However, Finland is culturally quite homogeneous, so I think the reason behind the bluntness is not what you suggest it may be.
For a Finn, I think Linus is on the blunt side, but he's not an extreme case. In fact, I'd argue he's not an extreme case even among non-Finns; it's just that most people only hear about his rants.
Also, I find that Linus is somewhat quick to judge things, and often his reactions are based on a misunderstanding of the facts.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-context_and_low-context...
Maybe he just is what he is. The differences between individuals are greater than differences between cultures. I'm from Finland and I can assure you that Linus' style of communication is not a norm here.
I've heard this blunt(/direct/honest) argument quite often (and the same about my country, The Netherlands), but I've also seen Americans in IT who can be very blunt. I attribute it not to country_of_origin, but to the [autism] spectrum.
I used to try to be tactful with everything I would say, but that ended up in a 4 hour discussion / argument with someone who was digging in their heels about something they were wrong about. Huge waste of time and energy. It would blow a whole day.
When someone is being blunt with me, I take the time to make sure my response is clear and concise. It certainly has it's advantages. I try to keep the swears to a minimum. I'm not a drill sergeant, but I definitely make my point clearly and forcefully.
FWIW, I save the bluntness for important stuff.
As to Torvalds, but we do not get headlines about his mellow emails accepting a patch.
Anytime someone suggests that my directness means I must be autistic, they are a) making a faux polite personal attack that calls me a social retard and b) looking for an excuse to ignore and dismiss the substance of my points. I don't consider it to be a good faith form of engagement.
What I said, is that I find autism another [plausible] explanation. Because being honest/direct/blunt is a trait people with ASD suffer from (since they have less of the social awareness which puts the brake on the sharp edges). I find it more plausible than country_of_origin (TBH I find that a -perhaps harmless- form of discrimination/racism), but certainly I did neither imply nor argue that it is the only, sole explanation!
Please stop. It's unhealthy to pretend that undesired behaviors in IT are generally the result of autism. It perpetuates an unhealthy culture by essentially saying that guys (because it's only guys who are excused this way) in IT are not responsible for their behavior. It's also insulting to people with autism to lump their legitimate social difficulties in with people who are simply choosing to be assholes.
If a salesperson or marketer or artist or executive is blunt/rude/an asshole, no one assumes it's because they're autistic. It's assumed that this is part of their personality, because they find it more effective to communicate this way (or in some cases, that they're simply bullies).
There is no indication I see that Torvalds is autistic. He's certainly not socially awkward. He manages an organization of thousands of contributors very effectively. If he's blunt or rude, it's because he chooses to be.
Not what I did; no need to start bifurcating. What I asserted (or, what I meant) is that people on the spectrum are more common in IT. I never said that everyone in IT is autistic. I never argued Torvalds has autism.
> It perpetuates an unhealthy culture by essentially saying that guys (because it's only guys who are excused this way)
No idea where you got either of these red herrings from. That's certainly not what I asserted.
I do want to note though that women with autism largely go un(der)diagnosed.
> It's also insulting to people with autism
Hi, I have autism, as I acknowledged in another post throughout this thread. There's a rule on HN that you shouldn't assume the worst explanation from a post. Well, you just did, cause why would I willingly try to insult everyone with autism if I have it myself? How that make any sense whatsoever? I don't see at all why my post can be considered offensive unless you resort to things like bifurcations...
> It's also insulting to people with autism to lump their legitimate social difficulties in with people who are simply choosing to be assholes.
People with autism need to function in a non-autistic society. The current therapy I am getting is focussed on that. Using autism as an excuse isn't acceptable; its considered counter-productive.
> There is no indication I see that Torvalds is autistic. He's certainly not socially awkward. He manages an organization of thousands of contributors very effectively.
I don't find him very strong, socially. Read his body language while he's giving a talk. He's shy, at the very least. Just because someone can express themselves easily via e-mail doesn't mean they're not socially awkward.
Also, what I quoted is not mutually exclusive. More importantly, there is no such thing as a binary autism flag; it is a spectrum.
