3 ms·

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

by 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.
- chernevik 16y ago
  I'm not exactly commenting on RMS. It's a point of faith for me that all our strengths can become vices, and all our weakness transformed to virtues. Any of us can be still more ourselves with some reflection and humility. But how RMS might best go about that is beyond my knowing. But let me speak to stubborn as virtue or vice. I'm a huge beneficiary of open source / free software. That culture seems founded by people who are a little bit nuts. Who can say whether more or less pragmatism would have accelerated or killed the movement? It seems to me that some of what he's saying is even more applicable today. I've only lately stuck my head into in corners of the startup culture, and maybe I'm in the wrong corners, but I'm shocked by how little technical proficiency I've found. A lot of the design and implementation seems rote, and I have to wonder if some popular frameworks risk mind capture the way Windows did in the early 90s. (Caveat: New kid! Haven't seen it all yet!) One aspect of "free" is the ability to truly design anew from an understanding of core principles, right? Even where issues of commercial trust and network privacy are solved there is still a problem with not-free, right? I think this could be a real challenge for a new generation. But we're not likely to hear the RMS take on the above, because he isn't even looking at all this stuff. From a simple rhetorical standpoint, he's missing a chance to make a possibly important point to a whole new generation. And even if he did, he's such an avowed fanatic that anything he did say would now be dismissed as a twist on his zealotry, rather than an honest concern of a viewpoint sympathetic to the generation's viewpoint. Now, is that a necessary consequence of his radicalism? Is such radicalism necessary for the communal formation of proper principles? Does every Abraham Lincoln pragmatist require a John Brown wild-eyed radical? That certainly seems like an unsatisfying outcome, and one that might be avoided with some creativity.
  - rjbond3rd 16y ago
    Interesting. Well, our heroes have flaws :) While an RMS 2.0 might be better, the RMS 1.0 still accomplished what he set out to do, and the man is still kicking. I'll never forget when he was promoting a book, and needed to get more copies from the car. It was an absolute downpour. But he was not dissuaded and I just had to follow this man (decades older than me) out to his car. I was huffing and puffing trying to keep up with him. And while I was miserable in that cold summer rain, he didn't seem to mind it at all. On another note (unrelated to your comments), it's not a healthy culture that dismisses its elders. Of course it's a hallmark of youth to have little real appreciation (or mere lip service) toward the founders / elders, but in the case of RMS, the youth are more conservative, and the elder is more principled and uncompromising :)
chernevik 16y ago
This reminds of myself. I find it helps to preface my grand theories with "of course, I've never done X / Y / Z." I generally find that my grand scheme overlooked some important rule or risk constraint, or that I'm hyper-focused on an edge case, or some such thing. I learn a lot from both forming strong opinions and figuring out why they're wrong. Every now and then I can't find out why I'm wrong. I'm trying to learn how to make better use of those cases . . . .

by dhimes 16y ago

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.

chernevik 16y ago
I'm not exactly commenting on RMS. It's a point of faith for me that all our strengths can become vices, and all our weakness transformed to virtues. Any of us can be still more ourselves with some reflection and humility. But how RMS might best go about that is beyond my knowing. But let me speak to stubborn as virtue or vice. I'm a huge beneficiary of open source / free software. That culture seems founded by people who are a little bit nuts. Who can say whether more or less pragmatism would have accelerated or killed the movement? It seems to me that some of what he's saying is even more applicable today. I've only lately stuck my head into in corners of the startup culture, and maybe I'm in the wrong corners, but I'm shocked by how little technical proficiency I've found. A lot of the design and implementation seems rote, and I have to wonder if some popular frameworks risk mind capture the way Windows did in the early 90s. (Caveat: New kid! Haven't seen it all yet!) One aspect of "free" is the ability to truly design anew from an understanding of core principles, right? Even where issues of commercial trust and network privacy are solved there is still a problem with not-free, right? I think this could be a real challenge for a new generation. But we're not likely to hear the RMS take on the above, because he isn't even looking at all this stuff. From a simple rhetorical standpoint, he's missing a chance to make a possibly important point to a whole new generation. And even if he did, he's such an avowed fanatic that anything he did say would now be dismissed as a twist on his zealotry, rather than an honest concern of a viewpoint sympathetic to the generation's viewpoint. Now, is that a necessary consequence of his radicalism? Is such radicalism necessary for the communal formation of proper principles? Does every Abraham Lincoln pragmatist require a John Brown wild-eyed radical? That certainly seems like an unsatisfying outcome, and one that might be avoided with some creativity.
- rjbond3rd 16y ago
  Interesting. Well, our heroes have flaws :) While an RMS 2.0 might be better, the RMS 1.0 still accomplished what he set out to do, and the man is still kicking. I'll never forget when he was promoting a book, and needed to get more copies from the car. It was an absolute downpour. But he was not dissuaded and I just had to follow this man (decades older than me) out to his car. I was huffing and puffing trying to keep up with him. And while I was miserable in that cold summer rain, he didn't seem to mind it at all. On another note (unrelated to your comments), it's not a healthy culture that dismisses its elders. Of course it's a hallmark of youth to have little real appreciation (or mere lip service) toward the founders / elders, but in the case of RMS, the youth are more conservative, and the elder is more principled and uncompromising :)

chernevik 16y ago

This reminds of myself. I find it helps to preface my grand theories with "of course, I've never done X / Y / Z." I generally find that my grand scheme overlooked some important rule or risk constraint, or that I'm hyper-focused on an edge case, or some such thing. I learn a lot from both forming strong opinions and figuring out why they're wrong. Every now and then I can't find out why I'm wrong. I'm trying to learn how to make better use of those cases . . . .