Personality Type and the Open Source Community
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
In The Jargon File, Eric Raymond does a great job of describing hackers, who dominate the thought of the open source community. He touches on personality type briefly in this document, and he also refers to it in other presentations. He points out that most hackers fit the NT personality types (INTP, INTJ, ENTP and ENTJ) in the Myers Briggs personality model. But what does that mean exactly, and how can we gain insights from that observation, particularly if we fit into that category?
It all starts with the renowned psychologist Carl Jung. In formulating his personality theory, Jung focused on two major aspects of how we relate to the world: how we prefer to take in information (Perceiving), and how we prefer to make decisions (Judging). When perceiving, some people trust more in what they can see, hear, smell, touch and taste (Sensation), and others trust more in concepts and ideas (Intuition). When judging, some people rely more on logic and impersonal considerations (Thinking), while others rely more on values and personal considerations (Feeling). Each of the Perceiving and Judging Functions can be directed at either the outside world of people and objects (Extraverted), or to the inner world of the mind (Introverted).
These ideas were later organized into a framework of 16 personality types, called the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). For example, my MBTI type is ENTP, which stands for (Dominant) Extraverted Intuition with (Auxiliary) Introverted Thinking. As you can imagine, there’s a lot of ground to cover on this subject, most of which we’ll be breezing past here. For the full tour, let me point you to two of the best books I have read on personality type — David Keirsey’s Please Understand Me II and Lenore Thomson’s
To simplify our discussion, let’s just look at the four basic functions — Sensing (S), Intuition (N), Thinking (T), and feeling (F). Referring to a type as “NT” means that the preferred Perceiving function is Intuition (as opposed to Sensing), and the preferred Judging function is Thinking (as opposed to Feeling). SF types have the exact opposite set of preferences — they prefer Sensing over Intuition, and Feeling over Thinking. There are also NF and ST types, and there too, the letters tell you their preferred functions.
Fine, you might say, but what does it exactly mean to prefer “Intuition” over “Sensation”, and “Thinking” over “Feeling” (as NT types do)? Let’s start with the Judging function preference (Thinking/Feeling), since it’s
usually the easier of the two pairs to understand. Just contrast Spock and McCoy in Star Trek. Spock clearly preferred to make decisions with impersonal logic. And McCoy clearly preferred personal, human values. T
types emphasize fairness and objectivity, whereas F types emphasize compassion and humanity. Everyone of course has the ability to use both T and F functions, just like we can write with either hand if we really want to. But just like with handwriting, we usually develop a strong preference for one or the other. T types feel most confident when they are able to use logic to support their actions, and F types feel most confident when their actions are consistent with their values. Conversely, T types are least confident when making complex decisions based solely on feelings and values, and F types are least confident when making complex decisions based solely on logic. As we grow and develop, we’re able to include more input from our non-dominant judging function, while we still maintain our overall preference. For example, a dominant Thinker who needs to make a tough decision on staff reductions can consciously incorporate Feeling (from himself and/or by getting help from a dominant Feeler) to ensure that the decision is carried out in a way that demonstrates respect for employees. Likewise, a dominant Feeler who needs to select one employee for a key position can consciously incorporate Thinking (from himself and/or a dominant Thinker) to ensure that the most capable person for the job is selected.
How about the Perceiving function preference (Intuition/Sensation)? A rough way to look at it is “book smarts and big picture” (Intuition) vs “street smarts and details” (Sensation). N types live in a world of ideas and possibilities. They are constantly building and refining their mental models of the way things (and people) work — the engineer who invents a new way to harness solar power; the author of a fantasy book with imaginative creatures and locales. S types, on the other hand, are grounded in the here and now. They are keen on concrete, tangible facts and experiences — the ever-observant field agent, who acts without having to analyze anything; the detailed accountant who balances the books to the last penny. Again, everyone has the ability to use both N and S functions. N types feel most confident when they understand the meaning of the information that they get, and the experiences that they have, realizing the potential of what can be. S types feel most confident when they are fully in touch with their surroundings and their possessions as they currently exist, living life in the moment. On the flip side, N types can get careless with attending to facts, rules and details that don’t fit together in any meaningful way to them. And S types can lose sight of the forest in their focus on the trees, leaves, branches, and roots. As with the Judging functions, over time we are able to include more input from our non-dominant Perceiving function, while still retaining our preference. For example, a dominant Intuitive who needs to do his taxes can consciously incorporate Sensing (from himself and/or by getting help from a dominant Sensor), to ensure that all of his capital gains and losses are properly recorded, and all of his deductions are properly itemized. And a dominant Sensor whose business model is outdated can consciously incorporate Intuition (from himself and/or a dominant Intuitive) to come up with new ways for his company to provide value to customers.