What Torvalds suffers from is that he expresses his anger with unnecessary cursewords in order to give his arguments strength (a fallacy). To name another example: I've never seen RMS do that, but I have seen TdR do that. I find neither of them particularly strong socially, either.
I know a lot about the topic of autism and related issues. I get tired of seeing social difficulties chalked up to a label of some disability or other. It takes a couple of decades to properly raise a human and prepare them for their role in society. A large part of social skills are learned behavior. This is why we have the term socialization.
Furthermore, different approaches are normal in different contexts. Someone who is not autistic and has no difficulty understanding and navigating social things can have trouble when placed in a new situation, including but not limited to a different culture.
Accusations of being autistic as an explanation for abrasive behavior are almost never sympathetic. They are almost never an attempt to understand why someone is coming across poorly and find a way to better interact with them. They boil down to a suggestion of incompetence and a dismissal of the person's position, as well as any legitimate anger or frustration they may be feeling.
There are cultures, including the American military, where being very blunt is the norm. As others have noted here, when people accuse someone of being rude, it very often means they don't like being disagreed with and are just looking for an excuse to be offended and level accusations. It isn't actually possible to find a way around that. People who are going to hurl accusations and focus on your style of communication as a way to try to avoid dealing with the substance are not acting in good faith. There is no means to be both polite and effective with such people. They will not like being disagreed with and will hate you for that piece of it no matter how you present it.
It seems you are trying to be an advocate for yourself and others with the same diagnosis. This is not the way to go about it. It comes across as simply insulting Linus Torvalds as an excuse to not take his position seriously while at the same time slandering the entire IT profession with a tired and untrue stereotype that everyone in IT has terrible social skills and they are all just aspie.
You keep saying that you have an ASD diagnosis, you don't see the points other people are making and then concluding they must be in the wrong. Let me respectfully suggest that you are missing some contextual cues. Meaning of words does not occur in a vacuum. Context matters.
There are ways to be a representative of your demographic and an advocate for others like you. This is about the worst possible way to try to do that.
Best.
Completely disagree. The OP said "blunt(/direct/honest)" is a common feature of autism and autism is common in the tech world. Just because some people may take issue with others being blunt or overly direct doesn't mean it's a negative thing, nor an insult or an attack on autism.
Acceptance of this trait may be cultural but primarily it seems to me to be a personal preference.
Every person's personality is built on a multitude of positive/negative traits, nobody is perfect and it's not that big of a deal having a few flaws. Flaws are often the the type of thing which makes people interesting. But I'm not even convinced this is even a flaw in the first place.
Some of the smartest people I know are blunt/direct and it's a personality trait that I personally seek out in my friends/partners. I find it makes for the best type of business partner and reduces significant amounts of drama and long-term conflict. But I understand it's not for everyone and lots of people misunderstand their intentions or are uncomfortable with raw honesty. But outside of the person not being rude, talking out of place, having basic social grace, etc... that's on them if they don't like it. It's not a flaw in itself, only if it's used incorrectly.
Of course not all people who are blunt/direct are autistic either. I don't think the OP made the implication either. That's common sense, we all like to make generalizations or identify patterns of behaviour, but that does not mean they believe it applies to all people or that they are implying correlation always equals causation.
This sounds to me like a misguided attempt at protecting people from any type of potential discomfort, while ignoring the context of the use of such language and the situational context. This is a primary issue with this political correctness fad. Not to mention valuing hypothetical/potential feelings over honesty, truth, and reality. Certain words, descriptions, or generalizations such as this are not inherently wrong or insulting or malicious. They may be used wrong or be insulting in certain context, but what the OP said is not one of those situations.
> I know a lot about the topic of autism and related issues.
Me too. I have a diagnosis based on DSM-5, and with ICD numbers (for insurance related reasons I guess). My cousin had an Asperger diagnosis based on DSM-4 when that was still relevant. My partner likely has autism as well (though its difficult to diagnose for females), and I am getting therapy as well; both group therapy and family therapy. My partner received partner group therapy. I suspect its mostly from my father's side, but I see traits in my mother's side as well. Regarding my parents; I believe the spectrum was a non-conscious or perhaps subconscious important reason why they felt attracted to each other. YMMV.
