Us vs Them.

[swestrup]

Its not always about Us vs Them. Today I got into a, perhaps, pointless argument with archdiva. Other than the fact that I worry he might have interpreted my stance as an attack on him personally, the details are irrelevant.

Its just that this isn't the first time I've gotten into such an argument. You see, when there is a cause I care passionately about, it matters very dearly to me that my 'side' be scrupulously correct. Thus, I point out flaws wherever I see them. Very often this is interpreted as me being in some other camp and holding to values that I don't actually have.

About a month ago I got into an argument with someone about user interface issues in Linux. There are things in Linux GUIs that are simply hard to use and things that should be configurable that aren't. I was happy to discover during that last argument that one of the things that Linux traditionally sucked at has been fixed. I don't mind being wrong in such circumstances, far from it! The thing I minded was the assumption that I was somehow a Microsoft supporter because I was able to point out things that MS got right that Linux got wrong. This would be a gross distortion of my views. I cannot wait for the day that MS either embraces open source or (more likely) dies an ignominious death.

But it doesn't follow that because MS is evil, that everything they did is wrong and that there are no useful ideas to steal from Windows. Yet, that very often seems to the attitude I run into in the Open Source camps.  Is it really so necessary for everyone to polarize into Us and Them camps, instead of just looking at both sides of the issues dispassionately and accepting that either side in a conflict can have good and bad points?

Maybe it is. I remember a seminal study I was reading on the question of what it takes to get a homogeneous group of people (in this case boys at summer camp) to divide themselves into 'us' and 'them' camps. They started out by dividing the boys randomly into two separate bunk houses ... and that was enough. The two bunk houses spontaneously formed cliques, named themselves, and formed rivalries with each other. This included each side assuming they could do no wrong and that the other side could do no good.

Note that I'm not saying that any of this was behind my argument with Drew. I don't know what motivates my own actions most of the time, never mind someone else's, and I do respect his intellectual integrity, or I wouldn't have gotten into the argument in the first place. (I never argue with folks I don't respect, as I don't see the point).

Its just that the argument had me once again feeling like an outsider, rejected by my own camp because I saw a problem that (as far as I can tell) most in the camp refuse to acknowledge. Maybe this is a flaw in my own perceptions. Maybe I've made the cardinal mistake of pointing to the elephant in the corner. I dunno. Sometimes I think I would have been better off as some other species than 'human'.

Comments

[sps.livejournal.com]

Oh, good grief, man, we don't think of you as human. Human is a them thing. :)

[sorceror.livejournal.com]

I remember a seminal study I was reading on the question of what it takes to get a homogeneous group of people (in this case boys at summer camp) to divide themselves into 'us' and 'them' camps. They started out by dividing the boys randomly into two separate bunk houses ... and that was enough. The two bunk houses spontaneously formed cliques, named themselves, and formed rivalries with each other.

Was this study called "Lord of the Flies"? ^_^

[azrhey.livejournal.com]

I was going to say...that.

[ellenk.livejournal.com]

Humans automatically characterize. It's how our brains work. The first thing we do in any situation is to compare it to what we know and categorize it accordingly, making it either this or that. And then decide if this is better than that. Once that decision is made, it's easiest to let everything else be either good or bad depending on the original decision.

I hope I'm making sense. I've had a lot of beer.

[pythonian.livejournal.com]

I've been there and it's quite frustrating. Part of the problem is that we do indeed take sides quite easily and arguments can become personal with frightening ease. Once that happens, positions harden and there's almost no going back. :-( I remember one gathering at your place with a mutual acquaintance Eric somebody or another (he worked with you at Strategy First I believe). I had to phrase my thoughts quite carefully after it became clear to me that he had retreated into such a defensive position. Another situation much closer to your present problem occurred at work. I ended up sounding like some Microsoft droid owing to a unique set of circumstances in the flow of the conversation. I could hear it and see it happen but could do little to stop it.

It's all in the way one frames the argument. There is a lesson to be learnt from writing style courses. Always use the active voice and never the passive voice.

By that I mean, put forth your main argument first and then qualify it. For instance, one could say:
--
Oh yes, I believe in "X" quite firmly. However, I'm not some wet behind the ears "fanboy". I can accept that improvements need to be made in "X.a", "X.b" and "X.c"; in fact I've been arguing for them for years!
--

The result is your position is heard clearly but you are known as a reasonable person who understands that most anything can be improved by ideas from the "other" side, even if it is from Microsoft. :-)

Now, if somebody comes in halfway, well then simply break the glass and shoot them with the emergency gun. Less fuss and bother for those who showed up on time and listened from the start. :-)