With that as background, we can look at the Intuitive Thinker type (NT) more closely, which Keirsey estimates to be no more than 7% of the population. NT types like to build mental models based on logic. They develop a foundation of knowledge deeply rooted in first principles, constructed by constantly asking Why? Why? Why? and following those answers as far as their capability, interest and time permits. From that, they expand an empire of knowledge that covers anything and everything that captures their attention. To use our jargon, NTs really grok their stuff.
You can see how open source plays to the natural strengths of NT types who work in IT and software engineering. Access to source code allows NTs to peel the onion of a software package as much as they wish, uncovering its inner workings and finding out how all of the underlying components fit together (and in the process, expanding their knowledge base even further). Root-cause analysis is the NT’s instinctive way of troubleshooting and solving complex problems. Learn how the thing works, understand what it’s supposed to do, and figure out why it isn’t doing that. Is there an underlying design problem with even broader implications, or is it just a correctable error in implementing the design? They want to get to the bottom of the whole situation and resolve the issue once and for all. Closed source software, by preventing introspection into the deep structure of the source code, frustrates precisely this form of analysis at which NTs excel. Is it any wonder why many NTs prefer open source?
To make large systems manageable, NTs prefer to rely on modularity, where the the components share common architectural principles. Contrast this with a monolithic design, which requires painstaking attention to numerous details which cannot be cleanly separated. NTs can clash with other types over the importance and priority of architectural principles. NTs see these principles being as important as the end product itself, since they have unshakable trust in the optimum results being achieved when the right principles are followed. Whereas other types, to the extent that they are aware of them at all, may see them as far more negotiable. For example, an NT type may specify a guiding principle that W3C standards-based HTML should be used when designing a web site. Another type might just choose the most convenient tool that works with the most common browser, heedless of its compliance to HTML standards. For NT’s, it’s usually not enough just to solve a problem — it needs to be solved in the right way.
To be sure, NTs can sometimes go overboard in this department, pushing for purist perfection at the expense of pragmatic approaches. Also, there is a tendency among some NTs towards minimalism at all costs, and reductionist logic. NTs can be hypercritical of any flaws in a system, running the risk of throwing away the baby with the bathwater. We see this for example on the Slashdot forums, where it’s almost a contest sometimes as to who can be the most sarcastic, the most biting, the most cynical, in their commentary.
Fortunately, as NTs develop, they’re able to use their Intuition and Thinking functions more broadly, and their mental models expand to include more input from their Feeling and Sensing functions. After all, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were NT types, and they did pretty well as founding fathers of a nation dedicated to the principles of freedom and equality of opportunity. NTs have the potential to be visionary leaders who change the world.
Category: Personal Development, Technology | Tags: jung, myers briggs, open source, personality
Email | Share:
Print
Hi, this is a comment.
To delete a comment, just log in and view the post's comments. There you will have the option to edit or delete them.
Interesting. For a certain circle of folks, the Twitter handle can be a proxy for a universal identifier, and thus a useful pivot for metadata. And with automation like yours, you could come along later and change that — e.g. by adding alternate ids.
Interesting reading Kartik. How would you see your integration and crowd sourcing approach integrated with services like twist? http://twist.flaptor.com/
I think that any service that wants to associate users with areas of expertise/description could benefit. So for example, a service like Twist might be able to tell not only what topics are trending, but also what types of people are talking about those trending topics. It adds another level of metadata to the mix.
