Bill Gates - Darkworker, Steve Jobs - Lightworker?

[polecats]

I've seen polarization at work, and can see how it's important to being effective, it's a great point Steve Palina makes that you don't see in many of the career guidance books and websites.

As I've been trying to apply polarity to my job, strikes me that the two of the biggest contributors to the computer industry are highly polarized. Steve Jobs is a lightworker, more focused on innovative products than his income. Of course he makes billions, but it seems to be more an effect of his creativity. Bill Gates is more of a darkworker, profits and net worth come before changing the world with a snappy new invention like the Mac or iPhone. Both are wildly successful, because there is no indecision in either one over whether to focus on outputs - iPhone, Mac, or outcomes - $50 billion net worth.

[cylon]

What's funny (and I am an apple freak myself) is that Jobs is known to have an extremely abrasive personality, and Bill Gates donates millions and millions of dollars to charity.

[polecats]

Originally Posted by cylon

What's funny (and I am an apple freak myself) is that Jobs is known to have an extremely abrasive personality, and Bill Gates donates millions and millions of dollars to charity.

you're right about that, but Gates is doing so only after having become one of the world's richest

plus, artists are often very passionate about outputs, not outcome, what do you think would have upset Andy Warhol more - a painting that sold for 5% less than an appraisal estimate, or a profitable painting panned as a mundane piece of art suitable for a corporate lobby?

point is I'm starting to see how right Steve P is in highly successfully people being "polarized" in one direction or the other, but not in the mushy middle

[cylon]

I'm an "artist" (lol). I guess you could say I want to make beautiful things that make people happy... but if at the same time I'm running around yelling at people and demoralizing them, does that make me a "lightworker"? I don't know. Maybe it means I'm a creative person who takes my stress and perfectionism out on innocent bystanders.

I'm a big big fan of Steve Jobs. Always have been. But there are multiple aspects in play. I'm not particularly well-versed in the whole polarization thing, hasn't caught my attention as of yet. I do like Apple and its philosophy though. I watch all the keynotes online like it's the superbowl.

[wachusettgirl]

OK, let me get this straight. Jobs is a "lightworker" because he makes cooler, more innovative products than Gates, even though they both are supremely sucessfull in more or less the same industry? Gates is a "darkworker" because he makes so much money, oh wait... Jobs does too, but that's not it, because Jobs has (subjectively) cooler, more innovative products...

[Apollia]

Many things bother me about the concepts of "lightworkers", "darkworkers" and "polarization", but, I guess I won't get into all that here... I just wanted to mention my misgivings so my post to this thread isn't perceived as supporting those concepts.

I don't know if I think either one qualifies as a lightworker. I've long thought that lightworkers would probably be in favor of open source software, while darkworkers would like the opportunity for having too much power over people's lives that closed-source software provides.

Richard Stallman's essay Why Software Should Be Free explains the benefits of open-source software and the many adverse effects of closed-source software.

The concepts of lightworkers, darkworkers and polarization really confuse me, though, so, I could easily be wrong.

Best wishes,
Apollia

[supertom]

steve is proberly the only person who fits into the lightworker thing, read "the dark side of light chasers"

[polecats]

Originally Posted by wachusettgirl

OK, let me get this straight.

doesn't sound like you get the concepts

"lightworkers" focus on outputs, "darkworkers" on outcomes, but their focus is on intentions, not results, so they can be hard to distinguish if you don't get what the terms mean

a lightworker will emphasize the creation, the iphone, the Mac, a painting, a darkworker the impact to him - the wealth created, the power gained

neither is good or bad per se, and both can be successful, but the best results come when they're not mixed

[polecats]

Originally Posted by Apollia

I've long thought that lightworkers would probably be in favor of open source software, while darkworkers would like the opportunity for having too much power over people's lives that closed-source software provides.

yes, good analogy

but if someone came along with the intention to be president of the Open Source and Industry Alliance, that he'd be a "darkworker"

[Lenie]

this is fun for me just listening in to your conversation.

I like both, so please, continue...

[polecats]

Originally Posted by Lenie

this is fun for me just listening in to your conversation.

