2016-01-26-the-problem-with-minaswan.markdown

layout	title	author	twitter
post	The Problem With MINASWAN	Brian Shirai	brixen

The most harmful thing in Ruby is the MINASWAN meme: Matz is nice and so we are nice. I propose we put that meme to rest.

I originally wrote this in the very–not–nice aftermath of my post about RubySpec over a year ago. Now that the Ruby community is attempting to have a debate about adopting a code of conduct, the MINASWAN meme is being trotted out as either a reason why a code of conduct is not needed, or that MINASWAN is sufficient as a code of conduct.

Why do I say MINASWAN is the most harmful thing in Ruby? There are many reasons that I'll enumerate here. After reading this, you may notice other reasons I've missed.

1. Why are we nice? We are nice to people because a) they deserve respect, and b) we make ourselves less human when we treat people disrespectfully.

   It's good to have role models. I'm not discounting that at all. It's important to emulate someone who displays attributes we value and admire. But Matz is a person, fallible just like everyone else. Matz is mean to people at times, just like everyone else. The reason we are nice is not because Matz is nice.

   We are nice because we value treating people with respect and if Matz is ever not nice, we'll hold him accountable.

   I realize some people do think MINASWAN means we emulate Matz being nice, not we are nice because Matz is nice. However, the meme puts it backwards and permits people to justify their behavior based on emulating Matz. When they emulate Matz not being nice, they aren't really responsible for their own behavior, they're just emulating Matz.

   Overall, this first point is probably the least harmful aspect of MINASWAN. The others are serious.

2. The cult of personality. People are imperfect, fallible, petty, confused, even mean. Normal, average people, who also do heroic, kind, wonderful things.

   Cults of personality distort people into unrealistic false images. This has two very harmful consequences: a) questioning the cult leader is discouraged or punished because no one wants to see their idol knocked from their pedestal, and b) those who are not popular either feel themselves to not be as worthy, or are treated that way by others.

   The first consequence means that we disconnect from reality. We don't require our esteemed personality to justify their opinions. In fact, we freely substitute their wrong opinions about reality for facts.

   The second consequence means that people either strive to join the cult of personality, actively perpetuating the disconnect from reality, or they recede, and the community is deprived of their valuable interaction.

3. Disagreeing is not considered nice. Telling someone their code is poor quality and needs improvement, their idea is logically unsound, their effort is deficient; these are not "nice" things. But they are necessary and we need to get better at doing them.

   In fact, being genuinely concerned and honest with people, even when it's something that may hurt their feelings, is the nicest thing you can do. You can craft your message with care, but in some cases, no amount of sugar makes the medicine go down. In other words, it does not matter how you give feedback to some people, they will take offense regardless. That's not to say don't try to be kind, but to recognize that every interaction has two responsible parties. No one makes you upset.

   This is absolutely not to say that you can harass someone and then claim to just be disagreeing. Disagreement and harassment, or making personal attacks, are completely different things.

   The consequence of "nice is agreeable", spoken or unspoken, is most harmful to bystanders. They may know something isn't right, but they silence themselves out of fear of being excluded for "not playing nice".

4. It erases or hides actual not-nice things. There are real, heart-breaking problems in the Ruby community and in technology generally.

   When racist, sexist, misogynist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. actions and comments are made by community leaders or members, we struggle to deal with the events in a healthy manner. We over-, or more usually, under-react because we resist being disabused of our comfortable and cherished view of a "nice" community. We don't have the hard discussions.

   The erasure of the reality of harmful and abusive acts, by plastering "we are nice" on top, can be extremely painful for the community members who experience them.

   Again, we should aspire to be nice to others, where nice means respectful. A nice community will be one that shows visible and earnest support for the many diverse people who inhabit it. There will be loud and emotionally fulfilling debate and arguments from the wealth of differing opinions and perspectives involved. A nice community won't be parading a charade of "nice" but instead elevating and amplifying the many voices that are silenced in other communities.

5. It masks the bad behavior by people who are "nice". It is a fallacy to assume that a person we label as nice wouldn't be mean or abusive to someone else. They may not, but it's a fallacy to assume they would not. Unfortunately, this reaction is far too common: "This person is nice, they would never do that."

   Perpetuating this fallacy can be severely damaging to people, especially when they have been victimized by a popular person and that victimization was partially or completely private. Examples of this include sexual abuse or harassment by a popular or prominent member of a community. But the behavior does not need to be so severe as to be criminal. There are many ways to treat people abusively that are not criminal.

