Regression to the Mean...Spirited

Malcolm Gladwell is a fabulously successful journalist. He's written blockbuster books: The Tipping Point, Blink, Outliers, and What The Dog Saw. I find them both interesting and entertaining. Gladwell delivers a product that provides value and he's reaped the appropriate rewards. A heartwarming tale of success, no? Not so fast, grasshopper...

Gladwell has more than his share of critics. Some, of course, are merely cranks with their conspiracy theories that Gladwell is in the employ of Someone Sinister (Trilateral Commission, perhaps?). But others at least feel more substantial.

Now, I recognize that some of this is valid criticism. In writing popular books on topics of considerable depth, Gladwell runs the risk of overgeneralizing, simplifying, and missing subtle points that might undermine his conclusions. But, there's something else going on -- and it's not just with best-selling authors, but with anyone who goes too far, too fast. I've seen this in programming communities, too. The cycle goes something like this:

1. Joe offers something (ideas, code, etc.) that a significant number of people find valuable.

2. Joe receives rewards because of this. That can take the shape of money, fame, praise, inclusion in exclusive groups, etc.

3. Joe incites envy, then jealousy from a vocal minority. That expresses itself as criticism, sniping, and snide comments. Small points of disagreement are magnified. Where repudiation itself is not possible, simple doubt may suffice. FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) are not confined to corporations, after all.

4. The majority community remains silent--perhaps unsure of what to do, perhaps afraid to be the next victim of the acid tongues of the vocal minority.

5. Joe is puzzled. He may very well have offered something initially simply to help -- or he may have other motives: we simply can't know. Joe wonders why he's being attacked.

6. Joe may decide on one of several responses -- the most common ones aren't terribly attractive:

a. Joe may fight the "haters" head on. The problem? Joe has legitimized them by descending to their level. And, since their real criticism of him is less about substantial issues and more about jealousy, no counter-arguments can possibly prevail. The haters don't want illumination; they want to replace Joe.

b. Joe can wait for others to defend him. After all, in this scenario, many have benefitted from his largesse. Good luck on this, Joe.

c. Joe can lower his public profile. In so doing, Joe (perhaps unconsciously) understands that the attacks are about bringing himdown. Joe may hope that by being more humble, he will avert the ill-will shown to him. The results: he contributes less and the community that derived value from his contributions is short-changed.

4. And, finally, the cycle begins again, but with Bob taking the place of Joe.

I've watched this phenomena occur in multiple contexts. It's easy enough for us to say, "Toughen up, there, Joe: sticks and stones may break your bones, but words will never hurt you." Henry Kissinger once famously remarked, "University politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small." But that ignores that in reputation-based value systems (such as exist in universities and programming communities) words that damage reputations, do indeed hurt.

I fear the only answer may never occur: the community itself, recognizing a threat to its well-being from this vocal minority, takes up Joe's cause because they understand that allowing stone-throwing endangers the health of the entire community.