The Simple Economics of Open Source

[Juergen A. Erhard]

----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

>>>>> "Neel" == Neel Krishnaswami <neelk at brick.cswv.com> writes:

    Neel> Will Ware <wware at world.std.com> wrote:
    >> Ed (elb at cfdrc.com) wrote:
    >> > ... I didn't think much of the article...
    >> > ...they gave the impression that programmers behave
    >> > somewhat like monkeys, motivated primarily by concerns
    >> > about group status and dominance...
    >> 
    >> They also mentioned, but immediately belittled, the possibility
    >> that altruism might be a real motivation. They may have been
    >> projecting their own thinking upon programmers in doing so. 

    Neel> One of the interesting things about this thread is that it has given
    Neel> me a bit of insight into what economics looks like to people who
    Neel> haven't internalized its assumptions. I'm afraid that I'm tainted
    Neel> enough that it no longer looks like the dismal science to me. :)

"Internalized its assumptions".  Well put... now hold that thought...

    Neel> Seriously, the rejection of altruism as a possible motive strikes me
    Neel> as a very reasonable decision. Altruism is generally not sufficient
    Neel> motive in other aspects of life -- [...]

Same goes for egoism... see below.

    Neel> Second, economists assume that everyone is basically self interested,
    Neel> including themselves -- it's a standard analytic assumption, not
    Neel> snobbery.

But it is not just a `basic analytic assumption' in most cases... most
people in the field, as you yourself have stated above, have
`internalized its assumptions'.  Now, you could argue that you didn't
mean it like *that*... but my impression of people in that field of
science[1] is that the *did* indeed internalize this... which means
that *everything*, ever single point of data that goes into an
analysis, into a study, is colored and filtered by this worldview.

Now, I think the fundamental flaw here is that people only see this in
black and white: it's either altruistic or egoistic.  "Okay, so it
might be some shade in between."  Which still is basically black and
white... just a mix of the two.

No, I think (and this thought just occurred to me, so it's pretty
fresh) that there's a third thing... it's the answer to the old
question asked of a mountaineers: "Why did you climb that mountain?".
"Well... because it was there."  Or, in other words, "because I had
to".[4]

Egoism is often equated with the profit motive these days (little
wonder in our money-based society...[2])

Now this is a nice explanation for many things... but not for all.
I'm certain that the greatest thinkers, the greatest musicians,
artists... the greatest innovators were *not* motivated by that...

For example, when Einstein wrote his famouse relativity
theories... did he do it for the money?  Well, certainly not (he was a
teacher at the time, I think, and did it in his spare time).

Did he do for fame?  Hmmm... I don't do something for fame that comes
years later... if I want fame, I want it *now*!

So... why did he do it?

Well, I think because he *had* *to*.

Some writer once said that there are books that one writes... and then
there are books that *demand* to be written.  It's something you
because you want to... but because you have to.

I think this can be compared to egoism and altruism like this:

  Egoism is "I get something".

  Altruism is "`They' get something".

  Xyzzy (for lack of a name[3]) is "I get *rid* of something".  Or "I
  get something of my chest".

Ranting-is-my-middle-name-(Chorus:-"Obviously!")-ly y'rs, J

[1] If it can be called a science... in the end, you have to deal with
people (because even big corporations are evantually directed by
people), and then you get into the uncertainty areas of psychology and
sociology (which are sciences, IMHO... they're just not as hard as
things like physics or chemistry (though some areas of physics are
even softer than psychology ;-)

[2] I can rant at length about that, too... ;-)

[3] Actually, I guess the old greeks probably had a word for *that*,
too...  I'm just not that well-read in (greek) philosophy... I just
dabble in it (because I must ;-)

[4] I'm sure someone has found some weird explanation that makes this
something egoistical...

- -- 
Jürgen A. Erhard      eMail: jae at ilk.de      phone: (GERMANY) 0721 27326
     MARS: http://members.tripod.com/Juergen_Erhard/mars_index.html
                    "Ever wonder why the SAME PEOPLE
      make up ALL the conspiracy theories?" -- Michael K. Johnson
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Use Mailcrypt and GnuPG <http://www.gnupg.org/>

iEYEARECAAYFAjkBH84ACgkQN0B+CS56qs256ACeKvBlNlglVqK2jsWsMCjUV/IH
Hm4An2VP08D5RFccgGmGw4FohYwvPHHg
=SV1u
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----