Jelle Hermsen

«
»

Advocacy doesn’t work if you tell someone they’re wrong

Generally it isn’t a good idea to offend someone you’re trying to convince. This is sounding almost too obvious, but offending someone we are trying to get to free software is a tactic we often use unconsciously. Instead of getting your point across it will likely lead the other to strengthen or adopt a contrary believe. There’s much we can learn from social psychology in advocating free software.

I recently joined the fellowship of the FSFE and decided to read the wiki pages on advocacy. The part about how you should characterize a company like Microsoft immediately grabbed my attention. Instead of characterizing them as evil it states you should try to talk about non-free software companies in general as bad examples of how they treat their customers, forcing upgrades or taking away their data in unknown formats. I would like to take this careful approach even further and say that it’s best not to mention them at all, or only sparsely. You might think I’m insane, but bear with me, as there is a lot of science on my side.

The FSFE’s FAQ on advocacy reminds me of my wifes master thesis in which she studied face threatening acts in anti-obesity messages. Governments around the world are trying to convince their citizens of a healthier lifestyle. Here in the Netherlands they can be quite fierce in their persuasion with TV commercials which makes the intended audience (i.e. people with obesity, or smokers) feel uncomfortable. There’s been quite a lot of research on the effect of these campaigns and it turns out that most of them didn’t work at all. Scientists have studied which kind of messages have the best effect and which don’t work.

It appears that one kind of messages never work and that’s the messages that result in reactance. Reactance (in psychology) is an emotional reaction to pressure or persuasion that results in strengthening or adoption of a contrary belief. It is reactance which can cause a Windows user to dig their heels in, even after trying to convince them with your best arguments of why Windows is bad

When you tell a proprietary software user why proprietary software harms their freedom, you are essentially telling them they are doing something wrong. Psychologically they interpret this: “He is telling me I’m wrong”, essentially threatening their face. With face I mean their public self image. Everybody wants to feel good about themselves and likes to believe that what they are doing is right. To impede that feeling is generally a very bad idea when you want someone to lend an ear.

So instead of another round of bashing Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, and so on, I think it’s best we should advocate free software on its own merit. There are a truckload of arguments that speak in favor of free software, without even mentioning proprietary software and I think it’s best we use those. I honestly believe negative campaigning (aka mudslinging) is a bad idea and will most likely only convince those who are already on our side.

Tags: , ,

This entry was posted on Sunday, October 31st, 2010 at 17:45 and is filed under English. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

14 Responses to “Advocacy doesn’t work if you tell someone they’re wrong”

  1. Paul Boddie Says:
    October 31st, 2010 at 20:38

    A major problem is actually convincing people that they would benefit from the things Free Software has to offer. To many people, things like being able to use their programs over an extended period of time, or being able to read their own documents in a few years, are not matters that seem worth considering urgently: everything works for them right now, and dealing with such apparently abstract issues is not a priority.

    Sadly, people generally can’t be told about such things; as a result they tend to learn the hard way. Thanks to my brother’s work, I have a chance of reading documents I wrote twenty years ago using proprietary software on a proprietary platform – something that the vendor didn’t care about once they had my money – and thanks to various Free Software tools, I managed to make a reasonable attempt at recovering my father’s pictures which were stored in an apparently bizarre fashion by proprietary camera vendor software on a Windows installation that no longer functions.

    People hate being told that the purchase they’re about to make (or the one they’ve already made) is a bad idea, but they do learn, and then they do seek alternatives which don’t let them down. Letting people know that such alternatives exist necessarily involves mentioning the problems that Free Software solves, and that involves mentioning negative experiences with proprietary software in the hope that people can then see the positive aspects of Free Software, preferably before they learn things the hard way.

    If people don’t perceive a problem, it’s pretty hard to convince them of a solution.

  2. guido Says:
    October 31st, 2010 at 23:26

    I think this subject is important and worth a own paragraph in the Advocacy FAQ. Do you think you’ll find the time to add it?

  3. jelle Says:
    November 1st, 2010 at 14:36

    @guido Thanks for the compliment. I’ll post a message on the public discussion mailing list to see how others feel about it.

