I'm happy to second the Hardcore History recommendation, because Dan Carlin's work is absolutely brilliant. He combines a solid grounding in fact, a keen eye for illuminatory quotations, and a strong narrative skill to produce the kind of compelling historiography which you're rarely fortunate enough to encounter in any context.
I used to really look up to Catmull, given all the research he did into early computer graphics, but that wage fixing scandal [1] is just downright disgusting. There is no way to look up to this guy, unless you get turned-on by those kinds of immoral business practices.
Separate the work and the man and you can keep your admiration without having to spend your time condoning or condemning everything else the man does you disagree with. I think this is necessary for most historical figures (even many living ones) given popular modern ethics. (Edit: with separation you can also work with your coworkers professionally even if they have different politics.)
No this is not about separating the work from the man. We're not talking about personal stuff.
In his capacity as a senior leader of a major silicon valley company, he actively worked to limit people's employment opportunities. That tarnishes his record as a great leader.
What large tech company during his time did not engage in that practice?
I am not saying it was the correct thing to do, however, if it is that common in the industry, then it is a systemic defect versus a personal defect and should be treated as such.
He was in a position where he was not really a part of the system. Pixar had its own production and a distribution deal with Disney (at the time). They weren't client-oriented service machine like others. No thin margins for that whale. He could've made an impact, a change in the system other companies were challenged with. Exploitation by studios, which ultimately brought down many VFX houses down and shaked a lot of people's lives. What he did was align with what VFX houses did, where he didn't had to because he was not in the same business as them at all. Lazy approach at best, evil at worst. I still respect all his work he has done though. There is no doubt in that.
I worked for both DreamWorks and Disney while this was going on, and I have a slightly different take. What he did was illegal, no question, I'm not defending it at all, but the Cartoon Brew article and this comment seem slightly hyperbolic to me. I'm not an expert, and I don't know all the details of the lawsuits, I'm just providing an anecdotal data point.
Many people I know in the industry, people who've worked with Catmull directly and were surprised by the no-raid agreements and his emails, these people also see and understand there's more nuance here than pure greed/evil/disgustingness.
Catmull did make statements about trying to protect the overall business at the expense of individual wages, as well as said things that exhibit a belief that wages were too high. "If the pay goes way up in an industry where the margins are practically nonexistent, it will have a negative effect."
And for what it's worth, Pixar is still in business, while both studios I worked for, PDI & Avalanche, have been since shuttered by DreamWorks and Disney, leaving all the employees there without jobs, even while they were making profits. Plus, the VFX industry in the US did in fact collapse almost completely near the end of when this all happened, and it had a lot to do with margins getting too small or going negative, as well as foreign competition and foreign subsidies, so the fears aren't exactly unfounded.
I never starved or felt significantly under-compensated while I was at either company, in fact I was paid pretty well, and I know many people who'd prefer to have kept their job with a little less pay than not have a job, or even change jobs or have to switch industries. They're all doing fine, but not by choice in all cases.
Anyway, it doesn't take being unredeemingly bad to explain what happened, there are less extreme explanations. Catmull clearly believed he wasn't doing something wrong, because he refused to apologize for it. While I'm certain it was illegal, I'm less certain that it was immoral or disgusting or that his motives were 100% selfish, in the larger context. I'm still curious about him, and the wages thing is a black mark, but he did make many important and foundational contributions to computer graphics. He seems to be a genuinely nice and thoughtful person in his interviews and writings. I'm curious what the discrepancy is between what he says and does, and whether his intentions were as bad as they're being painted to be.
The notion that a significant number of people in this country are drawn to a sociopath is fascinating. ... Yet there are a large number of people that are utterly missing the clues.
The thing is I don't even think Trump's a sociopath. A troll for sure but not a sociopath.
I had the displeasure of meeting some real sociopaths in my life. The dumb ones are easy to spot and typically end up broke and/or in jail. But the smart ones are way, way more subtle than Trump.
A smart sociopath typically aims to make you believe that they are the nicest person in the world in order to gain your trust. Once they have it their goal is to use it for their maximum profit while giving back nothing in return. Lies and deceit are their primary tools.
Trump's not one of these. He's blatantly disrespectful and crude and quite certainly lacks education, manner and values. But he's not trying to mislead anyone about it. In fact he's pretty upfront about it. And that's what separates the troll from the sociopath.
> He's blatantly disrespectful and crude and quite certainly lacks education, manner and values
Yeah, Trump isn't a sociopath. He has a shtick which isn't unusual given his profession. After listening to him, I don't think he's being deceptive, he ad libs pretty consistently to the same beliefs.
I don't think Trump lacks education. He's not a stupid person and his family had the money to get him a decent education which he took advantage of. I expect the media to say he's stupid because they have never said any Republican is educated or smart.
Mr. Catmull's line is one of those "I'm smatter than everyone else and see the truth" lines often used in politics (and sadly, journalism). The common people would think just like me if they weren't mislead (charitable reason) or stupid (malice reason). He really isn't examining why Trump won the nomination, but I wouldn't expect him too since he made his mind up already.
Of course, his own actions in regards to worker pay while at the same time touting how important his people were might face the same accusations.
He was a hero of mine, then the scandal was revealed and there was no apology, now he's been just another brick in the wall.
> He really isn't examining why Trump won the nomination, but I wouldn't expect him too since he made his mind up already.