I like both, so please, continue...

glad it's useful to someone!

to give an example, as part of my "polarization" I threw out pictures of an expensive home I placed on my wall

the nice house wold be great to have, but I'm not money motivated enough to work extra hard for it, far more concerned with advancing my vision, which is a "lightworker" trait, and focusing on the outcome - a nice house - was only clouding my true goals

but I also have a business to run, and believe measurement is key to good management, which sounds like a "darkworker" trait, but I'm not measuring how much money I make, I'm measuring my production, because my vision won't advance if I spend all day in a trance

I actually don't like the darkworker-lightworker terminology, though I love the concept, because it implies good or evil, prefer output-outcome, especially in a business setting, because that helps you think about setting tangible goals without conflicting the ends and the means.

so think of a baseball player, who sets a goal to hit 40 home runs to help his team win (output i.e. lightworker) vs. a player who sets a goal of singing a $100 million contract (outcome i.e. darkworker), both will go through many of the same exercises and drills, both will make money, both will be all-stars, and on the surface will look the same, but the source of their motivation is very different, and their personal criteria for success are very different

what neither player is doing though is throwing output and outcome into a conflict by trying to balance the two, rather each is picking one and focusing entirely on that side

[polecats]

one other concept here, Henry Ford, who said he'd "belt the earth with dependable automobiles", a lightworker sentiment, but he didn't get lightworker syndrome because he had faith in his process - mass production through task repetition

but AFTER you've established whether you're going to focus on either ends or means, I think you can mix lightworker and darkworker tactics - Steve Jobs had a vision for the Mac changing the world, but he also invested in advertising to promote it, which would have been very different from saying I need to get the company to a $100 billion market cap and will change strategy if needed, which is essentially what Microsoft did by moving from DOS to Windows

[Lenie]

finally! I don't like the darkworker/lightworker terminology either... It's nice to see I wasn't the only one.

outcome is better. cool.

[Akashic_Librarian]

Why is Bill Gates NOT creative exactly?

And can you say Mac fan boy

[polecats]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

Why is Bill Gates NOT creative exactly?

got nothing to do with creativity, but what goals you focus on

if I start a charity to fight homelessness, that's a lightworker type of goal, but when I set out to raise $3 million for that charity I'm not giving anything to the universe, I'm taking from it, at least temporarily, so I'm doing a darkworker task to achieve a lightworker goal

therefore, I think a good way to avoid lightworker syndrome is to set an output goal - i.e. help 300 people find a home in a year, write 700 words a day, finish a painting in 20 days - which is very different than setting an outcome goal - raise $3 million, sell 500 books, sell a painting for a $100k

I have had much greater success focusing on outputs, while some very good people I know do better when they have specific $ targets. I just think all the stuff you read about goal setting and manifestation is hard to achieve if you don't sort these distinctions between outcome and outputs ahead of time, which is why polarization is so important

but my disagreement with Steve would be that darkworker tasks can support, not conflict, with a lightworker goal, but I agree that a darkworker goal will absolutely cancel out a lightworker goal, and result in a lot of mushy mediocrity

[AO1]

Originally Posted by polecats

got nothing to do with creativity, but what goals you focus on

if I start a charity to fight homelessness, that's a lightworker type of goal, but when I set out to raise $3 million for that charity I'm not giving anything to the universe, I'm taking from it, at least temporarily, so I'm doing a darkworker task to achieve a lightworker goal

therefore, I think a good way to avoid lightworker syndrome is to set an output goal - i.e. help 300 people find a home in a year, write 700 words a day, finish a painting in 20 days - which is very different than setting an outcome goal - raise $3 million, sell 500 books, sell a painting for a $100k

I have had much greater success focusing on outputs, while some very good people I know do better when they have specific $ targets. I just think all the stuff you read about goal setting and manifestation is hard to achieve if you don't sort these distinctions between outcome and outputs ahead of time, which is why polarization is so important

but my disagreement with Steve would be that darkworker tasks can support, not conflict, with a lightworker goal, but I agree that a darkworker goal will absolutely cancel out a lightworker goal, and result in a lot of mushy mediocrity

How so?