  4. jelle Says:
    November 1st, 2010 at 15:05

    @paul Thanks for your elaborate response. I partially agree with you. It’s a bad thing proprietary software can lock you in by making file formats and then dropping them later on. In such cases free software may offer a helping hand, and free software often helps people who are forgotten by traditional commercial parties. Take people with older computers for example, being forced to unnecessarily update their systems, and like them there are numerous examples of people who benefit from free software when proprietary software let’s them down.

    However, I do believe this is only a small piece of the bigger picture. I don’t think free software is a mere alternative or just a solution to a problem. It’s much more than that. It’s a big movement with important ideals about freedom in a non-exclusive fashion.

    I stumbled open the GNU manifesto after buying the Emacs Manual from the FSF store. After reading it I realized we’re not just trying to make a better, free, open source alternative of proprietary software. Instead we’re trying to create and sustain a large community where ideas, and software are shared and people are helped without demanding a ‘return on investment’. In free software we’re investing in humanity, while in proprietary software you’re mostly investing in a company. Imagine how quickly software, technologies, even science and art could evolve if we share everything. That’s not merely solving a problem, it is true liberation and an ideology that is so strong it doesn’t really need comparison to stand out.

  5. Paul Boddie Says:
    November 2nd, 2010 at 00:14

    @jelle
    I’m agreed that there needs to be more than one thing pushed along at the same time, and that’s where the Free Software movement also needs to offer its own visions, particularly in collaboration with those doing open hardware, but also in the social and cultural realms. If the vision is compelling enough, people will investigate it further all by themselves.

    However, at the same time, people are also bogged down thinking about things purely in terms of the brands and products they already know and use. Maybe the challenge is in joining that worldview up with the one that considers Free Software and genuinely sustainable solutions on their own merits.

  6. Tristan Says:
    November 2nd, 2010 at 17:30

    Great article, when I tell someone about Free Software, I tend to bash the usual a bit, Microsoft and Apple mostly. I noticed people became very defensive, like I was talking about their mother, or disrespecting a close family member. I’ll be cautious of that now, thank you.
    (Learning new things each day)

  7. Louigi Verona Says:
    November 4th, 2010 at 10:42

    I agree and in fact I have been writing to FSF and about FSF, saying that their Windows & Sins campaign does not work and that instead it would be better if they invest money into, say, GIMP development. Instead of trying to change how people think about free software, it’s better to give them a reason to switch. After all, most people who would switch, cannot because they are Photoshop users – as simple as that.
    http://www.louigiverona.ru/?page=projects&s=writings&t=linux&a=linux_fsf
    This is a link to a small article on the subject. Basically, same thing you are saying.

  8. Hugo Says:
    November 4th, 2010 at 18:09

    The most important part of advocacy is to get to the point where people understand that there is an issue here. How many years did it take for people to think that the way we deal with our natural environment is very important?

    When we deal with software in general, there is the problem that often people don’t understand how important it is, and they don’t value the freedom they enjoy from free software every day (e.g. when they are connected to the internet which works with a huge stack of free software).

    What does psychology teach us here? How do we get people to be *aware* of the importance of a subject (software) for *them*?

  9. Kim Weins Says:
    November 4th, 2010 at 18:10

    I totally agree with your point. Finding positive benefits that people can understand is key. Some of the altruistic benefits (help humanity) mentioned by some commenters, will work with some audiences but not others. When attempting to convince companies to use open source, practical arguments about cost, quality and lock-in are likely to be most effective. No CIO likes to be pushed into a corner by a proprietary vendor. I often talk to CIOs about the competitive nature of the open source marketplace. If you want support, for example, there are many vendors and individuals that can provide it — you’re not just limited to one vendor who can then raise prices at will.

  10. Penguin Pete Says:
    November 5th, 2010 at 03:21

    No, I don’t think you are insane for what you’re saying. I DO think you’re insane for

    (a) starting a brand-new blog, Johnny-come-who-the-hell-are-you, and then

    (b) making post #1 about how we’re all too tough on poor, picked-on, underdog proprietary software, while,

    (c) bandying the “FSFE fellowship” about like it was the Catholic Church, without even expanding the acronym the first time, and then

    (d) front-paging it to LXer, third-biggest troll-den on the whole Internet behind 4chan and linsux.org.