> I get tired of seeing social difficulties chalked up to a label of some disability or other.
As a general note we shouldn't diagnose other people, but that wasn't the intent of my original post at all. I merely noted its a trait people with autism commonly have.
Conclusions such as that all people with autism have this, that all people in IT have this, or refuting such conclusions are all bifurcations from your own conto; not mine.
Why are people with autism often too direct? It is due to a weaker Theory of Mind (ToM) [1].
On HN we need to assume people mean the most positive with their posts. If we apply this on life, then all people want to function in society [even with their disabilities]. They want to have success in their communication. Heck, I do too! A repeating failure to communicate is a red flag of something being wrong with that person. It'd mean that those who are responsible for that person (professionals including in medical field, but also teachers, parents/caretakers, and if they're adult: themselves) should consider to seek professional help. A lot of people in our world end up in (deep) trouble such as addiction or prison while professional help could've helped them, and that very much saddens me (am currently watching series Orange Is The New Black).
> It takes a couple of decades to properly raise a human and prepare them for their role in society. A large part of social skills are learned behavior. This is why we have the term socialization.
For most people, they get to basic social levels during teenager years or young adultery. The problem is that people with autism -more so those without therapy/help- are generally worse at learning this (some are downright terrible).
Its important to note that not everyone has autism has exactly the same issues. Some people don't have much issues with ToM but rather with executive functioning (EF), or central coherence (CC). And even then, the lists for each of these are long. Specific sub-traits might be better or worse within each specimen.
> Furthermore, different approaches are normal in different contexts. Someone who is not autistic and has no difficulty understanding and navigating social things can have trouble when placed in a new situation, including but not limited to a different culture.
Well, that's including someone with undiagnosed autism, or mild autism. I recommend to stop seeing a situation like this as black-and-white (stop bifurcation) and start seeing the shades of grey.
> Accusations of being autistic as an explanation for abrasive behavior are almost never sympathetic. They are almost never an attempt to understand why someone is coming across poorly and find a way to better interact with them. They boil down to a suggestion of incompetence and a dismissal of the person's position, as well as any legitimate anger or frustration they may be feeling.
I don't see it as an accusation. I don't see autism as a negative trait per see. Not at all. I see it like a knife or computer; a tool which can be used for good and evil. That does explain why we're having this discussion in the first place though.
> There are cultures, including the American military, where being very blunt is the norm.
It should be noted this is a top-down hierarchy, and the bluntness is top-down as well; not bottom-up. The arguments used by such cathedral-style hierarchies are comprised of argumentum ad baculum (see hereunder for further discussion).
> As others have noted here, when people accuse someone of being rude, it very often means they don't like being disagreed with and are just looking for an excuse to be offended and level accusations.
That depends on their other arguments. Pointing out a fallacy such as an argumentum ad hominem doesn't mean everything the person said is invalid. It just points out the person is (partly) using a fallacy to make their point. It is, essentially, akin to telling someone to tone down their voice. Yes, it can be frustrating to hear that when you're angry, but that doesn't mean the person who points that out is wrong.
Similarly, someone replying to Torvalds: "could you please make your point without insults and vulgar language" isn't saying Torvalds has no point. As such, painting it as if I am trying to attack Torvalds with an ad hominem here is... frankly ridiculous. I don't always agree with his viewpoints, but I got nothing against the man.
> It seems you are trying to be an advocate for yourself and others with the same diagnosis. This is not the way to go about it. It comes across as simply insulting Linus Torvalds as an excuse to not take his position seriously while at the same time slandering the entire IT profession with a tired and untrue stereotype that everyone in IT has terrible social skills and they are all just aspie.
I'd say that's far-fetched and full with assumptions but if that's your interpretation of my post(s), so be it.
(I can't control myself to not include this so FYI: "Aspie" no longer exists since DSM-5. If someone calls me an Aspie they clearly are using old, outdated terminology.)
I attribute it not to country_of_origin, but to the [autism] spectrum.
And you now say:
As a general note we shouldn't diagnose other people, but that wasn't the intent of my original post at all. I merely noted its a trait people with autism commonly have.