That goal in itself raises the question of how best to contribute to society in order to raise the $3 million for that charity, which in your model is "light worker" intention.

I think both "light worker" and "dark worker" intentions exist. To best view them however, is to broaden the perspective in which they encompass. For example, the notion "help 300 people find a home in a year" may on one level be considered "light worker" with the intention to help society, but on another, considered "dark worker" due to its selfish nature as it's what satisfies the self.

With my current belief system/understanding, awareness of these in an integral manner is the most empowering aspect. I don't believe they exist in their own accord, but each help to empower the other and are equally linked. e.g. to increase my own awareness ("dark worker" intention) can directly help others through my very actions and growth ("light worker" intention).

At a certain level of growth, this concept is extremely helpful in understanding and gaining a greater awareness of one's motives and intentions. Natural progression and growth from the experience of this concept leads to a more integral approach which enfolds both "dark" and "light" worker attributes which leads to greater flexibility of growth.

[polecats]

Originally Posted by AO1

At a certain level of growth, this concept is extremely helpful in understanding and gaining a greater awareness of one's motives and intentions. Natural progression and growth from the experience of this concept leads to a more integral approach which enfolds both "dark" and "light" worker attributes which leads to greater flexibility of growth.

Both attributes can co-exist among all the steps you take to reach a goal, but not in the same goal. If you say you want to make $1,000,000 a month by developing a patent for a new cell phone patent, the two will inevitably conflict. The cell phone patent might not be the best way to get to $1,000,000 a month, and the financial target simply might not be possible with that product. In the process, you'll go crazy with indecision.

Much better to just pick one, and accept the money as a consequence of developing a useful patent, or focus on the money and find the most plausible way of obtaining it.

[AO1]

hmn, I see. Thanks for the clarity. This spurs me to investigate this further. Will post back with updates

[JimOfferman]

I don't buy the whole "Jobs is a saint and Gates is evil" slant. Jobs is no saint. Gates is not evil. Jobs is not Apple. Gates is not Microsoft. Both companies are highly innovative (if you bother to look at the facts and not the media spin). Both companies are fiercely competitive. If Jobs is a lightworker, so is Gates and if Gates is a darkworker, so is Jobs.

I'm an Apple fanboi, so Stevie is my man... but Bill is a pretty cool guy too.

(I don't find the whole dark/lightworker dichotomy to be of any use at all. Its too black and white for my taste; the world is painted in shades of gray)

[AO1]

I've read all of Steve's articles of polarization and I believe I have a good grasp of the concepts.

Originally Posted by polecats

"lightworkers" focus on outputs, "darkworkers" on outcomes, but their focus is on intentions, not results, so they can be hard to distinguish if you don't get what the terms mean

lol how ironic. This statement doesn't make much sense. Outcome is just another word for results.

Originally Posted by polecats

Both attributes can co-exist among all the steps you take to reach a goal, but not in the same goal. If you say you want to make $1,000,000 a month by developing a patent for a new cell phone patent, the two will inevitably conflict. The cell phone patent might not be the best way to get to $1,000,000 a month, and the financial target simply might not be possible with that product. In the process, you'll go crazy with indecision.

Much better to just pick one, and accept the money as a consequence of developing a useful patent, or focus on the money and find the most plausible way of obtaining it.

What matters is the intention (fear or love based).

If raising $1,000,000 worth of value serves the greater good, then great. It will spawn many different ways to contribute to society. This is light-working.

If developing a new cell phone patent serves the greater good, then great. It will spawn many different ways to contribute to society. This is also light-working.

If raising $1,000,000 will serve me in getting more luxuries for myself, then great. This is dark-working.

If developing a new cell phone patent serves me in getting ahead of my competition, then great. This is also dark-working.


You're equating money to a solely darkworker attribute. Wouldn't a lightworker need to pay their bills? Wouldn't be a much of lightworker if they simply couldn't take care of themself.

Originally Posted by polecats

yes, good analogy

but if someone came along with the intention to be president of the Open Source and Industry Alliance, that he'd be a "darkworker"

It depends on the intention. If becoming president would serve the greater good, then it would be seen as a "lightworker" step.

