5 ms·

> legitimate leadership technique What do you mean? If by "legitimate" you mean effective, then sure; linux kernel development seems to be humming along and p

> legitimate leadership technique What do you mean? If by "legitimate" you mean effective, then sure; linux kernel development seems to be humming along and providing value to lots of people. If by "legitimate" you mean socially acceptable, then I'd look to the large community that seems to find little problem with "Linus language". If by "legitimate" you mean causing no harm, then perhaps you have a case. Linus does seem to get under some people's skin. But what are our priorities, really? From a stoic standpoint, Linus' words have nothing to do with anybody but himself, so it says a something about me or you if we get bothered by him. However you look at it though, Linus is a human just like you or me. If we dislike him, then we're free to ignore him and move on; why spend time trying to argue what he "should" be doing?

sgift 9y ago
> From a stoic standpoint, Linus' words have nothing to do with anybody but himself, so it says a something about me or you if we get bothered by him. That's just a rephrasing of the old rhyme "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me." -- which has been shown to be wrong. Sure, you can go around and try to block everything away, but it will still take its toll.
- xelxebar 9y ago
  No. It explicitly acknowledges that words can bother us. The point is that those feelings are our own and merit investigation in their own right. I find it often pays to ask, "Hmm, why would I be bothered by that?" in place of saying "You should stop saying that."
  - sgift 9y ago
    > I find it often pays to ask, "Hmm, why would I be bothered by that?" in place of saying "You should stop saying that." That's actually an interesting strategy. I'm not sure it works for everyone, but I would at least consider it.
  - mattmanser 9y ago
    That's just victim blaming. I have the same problem as Linus that I'll go overly dramatic and nasty in calling people stupid in replying online, something I don't do to people's faces. The more strongly I feel about something, the more likely it'll happen. It's like some sort of social filter doesn't get applied, one I use when I'm speaking, but it just gets skipped when typing. When I read back those posts, I'm embarrassed, not proud of my "technique". It's my problem, not the victim's. Luckily, because I'm not internet famous, those sort of posts get downvoted and I get some sort of feedback loop. But Linus gets defended and the cycle continues.
    - xelxebar 9y ago
      Hmmm. I wasn't considering the offendor's perspective. Here I'm mainly thinking of us on the recieving end. From this standpoint, by blaming Linus or whomever for our emotional reactions, we end up disempowering ourselves quite a bit. There's a lot less we can do about Linus than about our own emotions and psychology, which is why I think it's useful/skillful to introspect instead of blame. With the roles reversed though, it's certainly more helpful/skillful to focus on how we can communicate effectively. Blaming others' actions/reactions is just as disempowering as before.
    - hasenj 9y ago
      It's actually quite easy to understand, given a sufficient understanding of human nature. You're trying to dominate a social situation, because you think you are right (and by extensions, that there are others who will support you and strengthen your position) and because there's a lack of physical threat. In the real world, you would not want to cause a ruckus, because there could be consequences, and your are not the dominant member of the group. For example; someone could punch you. If you could, you would want to dominate any situation that you can. We are wired that way.

sgift 9y ago

> From a stoic standpoint, Linus' words have nothing to do with anybody but himself, so it says a something about me or you if we get bothered by him. That's just a rephrasing of the old rhyme "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me." -- which has been shown to be wrong. Sure, you can go around and try to block everything away, but it will still take its toll.

xelxebar 9y ago
No. It explicitly acknowledges that words can bother us. The point is that those feelings are our own and merit investigation in their own right. I find it often pays to ask, "Hmm, why would I be bothered by that?" in place of saying "You should stop saying that."
- sgift 9y ago
  > I find it often pays to ask, "Hmm, why would I be bothered by that?" in place of saying "You should stop saying that." That's actually an interesting strategy. I'm not sure it works for everyone, but I would at least consider it.
- mattmanser 9y ago
  That's just victim blaming. I have the same problem as Linus that I'll go overly dramatic and nasty in calling people stupid in replying online, something I don't do to people's faces. The more strongly I feel about something, the more likely it'll happen. It's like some sort of social filter doesn't get applied, one I use when I'm speaking, but it just gets skipped when typing. When I read back those posts, I'm embarrassed, not proud of my "technique". It's my problem, not the victim's. Luckily, because I'm not internet famous, those sort of posts get downvoted and I get some sort of feedback loop. But Linus gets defended and the cycle continues.
  - xelxebar 9y ago
    Hmmm. I wasn't considering the offendor's perspective. Here I'm mainly thinking of us on the recieving end. From this standpoint, by blaming Linus or whomever for our emotional reactions, we end up disempowering ourselves quite a bit. There's a lot less we can do about Linus than about our own emotions and psychology, which is why I think it's useful/skillful to introspect instead of blame. With the roles reversed though, it's certainly more helpful/skillful to focus on how we can communicate effectively. Blaming others' actions/reactions is just as disempowering as before.
  - hasenj 9y ago
    It's actually quite easy to understand, given a sufficient understanding of human nature. You're trying to dominate a social situation, because you think you are right (and by extensions, that there are others who will support you and strengthen your position) and because there's a lack of physical threat. In the real world, you would not want to cause a ruckus, because there could be consequences, and your are not the dominant member of the group. For example; someone could punch you. If you could, you would want to dominate any situation that you can. We are wired that way.