I’m a problem solver. A troubleshooter.
Early Influences
Ever since idolizing Spock at the tender age of 5 while watching Star Trek reruns in the ’80s, I’ve sought to embrace logical thought and rational thinking. This path found focus some years later when I discovered computers and set out to learn how to program them. Beginning with BASIC on my Tandy 1000, computers and programming became both my creative outlet and the means through which I nurtured my problem-solving skills. Any of the elementary school kids who bore witness to my writing small programs on the chalkboard for “Show and Tell” were likely unsurprised that my course into software engineering was all but determined before I was even 12.
Jump forward several more years and the internet began to rise. This exposed me to online roleplaying games called MUDs and afforded me the opportunity to dabble in C/C++ as a coder for them. Meanwhile I took advantage of the free GeoCities to begin building websites and learning HTML and Javascript. Through my position as Vice- and then Co-President of my High School Drama Club, I brought in technology to give the club its first dedicated website. Through my involvement in my school’s journalism class, I brought technology in to improve layouts and article structures.
On my 16th birthday I got my first job working for Egghead Software. Then, when Egghead Software downsized, I went to CompUSA. From there I transitioned to my first technical support job, providing PC phone support for CircuitCity. When they downsized it was back to technology sales at Staples. Then, on the night I graduated from high school, I got my first full time job, returning to phone-based technical support for Global Crossing. Much to my mother’s disapproval I never attended more than a few college courses, but I’d found a unique window of opportunity to spring into my career early and fast. And while I may regret being behind on some terminology that college would have certainly introduced me to, I don’t regret focusing on my career when I did.
For the next 20 years I honed my professional skills, often as a lone-wolf software engineer charged with architecting, full stack development, and application support. I took pride in being able to effectively communicate with, and understand the needs of various stakeholders from across business verticals. I built sales systems, billing systems, analytics systems — and often with little outside guidance. When I found problems I pursued their solutions, whether they were software-related or business-related. This was especially true while in the employ of Limelight Networks where I worked for an accumulative 13 years.
And I still watch Star Trek.
So when I say I’m a problem solver it isn’t a cursory summation. For over three decades I’ve put myself in front of problems, defined them, picked them apart, and have either solved them myself, proposed solutions for others to enact, or coordinated groups to solve them. It’s my entertainment, my hobby, and my profession. It’s the single most direct way I can define who I am.
Going Farther
But there still is more. Being introspective, I continually look at how I think, process information, and respond.
I saw a random meme on Facebook implying that a desire to debate issues online (or argue, if you prefer) is something a person with a philosophical mind may actively seek and enjoy. Well, I do enjoy a good argument. I’m not sure if it’s presumptuous, but I’m inclined to say I have a philosophical mind. Not only do I actively search for problems to solve and reduce them to their principles and base components, but in doing so I’ve found that I see things from perspectives many people don’t; more abstract. I often find myself wondering about things others simply take for granted, or seeking to improve situations people don’t recognize might benefit from it.
I’m Not a Robot
But I’m not a robot. Though logic guides my problem solving and influences my arguments, it’s tempered by a moral code that would see society strong and its members happy and successful. Respect is extended to strangers by default, but abandoned quickly in the face of evidence that that stranger would seek to harm others, or support causes that would. I approach discussions with a willingness to respectfully teach (complete with cited sources), but little tolerance for those who would remain willfully ignorant or undermine the teaching of others.
Much like a robot may be, I try to be literal and precise in my use of words. Whether it be “socialism” or “liberal”, I will attempt to use words as dictionaries define them to be used, even if it’s contrary to how laymen may assume them to be used in an argument. But I’m also a lingual pragmatist. If a person clearly defines their own meaning, then I will assume they mean that when they use the word. As a programmer, I fully recognize that a variable’s value can change. Context always matters.
That being said, I don’t have much tolerance towards systemic propaganda that deliberately abuses and exploits words to misrepresent individuals’ ideas. Those are attempts to undermine discourse, usually to protect the incorrect ideas of opportunists from being challenged by facts.
How I Approach Arguments
Ignorance vs. Stupidity
I have no problem with ignorance. I don’t expect everybody to know everything. I’m also happy to teach, or point people towards instructive websites or papers. There are educational points I’ve made dozens of times, over and over, in the hopes that even one or two viewers of an argument may learn something.
What I don’t tolerate, however, is stupidity. If you refuse to learn, you’re stupid. If you seek to push ignorant beliefs onto others, you’re stupid. If you seek to propagate your ignorance or diminish the teaching of others, you’re fundamentally stupid.
And I have no time for stupid. If you cross that threshold from ignorance to stupidity, expect no mercy or quarter. That’s the switch that, when flipped, brings out a very different me.
Hypocrites, False Equivalences, and Whataboutisms
I can’t stand hypocrites. What I can’t stand even more are those who accuse people of being hypocrites who aren’t. Hypocrisy is defined by claiming to have moral standards a person then contradicts. But far too often, people are accused of being hypocrites when they haven’t actually contradicted their moral standard. The accuser simply hasn’t taken the time to recognize the nuance of their moral standards, or hasn’t taken the time to recognize the variance in factors surrounding the situation. Context always matters.
Along that same vein, people (dare I say “idiots”?) will commonly insist that something is okay or justified because it’s already happened, when there are substantial differences in the environments or repercussions surrounding Instance A and Instance B. Context. Always. Matters.
And then you have those who will combine false equivalences with accusations of hypocrisy, such as insisting it’s alright for a Republican to do something because a Democrat has. Besides being a whataboutism (a logical fallacy), they often assume equivalence where there isn’t, and indirectly accuse anyone who suggests otherwise of being hypocrites! The trifecta of ridiculousness that I have zero tolerance for.
Those Who Yell “Liar!”
Up there with those who falsely accuse people of hypocrisy are those who falsely accuse people of lying. Definitions matter. Liars, by definition, deliberately mislead. Stating a falsehood, alone, does not a liar make. If you’re going to accuse a person of being a liar then you’d better damn well have some compelling evidence that they’ve deliberately mislead.
Where There’s Smoke, There’s Fire
Stop saying that. It isn’t true. The smoke points of substances are commonly lower than their flash points. Use sticks to start a fire and there’s always smoke before that first spark.
Also, the egg clearly came first. Seriously. Think about things before you assume they’re true.
Final Thoughts
While much of that may have me sounding like a hard-ass, most of these traits only apply to online discourse. In person I’m rather non-confrontational and diplomatic, as I try to initially be online. But online, I’m far less reserved when in the company of stupidity. There are too many problems in the world in need of solutions for stupid people to distract and obstruct. So if you want to try to block a problem from being solved or otherwise hamper productive debate to build solutions, you should probably keep out of my way. I will roll right over you.