it's more that he was able to take what very well could've been a negative interaction and instead of dismissing it, see the positive side of it, and get enjoyment out of it. He was able to take the humble route, and instead of ignoring them, lambasting them, or simply revealing who he was and risk embarrassing them, he simply fulfilled the request and went on his way.
I took this is more a lesson in ego, humility, and happiness than it is evidence for/against his character.
(1) No I wouldn't be interested in the answers to those questions for a regular person, and that's the point. Seeing extraordinary people in ordinary situations is interesting. For example, I would like to see Barack Obama walk into a Starbucks and order something. I would like to see how Bill Gates shops for groceries, if he does at all. In the press, you only get one view of a person, and it is often repetitive - unusual situations can be a lot more telling about the real human underneath.
But even if it wasn't interesting in itself, there is more to this story, because there is so much subtext. The story doesn't work for a regular person because a regular person wouldn't have helped create that camera. A regular person wouldn't have a company that tourists would want to get their picture taken with.
(2) It is not unsurprising that he acted like this. After reading all of the other stories about him, one might think that he wouldn't stop to help. Another type of celebrity or CEO would have been offended that the person didn't know who he was.
(3) Judging and trying to guess about his character is part of the fascination of all this. Since he was so reclusive, we really don't know what he was really like. And maybe little moments like this give a little insight into who he was.
(1) I don't think you would be interested in the answers to those questions if the article was about an ordinary man. The only redeeming feature of the story is that it's about a famous genius that died recently. Remove that and tell me that story isn't inane.
(2) You're attempting to study the character of a man whose work interests you. It has turned out that his character is that of an ordinary man who acts with humanity. This is completely unsurprising but you assert that this is 'interesting'. The belief that this story is significant and unusual is utterly unbelievable to me. It suggests that many people believe that those that are considered geniuses or visionaries are somehow completely different from normal men and may not socialize or empathize with others in the same way as a normal human being.
(3) The really interesting thing about this thread is that there are so many people that (a) are trying to judge his character -- I believe that this might be because we seek our highest values in celebrities, (b) believe that they can analyze his character from just a few recounted events, (c) elevate leaders to the level that they need to be deliberately humanized with stories for others to realize that they're "just like you and me".
Please help me understand how you and others think.