We are alike! FTF was life-changing for me. I haven’t felt a need to read Allen’s GTD — reading the 43folders.com description and the Wikipedia article were enough to get me going. I have 43 folders on my desktop and on my Palm Pre.
In spite of the optimistic view that enterprises can develop internal skills to provide their own technical support for Open Source Software packages, few actually do develop and maintain those skills. Where an enterprise lacks the internal skills to provide its own professional technical support, they need to turn to support providers just as they turned to the proprietary software developers’ support teams. The Open Source Software technical support market is consistently less expensive than comparable cost of support for proprietary products but it remains a legitimate cost that most enterprises need to budget … either in a commitment of internal resources or in a contract with an external provider. Using Open Source Software without a support plan is self-insurance with a potentially large deductible as it can be quite difficult for qualified technical support staff to suddenly get engaged and come to grips with Open Source Software integrated by the enterprise. Furthermore, enterprises need to qualify their support vendors to make sure those providers actually have team members capable of supporting mission-critical software (MySQL, Apache httpd, OpenLDAP, etc.). We agree that enterprises that become internally competent achieve the benefits you suggest but most are unwilling to make the financial commitment to sustain such a capability year on year in the face of business pressures. The technical support specialists will continue to be a valuable service pool for Open Source Software much as they are for proprietary software.
One point that I hope doesn’t get lost here is that even IT organizations that develop internal competence can contract effectively with open source technical support specialists. As I mention:
“They identify where they want to be treated as a customer, where they want to interact as a peer, and where they want to play a leadership role.”
Compared to dependent IT organizations, interdependent IT organizations can make better use of the talents of technical support specialists, since they have a deeper understanding of the value that those companies provide.
Well-put, Kartik! Marty offers a realistic, pragmatic reply. However, I’m seeing my employer dabble with the model that Kartik describes. Our Open Source & Linux Profession (OSLP) runs several development services that benefit our corporation. None of us doing this for the OSLP are IT workers, but we have had conversations with IT. Let’s say that they’re “intrigued” at this point. Could take years. Developing…
Great article Kartik. I think this is a great model. I have seen the power of open and collaborative IT development in my own experience. Unfortunately, I have also seen the difficulty in getting organizations to change their mindset and be open to this kind of approach. It can be done though, it just takes time and some level of trust building. I think the key is to just give it a shot and use small successes to pave the way forward.
[...] Open source leads to interdependent employees (as opposed to dependent or indep) http://kartiksubbarao.com/open-source-and-interdependent-it [...]
Kartik – I like the use of Covey’s model as a way of describing the effect on behaviors (or perhaps the required behaviors) of those that participate in Open Source Software development. Many of the points made here, as you suggest, apply well to the concepts of Open Innovation and may result in similar beneficial outcomes. Nice work.
Likewise, Open Innovation and Open Source share many challenges. In particular, if the decision makers sitting higher up in the food chain are not themselves interdependent, then the ability for folks in lower levels to participate in open models is significantly constrained. In my mind, a key catalyst to moving IT organizations (and others) into a more open mindset is through a top-down approach. There needs to be active encouragement, rewards, and a clear support structure (e.g. support for experimentation, failures, etc.) for folks to “participate” and embrace open principles. Otherwise, the reward system is not aligned with the model presented here and interdependence remains remains relegated to corporate statements.
Great connection to Covey! There is a growing attention in the open source field for the human factor in decision making on open source applications in enterprises. Which is good. Because it is complex to get a yes for Open Source in situations where it can add value. As an Open Innovation Ambassador I have to admit that there is lots of organisations where Open Source Application and its services suppliers network (if any) is not suitable at present.
In cases that we do have a great Open alternative to Closed Environments we have to be patient indeed. We can tell them, we can show them, they will see it, they will hear it, but in the end it is what people believe that makes the difference. Open Source has not yet come to the point that decision makers and IT directors feel backed by the currently available software, the infrastructure and services suppliers. System integration in Open Source sucks big time, if I may be so blunt. There is more. If all the worldwide available Open Source service suppliers would have to service 1% of the enterprises worldwide, we would run short on capacity quickly. It is no use blaming decision makers as long as we ourselves (the Open minded) focus only on the positive effects of Open Innovation.
