Geeks Are People, Too (And Sometimes, Not Very Nice)

I didn't want to say anything about the Hans Reiser murder trial currently in progress. But then, this other thing happened and it means it's something that we should be talking about. Kip Macy is a FreeBSD developer - not that I really knew that - but he's also an erstwhile real estate developer who has just recently found himself in the news accepting the award for Worst Landlord Ever. That made me think about the influence of tech on these persons' lives (and vice-versa). I've seen the behavior of many geeks, developers and engineers over the years that show a fascinating level of focus and attention to detail as they resolve a problem. Nothing else matters except the solution; all other considerations are ancillary. This frequently leads to conflict and frustration because who wants to be around someone who can arbitrarily tell you that you don't matter, just because what you represent isn't the goal he is focused on?

It's important to note that tech doesn't exist in a vacuum. These applications, machines and gadgets being invented and used worldwide are still being designed, built and used by people. People are messy, complicated and occasionally stinky biological organisms. From a machine perspective, we're impossibly complex (we still can't effectively articulate what 'love' is) - humanity doesn't conform to logical process flow. As thousands of companies and bosses have found - all the HR process in the world can't counteract a fully functional Jerkbag who happens to work with or for you. A lot of the recent management books have been talking about augmenting your formal process with common sense (get the jerks out, no matter how 'valuable' they seem at the moment...they bring down the performance of your org) demonstrating the necessity of admitting that logic does not solve everything.

You can't design an effective application or process without being aware of this. The most logical programs I've ever seen are also often the most un-sellable pieces of software. People intuitively find them uncomfortable, find reasons not to use them and recommend they not be updated or maintained in an enterprise environment. Other companies (who shall remain nameless) are often forgiven for their less-than-technically-superior applications or products simply because they're just so darn easy to use. I often think of it as providing a channel for an overflowing stream to flow into. Build a path the water wishes to follow - it will follow. Try to insist that the water slow itself down to fit into a pipe that's much to small for it, it will simply overflow and find an alternate route. New 'killer apps' are often not very ingenious - they simply take a number of problems that have been around for years, with solutions that work even if they aren't very effective, and make a solution that is both effective and comfortable to use. It might sound stupid, but they're doing it and they're making a pile of money at it (I'm writing this post on Google Docs...'nuff said).

The point of IT is mating the technical with the biological; when the biological aspect of it is, shall we say, twisted - what does that do to the product you are creating? If you're able to terrorize people in an apartment building because you want to force them out so you can re-develop it, should you be allowed to arbitrate what constitutes 'people-friendly' software? If you're prone to bizarre behavior and are accused of killing your wife, that's essentially stamping 'Does not work and play well with others' on your forehead and then sets you up for a career that's kept well back of the general public. If you're able to become such a jerk (for lack of a better family-friendly word) to accomplish something that is important to you, doesn't that signal that your ability to participate in large people-intensive activities is essentially zero?

Valleywag and other people like to zero in on the sex n' drugs aspect of the Valley; it's entertaining to some but it also signals something that we shouldn't be ignoring. The tech is as only good as the people who make it. Stop thinking 'epicureanism' and start thinking 'secular humanism'. Don't pay lip service to "Our software helps people" - make sure it does. And make sure your user community agrees. Make sure you know what 'helping people' involves - don't try to just be able to say that you tried...do it.

Then there's nothing else to say.