"Did Jobs significantly decrease his chance of surviving his cancer by waiting nine months to undergo surgery? It seems like a no-brainer, but it turns out that that’s actually a very tough question to answer.
... So, is it possible, even likely, that Jobs compromised his chances of survival? Yes. Is it definite that he did? No, it’s not... In fact, based on statistics alone, it’s unlikely that a mere nine months took Jobs “from the high end to the low end of the survival rate,”
I just need to mention that tremendo's link to sciencebasedmedicine contains a MUCH higher quality of commentary than the half-dozen other articles I've read on the subject. I know an upvote ought to be enough, but it didn't seem so.
I recall Stephen Fry's great comments on Steve Job's "Apple stands at the intersection of technology and the liberal arts." statement.
But it has always bothered me that the age of reason also means the age when the scientific principle and liberal arts not only split but often end up with an "us vs. them" relationship.
This may be one of the least coherent and strangest things I've ever tried to express on the Internet. But I suspect that if we as a civilization were not capable of making a distinction between the hard sciences and the liberal arts, then Steve Jobs would have sought early medical treatment and would be alive today and for many years more.
Allow me to try and explain. The leading smart people used to be expected to know both the "science" of the day and the arts.
But then we get the age of reason and people start to specialize in one or the other, but rarely both. And we do end up with two separate and often defined against each other areas of knowledge.
Does this make sense? Just google image search for Millau Viaduct and tell me that product of engineering isn't also art.
I think the world has lost something by this split. I think engineering and science have lost a bit to. But I also suspect the liberal arts have lost a lot by not requiring a thorough knowledge of the hard science as a foundation.
Hell, I wish doctors were required to learn and know A LOT more math and statistics.
Somewhat ironically math is still considered an art at our universities.
But by not requiring a deep, and I mean deep knowledge of hard science for any liberal arts degree, our great institutions have created an artificial separation between learned people.
And there's also this distinct sense of mystique, an accidentally created legend about non-science "knowledge". This sense that the demon haunted world contains nuggets of powerful knowledge which would be evaporated if the light of the candle that is science would shine on them.
This mythical belief plagues society in surprising ways.
I think Steve Jobs decision to first try "alternative medicine" is party because of this.
And while every typical western (North America and Europe) university has "core" requirements, I think that's a joke. I think if instead everyone had to learn an almost equal share of hard science and liberal arts for any degree, then we'd have a better civilization.
Jobs may not have acted irrationally. Have you looked into the procedure that he needed? It is not a tonsilectomy. Here is the latest I found about the surgery:
"Over the last 15 years major pancreatic centers in the United States have developed excellent results for the Whipple surgery. In almost all the major centers the death rate from this surgery is now less than 5%."
That is a 1 in 20 chance of dying on the operating table - makes base jumping seem safe.
I find it dangerously bizarre and stupid when people try to separate science, art and physical.
A talk I listened to a few weeks ago that was delivered at BYU (Meaning some of it is spoken in a religious context) called "Why Scientists Should Read Shakespeare and Why Humanists Should Understand Einstein" covered this same/similar principle.
> But I also suspect the liberal arts have lost a lot by not requiring a thorough knowledge of the hard science as a foundation.
Okay, but how? 10-year Bachelor's degrees? Part of the reason why the world is getting more specialized is that there is more knowledge out there to be known. A thorough knowledge of the hard sciences is not something you can squeeze into a semester.
I could only care slightly less for Steve Jobs, but this comment was an excellent read. lol @ doctors needing to know more stats, so true.
"But by not requiring a deep, and I mean deep knowledge of hard science for any liberal arts degree, our great institutions have created an artificial separation between learned people."
But I think it goes both ways; I'd like to see more hard scientists with a strong background in the liberal arts.
Reminds me of how Oxford (it might still do so) calls their Physics degree/certification a degree in Natural Philosophy.
I found this interesting too: "he saw Apple staffers turn into "bizarro people" by the riches the Apple stock offering created. Isaacson says Jobs vowed never to let his wealth change him."
I've always wondered about Steve's decision to severely limit stock distribution at Pixar when it had its IPO. What he did was apparently legal, but many staffers there felt like they were treated unfairly. A theory I've been considering is that Steve did it to avoid changing the people who made Pixar what it was[1]. I mean, Steve certainly didn't seem like he cared about having the money, except maybe to say "told you so" to all those who doubted him after his removal from Apple. Just something that seems to fit with the facts that I'm aware of.
[1] Of course, John Lasseter, for one, ended up with a load of money and nobody could argue that he changed. He just went from collecting toy train sets to having actual train sets installed in his backyard.
I was extremely surprised to read that the guy in charge of a company that almost exclusively produces highly expensive 1st-world gadgetry was himself disdainful of conspicuous consumption.
Aw c'mon, Apple products don't count as "conspicuous consumption". They're fairly small and unobtrusive. Sure, they're a bit self-marketing (white earphones and big illuminated Apple logos on the back of your laptop) but that's not conspicuous consumption.