But we are getting there! Let us shift our attention more towards customers concerns about Open Source. These issues go way beyond software features, staffing and hiring suppliers: e.g. Total Cost of Operation, how to sell it to the boss, smooth integration, network of suppliers, training, and … building trust.
Using open source software is becomming an industry standard, however the most basic questions remain. That is compatibility of various open source licenses, and this is a very big legal issue. Let’s take for example an IT organisation, downloaded a sourcecode with a GPL component or licensed with GNU GPL. Now to make the required innovation it requires an EPL component or licensed using Eclipse Foundation’s EPL. The innovation will not be possible since EPL and GPL are not compatible licenses, meaning that the GPL license conditions are breached and that the originator of the GPL license can sue your organisation.
It made me cry. So many dreams, so many failures, is there really a company out there that can get past the crud and collaborate successfully? If so, hire me.
[...] I Interdependent ? By brunocornec Reading the brilliant article that Kartik Subbarao wrote recently on Open Source and Interdependent IT , I was questioning myself [...]
Very interesting Kartik, as usual. And always inspiring: http://brunocornec.wordpress.com/2009/09/12/am-i-interdependent/
Well written, well developed, well presented thesis, Kartik. As some of my peers on the HP Open Source and Linux Profession leadership team (past and present) have already mentioned, this resonates with our own experience. I experienced a particular moment of recognition in reading your description of the limitations we place on ourselves by reducing all decisions to monetary ones. Many of us in business will identify with the general Catch-22 mindset that says “We can’t develop this capability for the marketplace because there’s no demand, hence, no business justification, no future revenue stream”. (The obvious Catch-22 here is there’s no market because we haven’t developed the products(s) that would helpcreate, or at least grow the market.)
I hadn’t considered the Open Source model from this point of view (interdependence) before, but like so many other ideas that weave the fabric of this development model it seems intuitively obvious in retrospect. I suppose another aspect of this I find personally appealing, if occasionally frustrating, is that it reinforces the notion that this is a marathon, not a sprint. It’s a continuum that individuals and IT organizations alike can position themselves along at any given point in time, and change only infrequently appears to happen quickly. But change is the only true constant, and it’s inevitable given sufficient time. We’re making inroads with our own IT organization that will bear fruit, and I suspect we are approaching a tipping point. I’ll keep my fingers crossed.
A good model indeed! … Looking at your Dependent-Independent-Interdependent model, it reminds me of a line… “We are taking apart each task and sending it…to whomever can do it best… and then we are reassembling all the pieces.” – from Thomas Friedman’s ‘The World is Flat’. I’m trying to related it to the “Bottom Up” approach this book talks about. Having said that, I worry how so many versions and licences of a open source software (OSS) is maintained and integrated as rightly pointed out by Ian Vernon in his comments. What’s your take on that? What should be any IT organization’s considerations (benefits and losses) before thinking about OSS as a long term strategy if not immediate? Will you agree that any big organization (already having vendor relationship) should not go for OSS in entirety but only where required as this may take some time to mature?
> Looking at your Dependent-Independent-Interdependent
> model, it reminds me of a line… “We are taking apart
> each task and sending it…to whomever can do it
> best…and then we are reassembling all the pieces.”
> – from Thomas Friedman’s “The World is Flat”. I’m
> trying to related it to the “Bottom Up” approach this
> book talks about.
Yes, I agree that Tom Friedman does an excellent job of
explaining the emerging realities and possibilities of
the flat world. In fact, this same
delegation/specialization model is very common to Unix,
Linux and many other other open source projects. Good
interfaces defined by open standards, with each component
focused on its particular job, integrated effectively
across the board.
>Will you agree that any big organization (already having
>vendor relationship) should not go for OSS in entirety
>but only where required as this may take some time to
>mature?
I don’t think that open source is an all-or-nothing
proposition, and can certainly be implemented as a phased
approach. Adopting interdependent, open ways of working
throughout the areas of people, process, technology and
business is the broader goal. That will naturally
translate into a strategy of preferring (and contributing
to) open source software, but proprietary software can be
part of the mix too, if its value is well-understood.