Actually, I think he's getting at that very point in his statement. The 'sociopath' and 'missing clues' comment certainly frames it a certain way and reveals his bias, but to be fair he does state in the very following sentence, "What are the fears inside of them that get us to this place"
I thought the fear line just reinforced the negatives directed at the voters and his made up mind. Everyone has fears, but I think focusing any honest enquiry of Trump's nomination on voter fear is just not looking very hard. It neglects the history and attempted influencers.
I think he's looking for the word demagogue. Trump is a textbook demagogue: "a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument."
The notion that a significant number of people in this
country are drawn to a sociopath is fascinating. How do
people get there when other people look and say, “Oh,
clearly that’s a sociopath.” There are sociopaths in the
world but they don’t usually end up getting this far.
Yet there are a large number of people that are utterly
missing the clues.
"So, the thing that is hard to do, that I try to do,
is to come back and think that everyone is trying to do the right thing, which I believe is the right place to start. If someone’s doing something that doesn’t make sense, there’s a reason for it and we need to understand their reasons. We make our best progress when our efforts are to be empathetic and understanding of what’s going on in other’s lives."
So, so true. I'll also recommend his book Creativity, Inc. - what works for Pixar might not all be directly translatable for the software industry, but there are some good lessons and experience (and entertainment) in there.
23 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 68.3 ms ] thread[1] http://www.cartoonbrew.com/business/pixars-ed-catmull-emerge...
In his capacity as a senior leader of a major silicon valley company, he actively worked to limit people's employment opportunities. That tarnishes his record as a great leader.
Pixar is in the East Bay, not the valley!
I am not saying it was the correct thing to do, however, if it is that common in the industry, then it is a systemic defect versus a personal defect and should be treated as such.
Guess he means safe but where they stitch things up with other managers to pay you less.
Many people I know in the industry, people who've worked with Catmull directly and were surprised by the no-raid agreements and his emails, these people also see and understand there's more nuance here than pure greed/evil/disgustingness.
Catmull did make statements about trying to protect the overall business at the expense of individual wages, as well as said things that exhibit a belief that wages were too high. "If the pay goes way up in an industry where the margins are practically nonexistent, it will have a negative effect."
And for what it's worth, Pixar is still in business, while both studios I worked for, PDI & Avalanche, have been since shuttered by DreamWorks and Disney, leaving all the employees there without jobs, even while they were making profits. Plus, the VFX industry in the US did in fact collapse almost completely near the end of when this all happened, and it had a lot to do with margins getting too small or going negative, as well as foreign competition and foreign subsidies, so the fears aren't exactly unfounded.
I never starved or felt significantly under-compensated while I was at either company, in fact I was paid pretty well, and I know many people who'd prefer to have kept their job with a little less pay than not have a job, or even change jobs or have to switch industries. They're all doing fine, but not by choice in all cases.
Anyway, it doesn't take being unredeemingly bad to explain what happened, there are less extreme explanations. Catmull clearly believed he wasn't doing something wrong, because he refused to apologize for it. While I'm certain it was illegal, I'm less certain that it was immoral or disgusting or that his motives were 100% selfish, in the larger context. I'm still curious about him, and the wages thing is a black mark, but he did make many important and foundational contributions to computer graphics. He seems to be a genuinely nice and thoughtful person in his interviews and writings. I'm curious what the discrepancy is between what he says and does, and whether his intentions were as bad as they're being painted to be.
Reading it makes me feel mildly nauseated.
The thing is I don't even think Trump's a sociopath. A troll for sure but not a sociopath.
I had the displeasure of meeting some real sociopaths in my life. The dumb ones are easy to spot and typically end up broke and/or in jail. But the smart ones are way, way more subtle than Trump.
A smart sociopath typically aims to make you believe that they are the nicest person in the world in order to gain your trust. Once they have it their goal is to use it for their maximum profit while giving back nothing in return. Lies and deceit are their primary tools.
Trump's not one of these. He's blatantly disrespectful and crude and quite certainly lacks education, manner and values. But he's not trying to mislead anyone about it. In fact he's pretty upfront about it. And that's what separates the troll from the sociopath.
Yeah, Trump isn't a sociopath. He has a shtick which isn't unusual given his profession. After listening to him, I don't think he's being deceptive, he ad libs pretty consistently to the same beliefs.
I don't think Trump lacks education. He's not a stupid person and his family had the money to get him a decent education which he took advantage of. I expect the media to say he's stupid because they have never said any Republican is educated or smart.
Mr. Catmull's line is one of those "I'm smatter than everyone else and see the truth" lines often used in politics (and sadly, journalism). The common people would think just like me if they weren't mislead (charitable reason) or stupid (malice reason). He really isn't examining why Trump won the nomination, but I wouldn't expect him too since he made his mind up already.
Of course, his own actions in regards to worker pay while at the same time touting how important his people were might face the same accusations.
He was a hero of mine, then the scandal was revealed and there was no apology, now he's been just another brick in the wall.
Actually, I think he's getting at that very point in his statement. The 'sociopath' and 'missing clues' comment certainly frames it a certain way and reveals his bias, but to be fair he does state in the very following sentence, "What are the fears inside of them that get us to this place"
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_eng...
So, so true. I'll also recommend his book Creativity, Inc. - what works for Pixar might not all be directly translatable for the software industry, but there are some good lessons and experience (and entertainment) in there.