Tuesday, November 13, 2012

cults of personality redux

In a recent blog post, I slammed cults of personality in Free software communities. Some noted in the comments that this was not the only challenge we faced, and I completely agree. On the one hand, it's a bit of an odd observation to make: of course all complex results have complex sets of causal factors. Entire volumes have been written about this aspect of complex challenges, and a thread I've noticed in a number of pieces I've read is that the shear number of causal factors makes it hard for people to untangle and overcome the challenges presented. It's like we become distracted by too many topics and forget that you eat an elephant one bite at a time and not all at once; that it is OK to examine and address issues in a piecemeal fashion.

Others noted that there are some good affects that come from these cults of personality. This is also true. But it's sort of like saying, "Since I put $100 in the bank today, I will have $100 to spend." That may be true, but if you already spent $500 using your credit card .. no, you don't have $100 to spend. You owe $400. This is simple math that most people get intuitively, but when we apply it to systems analysis it often gets missed. Most things people do have some advantage (locally, individually, in the here-and-now, etc), and that is usually how they get entrenched in the first place. Full accounting, which means looking at the broad spectrum of results, is required to come to a full and proper sum, however. Some benefits are not good enough when there are large amounts of documented negatives.

Then there were people who said that they agreed with Linus. This is accurate, also. However, when looking at systems issues (which is what a cult of personality is: an attribute of a community, which is a system of social actors, in this case humans) the individual interaction is not the whole picture. I was certainly not asking if people agree with Linus, or if Linus is correct in any given statement. The issue is whether or not it is healthy to continuously and universally elevate a specific individual's opinions.

In case the answer is not clear to you, consider where this is actually practiced (dictatorial government, religion and pop culture media, to give three examples) and where it is not (the scientific method, participatory democracies) and then reflect on the empirical results each produces. One set puts humans Mars and works to ensure human rights are respected; the others give us things like tabloid magazines, inspires violent radicals and robs people of freedom in the name of expediency for the few.

I was really not interested in issues of personal agreement, but systemic affect. This is what I meant when I wrote, "I don't care what Linus says." I might agree with him, and yet my issue with putting that opinion on the front page of every F/OSS news site still stands.

Finally, some noted that there was perhaps a cult of personality around me and so I shouldn't throw stones, living as I am in a glass house. I truly hope no such thing actually exists, but if it did I would actively discourage it. I see myself as encouraging critical thought, attempting to inspire others to achieve more and organizing efforts where beneficial. In doing so, people may end up paying more attention to what I say than the average Free software contributor, but it is not (or so I hope) because of a blind belief in an abstract "Aaron" but due to the individual thoughts and experiences I share as I share them. I also hope that my attempts to spread awareness of the work of others, to highlight positive issues rather than only hipster-rant about negatives, etc. has a positive effect beyond my own standing in the community.

I see others in the Free software world doing this same kind of work as well, often better than I do it in fact, and that set of philosophers, organizers, leaders and generally motivated individuals are whom we ought to pay attention to in the areas where their efforts are applied. We would benefit by focusing some of the attention we lay on F/OSS "super stars" on those people.

That, really, was the entire plot point of that "cult of personality" blog post. :)

Ok, enough of that .. let's move on. (continued ...)

10 comments:

TemporalBeing said...

I would have to disagree with your examples - e.g. religion vs. science.

Science very much puts the word of a few about the rest. It is very hard in science to go against what those few say. For example, Albert Einstein and Steven Hawking are highly elevated in the scientific world, much like Linus is in the Linux world. Rightly or wrongly.

And remember too - Christianity essentially gave us the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

nanday said...

One of the most annoying aspects of cults of personality is that those at the center of them often assume a degree of privilege when they make a public statement. They don't feel they have to explain their statements, or give reasons for their positions -- just saying something is enough for others to take them seriously.

For what it's worth, you write with the assumption that you need to convince people. Keep doing that, and while you might be well-known, you won't be at the center of a cult of personality.

Shaun Hunter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shaun Hunter said...

I agree with you Aseigo but Linus' track record does and should give him some sway. I like KDE for some of the reasons he doesn't.

@TemporalBeing - I don't think you really have clear undestanding of what science is.

P.S. Christianity and the U.S. Constitution both allowed Slavery.

Aaron J. Seigo said...

@TemporalBeing: "Science very much puts the word of a few about the rest"

Wrong. The reason why the words of Einstein and Hawking are elevated is because they come up with fundamental insights which are then supported through rigorous review, challenge and testing. The ideas that they provided (built on the ideas that preceded their own, btw) are not at all elevated because of who they are as individuals.

They are simply individuals who have arrived at more compelling ideas sooner than others. Due to this, their personal stature rose.

In other words, your misunderstanding of how the scientific method actually works in practice has led you to reverse the causality.

"remember too - Christianity essentially gave us the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution."

Ok, three things wrong with this statement:

* Many involved were anything but highly religious. If you read the federalist papers and various pamphlets of the era it becomes clear that the reason for things like the separation of church and state were as much about, and for some founding fathers much more about, protecting government FROM religion than the other way around.

* There is no Christian dogma in either document.

* There are many predecessor documents to the DoI and US Constitution; neither are cut from whole cloth, and their roots are hardly Christian. Greece, anyone?

Aaron J. Seigo said...

@nanday: That is a really, really keen insight. I'll have to chew that one over some more.

.. and yes, I always write assuming the need to convince and engage. This is because I wish to live in and work with a community of peers. I have found nothing more satisfying that challenging and being challenged by equals in the pursuit of great answers to hard questions.

Aaron J. Seigo said...

@Shaun Hunter: "Linus' track record does and should give him some sway"

Can you elaborate? I know of no track record what-so-ever that Linus has with regards to human-computer interaction. The two examples of software I know he has touched, Linux and git, are both capital-H Horrid examples of user interface.

an expert in one field does not make an expert in all.

"I like KDE for some of the reasons he doesn't."

So why don't we put your opinions on this all over the F/OSS news?

Or rather, why don't we see proper studies published in this fashion? Did you ever hear of the *scientific* study done probably 8 years ago comparing KDE to Windows in usability tests? It really hardly got much coverage; certainly far less than Linus' desktop rants. How does that make sense?

It doesn't .. until we consider that Linus is *revered* which is where it all starts to become tragic.

Aaron J. Seigo said...

Oh, and to be clear, I don't think this is unique to Linus. I don't want to appear like I am picking on him; rather I'm picking on the F/OSS community as a whole ;)

We do this with various people, certainly not only Linus. Several of these people have far fewer credentials than Linus, as well. :/

Martin said...

@TemporalBeing
> And remember too - Christianity essentially gave us the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

At least in Europe at the same time the French revolution ended the reign of Church, so personally I very, very much doubt that statement. For a nice read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechristianisation_of_France_during_the_French_Revolution

Philip Van Hoof said...

Aaron, I wanted you to organize leadership in the open source desktop world. Not to excuse yourself for a blog that you wrote. That blog was fine :)

This time I disagree with "enough of that .. let's move on". Create, foster, help or be said leadership. That's what is needed, I think.