Gucci is conspicuous consumption. Bugatti is conspicuous consumption. Diamonds in your teeth is conspicuous consumption. Personal electronics are just plain ol' regular consumption.
CBS's mobile site is atrocious. Their online content is often riddled with poor grammar and typos as well. I consider CBS to be a premier journalistic institution, but their website makes them look like a high school newspaper. It's too bad, really.
I don't think his decision to refuse surgery was a 'stupid decision', he was just being human. Steve's success in tech should not make him in the eyes of people be super human. Even in tech, successful people make lot of mistakes; history just records successes.
Maybe there is more to the actual story but the article provides zero support to the headline as per the the surgery being 'life-saving'. It is even referenced as a 'stupid decision' to have put it off.
Pancreatic cancer has a dismal 5-yr survival rate - much less a 'cure' rate. This feels like a tabloid-y headline given the apparent lack of reality behind that statement.
"In retrospect, we can now tell that Jobs clearly had
a tumor that was unusually aggressive for an insulinoma."
... seems to undermine the author's own argument that Jobs's nine months of ineffective dieting and dithering was not necessarily a problem. Was it an aggressive tumor, or not? If so, then the early CAT scan was a lottery win, and it was incredible that Jobs failed to cash in the winning ticket. If not, then sure, maybe nine months more or less didn't matter.
As one of the commenters emphasizes, what's truly incredible is that he even considered waiting nine months before seeking state-of-the-art treatment. An intellectual environment where smart people make decisions like that is not healthy for any of us. That's the real reason why we should fight woo where we find it, as if it were a cancer in itself.
Surely I can't be the only person that wants to just read the book without having Isaacson spill all the beans before my copy comes in the mail. With each one of these excerpts he teases I lose more and more respect for the man. He's riding this thing pretty high and it's starting to be in bad taste.
This is already one of the most anticipated biographies ever. There's not really any need to seek more attention.
It's not exactly fair to put that on the author. Authors have publishers and it's my understanding that publishers require publicity. It's in the contract. Maybe Walter could try to take a moral stand, but I'm not going to blame him for not rocking the boat here.
Anyway, I've been able to relate some of the book excerpts to friends who previously weren't planning to read the book but now plan to. And as for this 60 minutes interview, I'm truly looking forward to hearing some of the excerpts in Jobs' own words on tape, which isn't something that could be included in the book anyway.
When you're selling a product, there's always the need to seek more attention. We all cared about Steve but this book is a product that is intended to be sold.
Lose respect? Cut him some slack. He has worked hard on the biography and is promoting it ahead of release. It's what people do prior to the release of a book, movie, startup, etc. Should he be hiding out under a rock or something? It's on you to avoid articles about the book if you think they will spoil your reading experience.
I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that Isaacson is "seeking more attention."
I think the attention-people (media) are begging for his early words and competing intensely for his time/words. The publisher may also have some stipulation in Isaacson's contract about how available he is to make himself to interviews with media outlets. Not saying I have evidence that's the way it's going down - just that such factors are at least as arguable as a hypothesis that Isaacson is an attention-monger.
Um, authors going on tours shortly before and after the publication of their books is a pretty age-old tradition. In fact, it may be something mandated in his contract. And guess what, not everyone is you and not everyone was so interested in Jobs that they pre-ordered the book.
[+] [-] tremendo|14 years ago|reply
That said, for those interested, an actually well reasoned and knowledgeable piece on the subject comes from Science Based Medicine: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-death-of-s...
Some quotes:
"Did Jobs significantly decrease his chance of surviving his cancer by waiting nine months to undergo surgery? It seems like a no-brainer, but it turns out that that’s actually a very tough question to answer.
... So, is it possible, even likely, that Jobs compromised his chances of survival? Yes. Is it definite that he did? No, it’s not... In fact, based on statistics alone, it’s unlikely that a mere nine months took Jobs “from the high end to the low end of the survival rate,”
Now, let's hope this thread dies instead.
[+] [-] jholman|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MichaelApproved|14 years ago|reply
Edit: removed "authorized" from biography since I don't know for sure.
[+] [-] bh42222|14 years ago|reply
But it has always bothered me that the age of reason also means the age when the scientific principle and liberal arts not only split but often end up with an "us vs. them" relationship.
This may be one of the least coherent and strangest things I've ever tried to express on the Internet. But I suspect that if we as a civilization were not capable of making a distinction between the hard sciences and the liberal arts, then Steve Jobs would have sought early medical treatment and would be alive today and for many years more.
Allow me to try and explain. The leading smart people used to be expected to know both the "science" of the day and the arts.
But then we get the age of reason and people start to specialize in one or the other, but rarely both. And we do end up with two separate and often defined against each other areas of knowledge.
Does this make sense? Just google image search for Millau Viaduct and tell me that product of engineering isn't also art.
I think the world has lost something by this split. I think engineering and science have lost a bit to. But I also suspect the liberal arts have lost a lot by not requiring a thorough knowledge of the hard science as a foundation.