On the contrary, if the intention was to dominate for one's personal gain: it would be dark-working.

Originally Posted by polecats

if I start a charity to fight homelessness, that's a lightworker type of goal, but when I set out to raise $3 million for that charity I'm not giving anything to the universe, I'm taking from it, at least temporarily, so I'm doing a darkworker task to achieve a lightworker goal

What if I start a charity "to fight homelessness" because it makes great PR?


With regards to your topic, we can never really be certain unless we know their inner, deeper intentions. It can obviously be wise for an intelligent darkworker to mask his actions as lightworker orientated in the premise of deluding his victims.

[Lenie]

Jobs is not Apple. Gates is not Microsoft.

hmm.

What matters is the intention (fear or love based).

I agree with you there. That's how I looked at it.

[danas]

by the way this was discussed here

[Jj3rrMz]

Maybe because Steve Jobs use to be a hippy

[polecats]

Originally Posted by danas

by the way this was discussed here

I think that old thread got too caught up in the new age definitions of everything.

Goal setting is much harder than it needs to be because this issue of polarity (or simply not mixing up plan and purpose) is not that obvious, and the techniques of visualization, writing goals down, being specific, having a deadline, etc - all the things the gurus advise - don't do much to prevent someone from creating conflicting goals.

The point is not who's good or evil, again why I dislike the light/dark terminology, but whether you're more motivated by money, or what you can do to earn money. Both serve society equally well, and as an individual, you do society a disservice by aiming at the wrong one, because that cuts your motivation to be productive towards any goal.

Gates and Jobs are just examples of highly successful people who've aimed the right way for their own personalities. I can't see Bill Gates happy if 10 other companies on NASDAQ had higher market caps than MSFT, and I can't see Steve Jobs happy if he had the same net worth he does now, but got there by selling routine database software.

[AO1]

Originally Posted by polecats

I think that old thread got too caught up in the new age definitions of everything.

Goal setting is much harder than it needs to be because this issue of polarity (or simply not mixing up plan and purpose) is not that obvious, and the techniques of visualization, writing goals down, being specific, having a deadline, etc - all the things the gurus advise - don't do much to prevent someone from creating conflicting goals.

The point is not who's good or evil, again why I dislike the light/dark terminology, but whether you're more motivated by money, or what you can do to earn money. Both serve society equally well, and as an individual, you do society a disservice by aiming at the wrong one, because that cuts your motivation to be productive towards any goal.

Gates and Jobs are just examples of highly successful people who've aimed the right way for their own personalities. I can't see Bill Gates happy if 10 other companies on NASDAQ had higher market caps than MSFT, and I can't see Steve Jobs happy if he had the same net worth he does now, but got there by selling routine database software.

Contradiction?

You do not do disservice to society either way.

It's the intention, not the actual action that is polarized. A darkworker still would and could take all the steps a lightworker has to amass x amount of money (content). What distinguishes them however, is their intention (energy).

For a greater explanation, I suggest you read this.

[Lenie]

ah.

In-flowing thoughts focus on receiving and acquiring. Out-flowing thoughts focus on creating and giving.

thanks.

[polecats]

Originally Posted by AO1

You do not do disservice to society either way.

you absolute do by going through life in an indecisive fog

[KaeGabSte]

They're with Bill Gates and Seinfeld...and they are HILARIOUS.

I like Bill way more than I did before.

All this lightworker/darkworker mumbo jumbo is a little off-putting, really. I believe both gentlemen put all of their energy into their life's work, and as a result they both have completely genius products that have forever changed the world. If that's not positive, I don't know what is.

They both have made billions, and they both continue to produce groundbreaking items that the world just eats up. They just go about it in different ways. I don't think that makes one better than the other...

--Although I'd take Mac over PC, iPod over Zune any day... but that's just me

[cylon]

They still make Zunes?

[Liara Covert]

All things being equal, human beings make diverse contributions to this world that are immeasurable and not comparable. To move beyond comparing and judging is to realize how much good energy is vibrating and growing in the world.