    And I suppose you want to be taken seriously…

  11. links for 2010-11-05 « Wild Webmink Says:
    November 5th, 2010 at 14:07

    [...] Advocacy doesn’t work if you tell someone they’re wrong Some excellent advice that's hard for passionate and informed people to follow. I have the same motivation behind my series of blog posts describing the differentiating positive values of open source software. (tags: OpenSource FOSS Advocacy) [...]

  12. orionds Says:
    November 6th, 2010 at 15:07

    I’ve had lots of experience with reactance and I’ve had the reactions of those who’ve done the exact opposite. Since then, I’ve kept my mouth shut, at least when I face them, never to bring up the subject.

    However, there have been times when I have not said someone is wrong and still got reactance. For example, I once mentioned off-hand that I would like to use a Linux desktop on the computers in the lab where I was working. What I got was unprovoked irritation from the IT leader.

    Recently, I stuck his SD card into my Ubuntu notebook to view a photo. He was walking round to take a look and when a quick glance showed I was not using Windows, he immediately backed away. It made me think of the remark he made about Linux being good on servers but no good for desktops. He is in charge of installing Linux servers for our organization. In fact, he chose Linux – Red Hat and CentOS, but has to this day rejected or even bothered to try Linux on the desktop.

    Not once, in the 15 years that I have worked with him did I criticise Windows in his presence nor I have extolled the virtues of Linux over Windows. The only thing I have brought up was the exploring the possibility of switching to Linux to save money as we had spent a lot money with upgrade cycles.

    We are a school and the next step is facing Win 7 and MS Office 2010. We still use XP and 2003. Money is getting harder to come by for these upgrades. I never said they were wrong spending the money. I only suggested saving money.

    I have learnt from this that even if you give face to the people listening, the prejudice is so deeply rooted, reactance doesn’t even come into the equation for their decisions.

    I agree completely, however, about not telling people that their wrong, but entrenchment and blind refusal from the other side are insurmountable obstacles. This is why governments and corporations collapse in order to make way for reform and change.

  13. andre Says:
    November 9th, 2010 at 16:38

    Good post.

    I don’t try to convince people to get away from proprietary software. If it really works well for them, fine.
    However I encourage them to try (live cd’s!) if something might even work better for them.

    To me FSF campaigns in the past often looked like “$foo is evil, $bah is wrong, we know better!”).
    Criticism on things that only ideologic people care about. Preaching to only those that you have convinced already anyway.

    That’s why I often dislike FSF campaigns while I do love open source.

  14. Jelle Says:
    November 9th, 2010 at 20:55

    Thank you all for your reactions. Really didn’t expect my second blogpost to be so well read. I haven’t even done my “about me” page yet :-)

    @Tristan: I noticed the same thing with my friends. I think avoiding the bashing almost makes me pleasant company :)

    @Louigi: I read your article. Agree with quite a lot, although I would support the FSF if I’d live in the US. I think diversity is actually a gift you can give a community that has a tendency of groupthink. Many groups of people in FLOSS work like a meritocracy, which is a very good reason to stick around and keep sharing your opinion. That may seem unfair, but I believe it generally works very well. The meritocracy-thinking might be exactly @PenguinPete’s problem with my post.
    If you can’t decide on which particular project to support, it might be a good idea to look at the Software Freedom Conservancy (http://sfconservancy.org/). They’re really doing a great job helping a large amount of FLOSS projects.

    @Hugo: I totally agree with you. There are many parallells with for example voting rights for women. It took quite some time for the importance of that issue to become widespread. Because of that reason I think it’s a good idea to keep explaining the link between free software and free society, just like free speech is undoubtedly linked to free society.

    @Kim: I experience what you comment on almost a daily basis. In my job as a freelance programmer I convince quite a lot of clients to use free software and unfortunately the greater ideals of free software are rarely what convinces them.

    @Orionds: Yeah, it can be tough. Some people you simply can’t convince and it’s quite unfortunate if that’s the IT leader. Reactance isn’t my concern when I’m arguing with such a person and I can say the more mudslingingy campaigns of the FSF come in quite handy at such occasions :)

    @Andre: Thanks for the compliment. Preaching to the choir is never that effective, but when I see all the awesome replies I’m getting, I think I might actually be guilty of just that :)

Leave a Reply