Hell, I wish doctors were required to learn and know A LOT more math and statistics.
Somewhat ironically math is still considered an art at our universities.
But by not requiring a deep, and I mean deep knowledge of hard science for any liberal arts degree, our great institutions have created an artificial separation between learned people.
And there's also this distinct sense of mystique, an accidentally created legend about non-science "knowledge". This sense that the demon haunted world contains nuggets of powerful knowledge which would be evaporated if the light of the candle that is science would shine on them.
This mythical belief plagues society in surprising ways.
I think Steve Jobs decision to first try "alternative medicine" is party because of this.
And while every typical western (North America and Europe) university has "core" requirements, I think that's a joke. I think if instead everyone had to learn an almost equal share of hard science and liberal arts for any degree, then we'd have a better civilization.
[+] [-] asmithmd1|14 years ago|reply
"Over the last 15 years major pancreatic centers in the United States have developed excellent results for the Whipple surgery. In almost all the major centers the death rate from this surgery is now less than 5%."
That is a 1 in 20 chance of dying on the operating table - makes base jumping seem safe.
[+] [-] dorian-graph|14 years ago|reply
A talk I listened to a few weeks ago that was delivered at BYU (Meaning some of it is spoken in a religious context) called "Why Scientists Should Read Shakespeare and Why Humanists Should Understand Einstein" covered this same/similar principle.
[+] [-] aheilbut|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jellicle|14 years ago|reply
Okay, but how? 10-year Bachelor's degrees? Part of the reason why the world is getting more specialized is that there is more knowledge out there to be known. A thorough knowledge of the hard sciences is not something you can squeeze into a semester.
[+] [-] zallarak|14 years ago|reply
"But by not requiring a deep, and I mean deep knowledge of hard science for any liberal arts degree, our great institutions have created an artificial separation between learned people."
But I think it goes both ways; I'd like to see more hard scientists with a strong background in the liberal arts.
Reminds me of how Oxford (it might still do so) calls their Physics degree/certification a degree in Natural Philosophy.
[+] [-] zallarak|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] MichaelApproved|14 years ago|reply
I wonder what he'll consider to be bizarro.
[+] [-] alanfalcon|14 years ago|reply
[1] Of course, John Lasseter, for one, ended up with a load of money and nobody could argue that he changed. He just went from collecting toy train sets to having actual train sets installed in his backyard.
[+] [-] lawnchair_larry|14 years ago|reply
"Another aspect of Jobs' character revealed was his disdain for conspicuous consumption."
I definitely see some incongruency there!
[+] [-] adamjernst|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acabal|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] glhaynes|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hugh3|14 years ago|reply
Gucci is conspicuous consumption. Bugatti is conspicuous consumption. Diamonds in your teeth is conspicuous consumption. Personal electronics are just plain ol' regular consumption.
[+] [-] alatkins|14 years ago|reply
EDIT: Please see the link to the answer comment below, which I hadn't seen until now. As always, a grain of salt and all that...
[+] [-] pella|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rickmode|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Toddward|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] edoloughlin|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] palish|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] itsnotvalid|14 years ago|reply
The article referred to a 2008 blog post about that.
---
[1] http://www.skepticblog.org/2011/10/06/steve-jobs-succumbs-to... and HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3080176
[+] [-] kno|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hugh3|14 years ago|reply
I'm afraid I don't see the distinction between "being human" and "making stupid decisions".
[+] [-] twainer|14 years ago|reply
Pancreatic cancer has a dismal 5-yr survival rate - much less a 'cure' rate. This feels like a tabloid-y headline given the apparent lack of reality behind that statement.
[+] [-] tripzilch|14 years ago|reply
http://www.skepticblog.org/2011/10/06/steve-jobs-succumbs-to...
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] CamperBob|14 years ago|reply
As one of the commenters emphasizes, what's truly incredible is that he even considered waiting nine months before seeking state-of-the-art treatment. An intellectual environment where smart people make decisions like that is not healthy for any of us. That's the real reason why we should fight woo where we find it, as if it were a cancer in itself.
[+] [-] ary|14 years ago|reply
This is already one of the most anticipated biographies ever. There's not really any need to seek more attention.
[+] [-] alanfalcon|14 years ago|reply
Anyway, I've been able to relate some of the book excerpts to friends who previously weren't planning to read the book but now plan to. And as for this 60 minutes interview, I'm truly looking forward to hearing some of the excerpts in Jobs' own words on tape, which isn't something that could be included in the book anyway.
[+] [-] MichaelApproved|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jm4|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FluidDjango|14 years ago|reply
I think the attention-people (media) are begging for his early words and competing intensely for his time/words. The publisher may also have some stipulation in Isaacson's contract about how available he is to make himself to interviews with media outlets. Not saying I have evidence that's the way it's going down - just that such factors are at least as arguable as a hypothesis that Isaacson is an attention-monger.
[+] [-] shn|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danso|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] powertower|14 years ago|reply
It's easy to pretent you have 20/20 hindsight on other peoples lives.