6 ms·

I'm not sure this really stands up. If a person is lacking an understanding of basic principles whose comprehension is vital to the comprehension of the princip

I'm not sure this really stands up. If a person is lacking an understanding of basic principles whose comprehension is vital to the comprehension of the principle you are trying to teach, you have to first instill within them an understanding of the lacking basic principles. Of course a person must find some merit in your advice if you expect them to follow it in any meaningful way -- sometimes this merit can come from credentials, but when the advisor is some guy you just met, or worse, a stranger on the internet, an appeal to credentials or authority isn't very effective. You must convince them by pure argument. I recognize that there are times this can be very difficult or impossible if the advised individual is unwilling to "take a leap of faith" and just try a different way for a while, but if you don't have the authority that makes an individual believe your advice is worth following even if that individual can't personally see its benefits, then all you can do is hope to plant a seed. I think it's a bit much to ask someone to follow your advice just because, which is essentially what you seem to be asking here.

dhimes 16y ago
Your reply doesn't actually contradict fingerprinter's. I agree with you that sometimes people just won't listen to anything they don't want to hear, and if you wish to have them consider your idea you have to let them come to the same conclusions you did organicly- that is, by planting a seed. However, it's that personality type that fingerprinter was talking about. I don't think we should feel obligated to suffer through their pathology if we can reasonably avoid it. You can point out to people like this that they are as they are, and how it is holding them back (say, by costing them business or whatever), but in my experience they are dismissive of such discussions. I think the open letter was a quite good attempt, and Stallman's response is quite telling. Note: I've never met Stallman.
- rjbond3rd 16y ago
  > Note: I've never met Stallman. I have, and he is one of the kindest, smartest, most reasonable people I have ever met. He's also funny and brutally honest. I asked him (this was about 6 years ago at a LUG) if Microsoft had ever attempted to intimidate him, whether through lawsuits or other means, whether subtle or overt. He paused for a second, and then simply said, "No. No intimidation of any kind." This man is just an honest, straightforward Socratic kind of guy, not a point-scoring spin-meister. I for one am overjoyed that he's remained a principled shaggy uber-hacker, resisting the never-ending suggestions that he become a palatable, bridge-building difference-splitter serving up a friendlier, diluted version of his message. Screw everything about that.
  - dhimes 16y ago
    Perhaps "pathology" is too strong a word... But to your point, meeting someone isn't the same as knowing them. Did you get the chance to discuss, say, why the GPL license was too "contagious?" Let me say again I've neither met nor gotten to know Stallman, but let me share my experiences with this personality type, just for future reference. I've gotten to know a few people who have the type of personality I describe. In particular, I have the infrequent occasion to enjoy the company of someone who also charming, funny, intelligent- all of the things that make for a great lunch or evening. However, you'll never change his mind about anything. When he makes up his mind he is absolutely convinced he is right and there is nothing he has overlooked. And sometimes he just doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. He'll talk about how his doctor is full of shit because what the doctor said doesn't fit with his mental model that he built upon reading a couple of articles in a science magazine. Or how teachers ought to do "X" (he's never taught). Or how programming is "Y" (not a programmer). Or how the football coach should do "Z" (never played or coached). Backs everything up with solid-sounding, logical arguments. But he simply doesn't know enough facts to start with the right axioms. Very smart. Very persuasive. Very creative. And often very wrong. Interestingly, as long as their right/wrong ratio is high, they can make great leaders- at least in the beginning of a movement. Alot of people find comfort in their black and white world. But they are very difficult to deal with as a peer or in an employee/employer capacity. Tireless, pointless arguments that end with "I'm not convinced..." because NOTHING will convince them. They think they have the right axioms. Again, "pathology" may be too strong, but it's certainly a personality type I avoid all but the most casual relationships with if I can help it.
    - rjbond3rd 16y ago
      I appreciate your post and the thoughtfulness behind it. I readily concede that the man is stubborn but it's just as often a virtue as a vice. How can he be "wrong" though, about something that he created from scratch, founded and has kept going strong for all these years? Also, why should he take our advice when we've obviously rejected his (in many cases)? Anyway, good post and thank you for it.
      - 16y ago
- cabalamat 16y ago
  > I agree with you that sometimes people just won't listen to anything they don't want to hear, and if you wish to have them consider your idea you have to let them come to the same conclusions you did organicly- that is, by planting a seed. Aren't most people like that, at least to some extent? As I see it, everyone has a bullshit detector, through which all external communication is filtered. They have to have this, because it's not in one's interests to be fooled when one is lied to. But when a person generates ideas in their own mind, they aren't passed through the bullshit detector, they are just accepted.
  - dhimes 16y ago
    But some people are more open to being proven wrong. There are some who don't mind being challenged so long as at the end of the day they are smarter than they were at the beginning. It doesn't mean that they aren't skeptical, but rather that they are willing to consider the advice of those who have a very different mental model of things. I think the writer offered excellent advice. Now, as I said I don't know Stallman, so maybe he responds to 10 of these per month and is just sick of it. But even then, that's not a cool response IMO. If he has defended this before, point to a link or something.
- hernan7 16y ago
  "I don't think we should feel obligated to suffer through their pathology" Some people seem to like following these type of undoubting & uncompromising leaders.

