4 ms·
What would we think of an American who walked into an Egyptian coffeehouse or a Japanese board room and interpreted all the behavior he saw there as if he were
by dkarl 16y ago
What would we think of an American who walked into an Egyptian coffeehouse or a Japanese board room and interpreted all the behavior he saw there as if he were seeing it in a church in Iowa? It's fine to demand that geeks develop some social sophistication, but it's also fine to expect that non-geeks will have enough social sophistication not to rush to judgment about behavior in an unfamiliar cultural context. Cultures vary from place to place, subgroup to subgroup, and there's no reason people shouldn't adapt to us if they want to join our subculture. That's the way it works.
As other people have pointed out, the argumentative, ruthless nature of computing culture has very adaptive aspects because it mirrors the persistent, ruthless, and logical nature of the computers we deal with. Once you're used to dealing with computers -- once you've learned that computers don't compromise, but it isn't personal -- you perceive computer geek behavior differently. The only reason to enter the subculture, except as a tourist, is to learn about computing, so it is reasonable to assume that anybody arguing about how to program a microcontroller either gets us or is in the process of getting us.
Obviously, different rules apply when geeks interact with non-geeks in other contexts. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. When in Xerox PARC, or less exalted forums for discussing computing, do as the computer geeks do.
- kstenerud 16y agoThere's a huge difference between "You're wrong and here's why", and "You did X??? What are you, stupid? You suck and you should just gtfo because you'll never amount to anything. You'd be so fired if you worked in my company. Bullet. Brain. Make the connection." Both are uncompromising. Only one is civil.
- dkarl 16y agoI think people tend to hear the latter when geeks say the former, because non-geeks usually aren't so direct.
- shaggyfrog 16y agoBut both are personal. A better take would be "This solution/process/method is wrong and here's why". Make it about the issue, not the person.
- reinhardt 16y agoUnfortunately not even this works for many/most regular (read: non geek) folks: "Why prove to a man he is wrong? Is that going to make him like you? Why not let him save face? He didn't ask for your opinion. He didn't want it. Why argue with him? You can't win an argument, because if you lose, you lose it; and if you win it, you lose it. Why? You will feel fine. But what about him? You have made him feel inferior, you hurt his pride, insult his intelligence, his judgement, and his self-respect, and he'll resent your triumph. That will make him strike back, but it will never make him want to change his mind. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." - Dale Carnegie, 1936 Sigh.. sometime I feel I'm of a different species from people that take almost everything personally.
- ahoyhere 16y agoThis sounds like a good argument until you realize that the people the geeks most love are all level-headed and good-natured, people who promote the good of all. Often these are men/women who inspired the geeks to be geeks to start with. Example: Carl Sagan. So for all the geeks who were inspired to become geeks by Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, Spock, etc., to fall so short of their ideal... clearly there is insecurity and childishness at work. Refusal to learn how to treat others well is not cultural, it's immature. Perhaps most importantly, it's total sour grapes compared to one's original inspiration for geekhood.
- dkarl 16y agoFeynman is an example of a guy who would be ruthless in a technical discussion but charming in a personal context. (Well, charming towards your wife, anyway.) Context is everything.
- ahoyhere 16y agoEinstein, then. I have heard no tails of the biggest physics brain being a jerk, in public or private. Have you? If Einstein can be nice, some sadsack .Net developer (or Erlang developer) can be, too.
- Locke1689 16y agoI'm not sure you're actually being honest in your examples. Carl Sagan, sure, but Feynman was rumored to be extremely arrogant in his technical discussions. Linus is known for his giant flames on the mailing list. Dijkstra was impolite at best. Maybe we just think our idols were always nice and helpful because we want them to be?