Those two things don't add up. Maybe think about that.
There is a lot of other failed communication happening here that I don't really think is worth trying to talk more about.
You made a blanket diagnosis for an entire industry and for a common human behavior when you stated that you attribute bluntness in IT to autism.
DoreenMichele provided your own quote again for context but you yet again talked to different tangents. I can't tell if this is really a communication breakdown or if you're willfully avoiding the fact that you essentially said "programmers are Aspie" because you don't want to address your own prejudice.
If you believe that bluntness in IT is generally attributable to autism, then let's talk about that some more, because this is an incorrect and unhealthy belief. If you don't believe it, then don't say it, because it perpetuates this unhealthy viewpoint.
Furthermore, you put words in my mouth, and you paraphrase me with words I didn't use and would avoid. I would not describe Torvalds as a programmer, and I would carefully avoid the word "aspie" or "asperger" ever since I learned they're superseded (since my diagnosis, Sept 2017). Because THAT word is stereotypical whereas the spectrum is far more broad. There is no shame in being autistic/ASD/part of spectrum either. I certainly don't feel ashamed about it (I'm not proud about it either btw).
I have no interest in discussing this further with you because I have no interest in getting convinced by you that autistics aren't part of IT while I am getting signals that people within the spectrum are indeed overly represented in certain professions, including IT. But that wasn't my point because if I wanted to draw a caricature of an autist in IT I got far better examples available.
Go spend your time convincing someone else instead, and perhaps consider a worthwhile subject instead of nitpicking on a conclusion you drew and aren't refuting with data either.
TL;DR:
> If you don't believe it, then don't say it, because it perpetuates this unhealthy viewpoint.
You won't censor me. Au revoir.
You directly accuse someone else of racism for saying that Finnish culture is blunt. But you happily attribute bluntness in IT to autism. I cannot believe you are this lacking in introspection and self-criticism.
I'm not sure what you mean by "bifurcating" in this context but this is exactly what you did. You literally said that you see blunt communication in IT and attribute it to autism spectrum disorders.
> What I asserted (or, what I meant) is that people on the spectrum are more common in IT. I never said that everyone in IT is autistic. I never argued Torvalds has autism.
I did not claim that you said everyone in IT is autistic. I'm saying that your assumption that blunt/direct/whatever behavior implies autism is both incorrect and unhealthy. People with autism spectrum disorders may be over-represented in IT (people claim this; I have no idea if it's actually true), but even if so, it's still a small percentage of total people in IT. Attributing entire classes of common behavior to autism is incorrect.
You did not directly claim that Torvalds has autism but you did assert that you assume autism in the face of Torvalds-style behavior.
> Hi, I have autism, as I acknowledged in another post throughout this thread. There's a rule on HN that you shouldn't assume the worst explanation from a post. Well, you just did, cause why would I willingly try to insult everyone with autism if I have it myself? How that make any sense whatsoever?
I didn't say you're trying to insult people with autism. I said you're doing it. It's undoubtedly unintentional, but it's absolutely insulting to take an undesired behavior and associate it with an entire group.
If I say that when I see fat people, I assume they're Americans, that's insulting to Americans. The fact that I happen to be American doesn't change that.
> People with autism need to function in a non-autistic society. The current therapy I am getting is focussed on that. Using autism as an excuse isn't acceptable; its considered counter-productive.
Assholes also need to function in society. Pretending that they're autistic doesn't help anyone. It certainly doesn't help people with autism.
I'm not in any way saying that people with autism spectrum disorders don't need to function in society or that autism should be an "excuse" for anything. I'm actually saying very much the opposite. Rude behavior should not be attributed to autism, partly because that's not a valid excuse but also because most rude behavior does not come from people with autism spectrum disorders.
> I don't find him very strong, socially. Read his body language while he's giving a talk. He's shy, at the very least. Just because someone can express themselves easily via e-mail doesn't mean they're not socially awkward.
