Post by Stephane AscoetPost by Jelle HermsenI derived this idea from social psychology and I would love to hear what
you all think of it.
Hi, I think you're right. We're facing the same issue while trying to convince people to stop meat consumption.
Often I think it is a case of people valuing different goodnesses. A
person did not chose proprietary software for bad reasons, but generally
for reasons which when balanced seem good. Sometimes the reasons come
from a different perspectives which are often unassailable, but not
shared by both groups.
For example; with meat, I consider that I must eat some protein and ask:
which is most kind - to let the protein enjoy a few years life as a cow,
or to make it have a shorter life as a bean, or in a tank? I consider
that my protein would have more happiness as a cow and so by market
forces I eat meat so that more protein may have more happiness. This is
not a widely shared perspective but yet the only pro-vegetarian argument
I know that comes near it relates to ill-treatment of animals, and of
course I want my meat to be happy before I eat it. (I don't eat a lot of
meat).
I think this viewpoint may be instructive in the software-advocacy field
too, and that Jelle raises good points; So I now try to extent what I
learn from my views on meat to a general form and come to this principle
which I learned somewhere else:
Add to the good others already have
which means don't ask others to throw away their current position and
start again to "do it right" and this is logical for you would be asking
them to have confidence that you are exactly right, otherwise the next
day someone else may point out your error and they would have to "start
again" again.
I made an observation about contexts yesterday in relation to a computer
product that has Z in it's name. It's name is spelt TZ and it's name is
pronounced TeeZee because it is an American product. To the American The
product is "TeeZee" as spelt and there is an unconscious underlying
American context. To me as an Englishman the American context is raised
to surround the name and affect how it is pronounced: "TeeZee" and spelt
"Tee Zed".
The point of this observation is to show that the American does not
realise that the product name is not pronounced as it is spelt because
his context blinds him to that.
The American could have this explained to him, but he would only truly
appreciate it when he realises that outside USA represents a bigger
market than inside USA.
We know that the proprietary captive cannot understand the disadvantages
of captivity until it prevents him from exercising liberty.
Therefore, as is said, attacking reasons which from his context were
un-important or seemingly somewhat beneficial questions his judgement
and as Jelle says makes you an enemy.
The safe thing to do is to add to the good they have. Once the TZ
product is marketed outside the USA, the marketing department are happy
to revise the "pronounced as it is spelt" belief, or even change the name.
So my view is offer to add to the good people have; acknowledge how
their choice helped them, and offer them more help.
Sam
--
[FSF Associate Member #2325]
<http://www.fsf.org/register_form?referrer=2325>
<http://www.openrightsgroup.org/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20101102/9c37590d/attachment.htm
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: wrtOa+MS+fAAAAAielRYdFNvZnR3YXJlAAB42isvL9fLzMsuTk4sSNXLL0oHADbYBlgQU8pcAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC
Type: image/png
Size: 2820 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
Loading Image...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 497470.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2416 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
Loading Image...
