the latter can be a people pleaser and does things out of a feeling of guilt. then again he could be a sociopath and so thinks he must do useful things because that's what other people do to get their sympathies. if he is useful and beneficial to society, all is well. but if what he does eventually leads to another's downfall (i.e. lets say he kills/he steals/he cheats to get what he wants) then there is something there.

but anyway, using the beliefs of the Jesuits who believe in beauty in all things and would have us believe everyone is essentially good, then i think that in essence, even if people do things to pain popularity/social acceptance then that person is a good person and he has no difference with the foremost person.

For everyday well-understood useful behavior, the "not different" answer isn't bad. But for extreme behavior out at the tails of the probability distribution there can be a pretty significant difference. Isaac Newton probably belongs on the shortlist for most useful person evah, and in his most important work he seems to have been largely motivated by things other than being useful: cussedness and curiosity and strange mystical considerations, e.g. If he had simply set out to be useful, or to appear to be useful, he probably wouldn't have ended up being as useful as he ended up being by accident.

I would have to say "Ambition and motivation".

The first person already has those qualities that the second doesn't. However the second person also has the ambition of being like the first person and the motivation to get it done.

not a thing.

Because he cares.

A billion dollars.

I think the difference can boil down to a one word answer: "Commitment".

The person who is genuinely useful acts according to the needs of those they serve and will take on fulfilling those needs as an obligation.

The person who wants to 'appear' useful feels no commitment to the needs of others, but is motivated primarily by a wish for recognition. Once the desired recognition has been received, the motivation to serve vanishes, regardless of whether or not the tasks they have undertaken to perform have been completed.

The difference is conscious effort. Also,the genuine person has a major advantage in that his/her capacity to be helpful is greater than the person that helps in order to receive recognition. The latter is requires the fuel of praise and this fuel is consumed by conscious effort whereas the former is automatic and arguably infinite, all other things being equal. Consciously doing good for recognition isn't bad, getting to the point that motives for doing good/being helpful are subconscious and just part of who you are is something to aspire to.

The latter person just wants to appear useful. He can have other things on his mind and maybe he does not want to be useful, but he must make it look like that. Tricky one, but to me this person is not someone you can trust. Maybe he is doing those things just for fun and after a while he will stop doing it. The person who is genuine sounds more real, like someone who does things not only with the brain, but also with the heart.

The difference is that they "Give a Sh*t?".

I think there really is a difference in outcome when you truly care about - whatever it is that you're doing.

One example I think may resonate is that of music (voice, instrument whatever) - you can have someone who is technically "perfect", yet who's soulless performance pales in comparison to someone who really puts themselves out there and into their music.