I probably overstated when I said he's "certainly not socially awkward". He is a little awkward in talks. However, lots of people (most, probably) are uncomfortable with public speaking in front of large crowds, and I don't think his level of awkwardness seems unusual. And of course shyness is not synonymous with autism. I still don't see any evidence that Torvalds has any form of autistic disorder.
> Also, what I quoted is not mutually exclusive. More importantly, there is no such thing as a binary autism flag; it is a spectrum.
No one said there's a binary "autism" flag.
> What Torvalds suffers from is that he expresses his anger with unnecessary cursewords in order to give his arguments strength (a fallacy).
Torvalds is not generally criticized for "curse words". He's generally criticized for bluntly insulting people and their work. When he says someone is "fucking insane", the problem isn't the fact that he used a curse word. It's that he's insulting someone. The cursing is perhaps another layer on top, but if he dropped the word "fuck" into every email but did it politely, no one would call him an asshole for it.
But I also don't think Torvalds is really "suffering" as a result of his communication style. The only negative I see is that people criticize him for it periodically. But overall it seems to be working and the negative repercussions are minimal to nonexistent. He gets attention on the issues he cares about and HN says he's mean. I doubt he loses sleep over the criticism.
I'm probably still too verbose (ha... "probably"... I flatter myself), but I went through a phase in my late teens and early twenties where I qualified and wrapped in polite circumlocutions everything I wrote. It makes in incomprehensible, honestly, and it doesn't work anyhow. I still got flamed. (Good ol' Usenet.)
There's a time and a place for politeness. That time and place is most times and most places. There's a time and a place for directness, bluntness, and even outright impoliteness; I'd submit "Intel is just going to leave a critical vulnerability in basically every CPU in the world, and throw up an obfuscating cover of flags and workarounds and PR to try to pretend otherwise" is a reasonable time for those things.
(Personally, I don't expect miracles. Intel ought to come out and say "Look, this is going to take some years. Here's some workarounds in the meantime, and here's our plan going forward." I think everyone who understands the situation understands that a true fix is very difficult. But if it looks like they're going to try to skate by on some weak workarounds and a heavy dollop of PR, the industry as a whole really needs to pushback, not just Linus.)
Anyway, this argument comes up again and again. Regardless of the style in his country and language or origin he is writing in English, in public, for an international audience. One expects a different sort of tone.
I don't think I can agree with that statement :) I'm part of the target audience and that tone is _exactly_ what I'd expect instead of polite talk that dances around calling out BS for what it is.
> From what I gather, some of this is cultural. His country of origin is just generally blunt and direct about things.
and my response was
> Regardless of the style in his country and language or origin he is writing in English, in public, for an international audience.
Which parts of what I said seem inconsistent to you?
That's like saying because my mother is now an American citizen, she should obviously no longer have a German accent. You may personally feel she has some obligation to do her best to lose the accent, but regardless of the standards you would like to see imposed on other people, most people remain influenced for life by things they grew up with.
> From what I gather, some of this is cultural. His country of origin is just generally blunt and direct about things.
I assumed you meant
> His country of origin is just generally blunt and direct about things and that is sufficient justification for his using a rude tone on a public mailing list
and I was also rather confused because this seemed to be a non-sequitur. I thought you had indended to reply to one of the other comments criticising his tone. On rereading it now seems that you were saying that
> His country of origin is just generally blunt and direct about things and this is why his is good at calling out bullshit when he sees it
Sorry for a double misunderstanding. If I hadn't made the first one I wouldn't have made the second one either.
I agree that this is true, but two points stick out to me:
1. Generally the motive for this convention stems from organizations wanting to sanitize their image.
2. FOSS project communication is overwhelmingly pubic.
If we accept that all organizations need some amount of blunt communication at some point, and if we accept that public bluntness has so far not had a measurable negative perception impact for Linux, then it seems inevitable that the project will be an exception to expectations.
That directness is generally associated with multicultural environments where subtler context-dependent communication simply does not work. Some of the quotes I am seeing here from him are things I think are unnecessarily harsh, but most are not.
Discussions about something he has said or written seem to inevitably comment on his speaking style and divide up between those who praise it and those who vilify it. I feel it is mostly a positive, but discussions could benefit from a little context and broader perspective of that detail.