   The best way to avoid these damaging situations is to treat every person, regardless of how high or low their position, simply as fallible people deserving of both our respect and our skepticism. Never substitute an attribute we may assign to them, be it "nice" or "grumpy" or "weird" or any other thing, for them as a person. Matz may behave nicely toward some people, and we can say, "I saw Matz treat this person nicely". But if we say, "Matz is a nice person", we start substituting this attribute for Matz, who is simply a person that behaves this way and that way, sometimes in a way we like, and sometimes in a way we don't.

6. It enfeebles discourse in the community. Conflicts are inevitable. If we paper over conflicts with "being nice", then when the conflicts inevitably happen: a) people don't know how to argue well, and b) bystanders do not learn how to evaluate arguments.

   Arguing a point is a skill to be learned like any other. The terrible behavior we witness daily on the internet amidst some conflict is a consequence of not practicing how to argue. Which is not to say there is a magic formula that prevents people getting carried away with emotion. But it's foolish to neglect to practice for something that is as inevitable, common and important as arguments. The way to practice is, of course, to argue.

   I separate this point from the one above about disagreeing because you can disagree with someone and never tell them about it. Disagreement can be entirely passive. Arguing is an active engagement. You're putting yourself on the line, your thoughts, your emotions, and maybe even your reputation. You're making yourself vulnerable to attacks from people who misunderstand, and sometimes willfully misunderstand.

Those are the reasons MINASWAN is harmful.

There are a lot of hard problems that we need to solve. To solve hard problems requires a lot of discussion and, inevitably, conflict. That's because all hard problems involve some tension between opposing forces. The solution is a balance point. It's unattainable without conflict. The goal must be to have productive conflict.

Similar to the idea that the tech industry is a meritocracy, the MINASWAN meme seems positive on the surface. When you start to dissect it, though, its harmful aspects become visible. Ultimately, it impoverishes Ruby. Rather than improving the atmosphere, it limits our ability to learn about and engage in useful conflict.

So, let's use this occasion to study and practice having an argument. First, we must consider who the audience is. Second, we need some guidelines for engaging in an argument.

The Importance Of Audience

Every argument has an audience. To be effective, you must argue for your audience. On the other side, as a member of an audience, you must use your skepticism to the fullest extent.

There are four important aspects to an argument. The purpose of arguing is to express a truth or dispute a falsehood. Never enter an argument with the intention of changing the belief or opinion of your opponent. Your audience is always the people who are open-minded and curious, and who have something to gain from understanding your position.

Without open-minded people, you spend time futilely trying to change someone's mind. It's impossible to change someone's mind. You can provide facts and concepts, but people make up their own minds. Having the goal of changing someone's mind virtually ensures you will argue ineffectively.

Without people who have something to gain from understanding your position, expressing a truth or disputing a falsehood simply doesn't matter. People are busy. They don't have extra time to care about every falsehood perpetuated in the world. If they have something to gain, they may listen to you. Even if they have a lot to gain, they may not.

To repeat: Your audience are the people who are open-minded about the topic and have something to gain from understanding your message (even if they disagree with it).

Arguments Are Healthy

Arguments are healthy if we abide by some very simple rules: treat others with respect, and try to discover facts.

Don't make personal attacks, don't assume you know their motives, don't contradict their stated intentions or motives, and try to describe behavior as an event, not a personal characteristic. Express your own emotions, not the other person's.

Likewise, search for facts. Attempt to show independent evidence for facts. "All my friends know that X is true" does not make X a fact.

Having arguments is fine, important and healthy. It's not drama and it should not be dismissed. Thinking someone is mistaken is not being "un-nice". If the audience considerations above are met, you should consider having an argument. In fact, it may be the most helpful action you can take.

Adopt a Code of Conduct and Help the Community Grow

The MINASWAN meme is simplistic, reductionistic, and insufficient to encourage a healthy and welcoming community. It doesn't provide guidance for how people should interact. It reduces people to some simple attribute, like nice or not nice. And it doesn't provide any means to ensure that people treat each other respectfully.

A community of an arbitrary number of people from different cultures, beliefs, desires and goals is complex and messy. Some people usually behave kindly and respectfully. Some people act selfishly and some people harass others. People are also complex and change, for better or worse, over time.

A code of conduct sets the basis of interactions in a community and provides guidance and procedures to deal with deviance from that basis.

It's time to let go of the MINASWAN fallacy and let the community grow up.