dhimes 16y ago

Your reply doesn't actually contradict fingerprinter's. I agree with you that sometimes people just won't listen to anything they don't want to hear, and if you wish to have them consider your idea you have to let them come to the same conclusions you did organicly- that is, by planting a seed. However, it's that personality type that fingerprinter was talking about. I don't think we should feel obligated to suffer through their pathology if we can reasonably avoid it. You can point out to people like this that they are as they are, and how it is holding them back (say, by costing them business or whatever), but in my experience they are dismissive of such discussions. I think the open letter was a quite good attempt, and Stallman's response is quite telling. Note: I've never met Stallman.

rjbond3rd 16y ago
> Note: I've never met Stallman. I have, and he is one of the kindest, smartest, most reasonable people I have ever met. He's also funny and brutally honest. I asked him (this was about 6 years ago at a LUG) if Microsoft had ever attempted to intimidate him, whether through lawsuits or other means, whether subtle or overt. He paused for a second, and then simply said, "No. No intimidation of any kind." This man is just an honest, straightforward Socratic kind of guy, not a point-scoring spin-meister. I for one am overjoyed that he's remained a principled shaggy uber-hacker, resisting the never-ending suggestions that he become a palatable, bridge-building difference-splitter serving up a friendlier, diluted version of his message. Screw everything about that.
- dhimes 16y ago
  Perhaps "pathology" is too strong a word... But to your point, meeting someone isn't the same as knowing them. Did you get the chance to discuss, say, why the GPL license was too "contagious?" Let me say again I've neither met nor gotten to know Stallman, but let me share my experiences with this personality type, just for future reference. I've gotten to know a few people who have the type of personality I describe. In particular, I have the infrequent occasion to enjoy the company of someone who also charming, funny, intelligent- all of the things that make for a great lunch or evening. However, you'll never change his mind about anything. When he makes up his mind he is absolutely convinced he is right and there is nothing he has overlooked. And sometimes he just doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. He'll talk about how his doctor is full of shit because what the doctor said doesn't fit with his mental model that he built upon reading a couple of articles in a science magazine. Or how teachers ought to do "X" (he's never taught). Or how programming is "Y" (not a programmer). Or how the football coach should do "Z" (never played or coached). Backs everything up with solid-sounding, logical arguments. But he simply doesn't know enough facts to start with the right axioms. Very smart. Very persuasive. Very creative. And often very wrong. Interestingly, as long as their right/wrong ratio is high, they can make great leaders- at least in the beginning of a movement. Alot of people find comfort in their black and white world. But they are very difficult to deal with as a peer or in an employee/employer capacity. Tireless, pointless arguments that end with "I'm not convinced..." because NOTHING will convince them. They think they have the right axioms. Again, "pathology" may be too strong, but it's certainly a personality type I avoid all but the most casual relationships with if I can help it.
  - rjbond3rd 16y ago
    I appreciate your post and the thoughtfulness behind it. I readily concede that the man is stubborn but it's just as often a virtue as a vice. How can he be "wrong" though, about something that he created from scratch, founded and has kept going strong for all these years? Also, why should he take our advice when we've obviously rejected his (in many cases)? Anyway, good post and thank you for it.
    - 16y ago
cabalamat 16y ago
> I agree with you that sometimes people just won't listen to anything they don't want to hear, and if you wish to have them consider your idea you have to let them come to the same conclusions you did organicly- that is, by planting a seed. Aren't most people like that, at least to some extent? As I see it, everyone has a bullshit detector, through which all external communication is filtered. They have to have this, because it's not in one's interests to be fooled when one is lied to. But when a person generates ideas in their own mind, they aren't passed through the bullshit detector, they are just accepted.
- dhimes 16y ago
  But some people are more open to being proven wrong. There are some who don't mind being challenged so long as at the end of the day they are smarter than they were at the beginning. It doesn't mean that they aren't skeptical, but rather that they are willing to consider the advice of those who have a very different mental model of things. I think the writer offered excellent advice. Now, as I said I don't know Stallman, so maybe he responds to 10 of these per month and is just sick of it. But even then, that's not a cool response IMO. If he has defended this before, point to a link or something.
hernan7 16y ago
"I don't think we should feel obligated to suffer through their pathology" Some people seem to like following these type of undoubting & uncompromising leaders.