Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

IT LONER VS COMMUNITY

0 helpful
52 replies

by fluxit 1 view

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

I guess I should begin by asking what defines a loner? There are many thoughts. However, there are two distinct definitions that break out from all the others. They are:

1. A person who is socially disfunctional and has behavioral issues that affect his daily life.

-OR-

2. A person who is so confident, self-assured, and self-sufficient that no organized activity or group is fitting or even necessary in thier daily life.

The purpose of any community or social dependence is the distribution of labor and emotional confirmation in the performance of social morays. Therefore, any societal view of a loner is such to outcast them as misfits in some way. Most often in a derrogatory and perverse characterization.

So who is the genius with computers who writes sophisticated viri, hacks systems with ease, or builds computer controller bots that find their way into highly secure systems? What defines him? Why is he such a societal misfit if infact he is? Does thier intelligence exceed that of a collective of minds? Is the IT loner actually a community of its own linked by computers and the internet? Is it possible that there are loners here in this forum? Would they be willing to express themselves? Would we know if they are?

What do you think?

52 replies

by apotheon

There's a distinct difference between a person with antisocial personality disorder and an introverted person. Don't confuse the two. I'm an introvert by nature, though I seem to be pretty good at pretending otherwise. I can be very social at times, but there will always be times when I prefer to be alone, often for very long periods of time. Even when it's fun, being socially very active can be extremely draining for an introvert.

Having an introverted personality can often be very conducive to supporting the skillset of the programmer, particularly in the traditional "hacker" sense of the term.

That's "hacker", as in the first three definitions from this link:
http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/H/hacker.html

Crackers, script kiddies, and other destructive, unethical lowlifes of the Internet are nothing like that. They fall into the "antisocial personality disorder" range of a "loner". Don't try to romanticize such people. Doing so only makes you look like a completely credulous, media-fed airhead. The true "hacker" luminaries of the computing world (people like ES Raymond, Larry Wall, and others of that ilk) are very literate (don't use "l33tsp34k"), extremely conscious and respectful of the privacy of others, and quite constructive in their endeavors (as opposed to destructive).

Movies and other nonsense treatments of computer culture that glamorize system cracking and malicious code writing are lying to you. Nobody becomes famous and respected (under a pseudonym or otherwise) by being a spoiled brat who hurts others for fun.

It doesn't take any kind of genius to write a computer virus, successfully execute phishing attacks, and otherwise make a dangerous nuisance of yourself.

Collectives don't have intelligence. What they have is a social interconnection of exchanges for mutual benefit. Individuals make up social networks, and individuals benefit from them. You don't have to hate or oppose social networks to be an individualist. In fact, that sort of self-centered behavior is more suited to a tantrum than free thought. An individualist isn't someone who shuns peaceful contact with others out of some misguided, clueless rebellion. An individualist is someone who is uncompromisingly true to him or her self, unswerving in his or her personal honor and integrity, and always respectful of the boundaries of the rights of others (including privacy).

Malicious abusers of the power provided by computer networks aren't any more intelligent than anyone else. In fact, that sort of behavior is evidence more of immaturity, underdeveloped ethical standards, and self-centered willful ignorance. It might also be a sign of nothing more complex than simple stupidity.

In many ways, I'm a "loner". I'm nothing like the sort of "loner" you seem to be trying to paint a picture of with your post, though.

Again: Don't glorify destructive, unethical behavior. If you want respect, or want to prove something (even if only to yourself), do so in a constructive manner. Learn skills and write software that will get you a job instead of a jail sentence.

by fluxit

If you ask most people in offices today about thier IT guy their remarks will center not on how well he knows IT but how well he works with people. The remarks generally will be either he is a jerk or a great guy based on how he solves thier system problems. Their problems are mostly MS Office issues like minor printing or formatting that annoy may skilled IT people.

"Collectives don't have intelligence." There is a different thought on this point. Crowds (collectives) have a significant amount of intelligence that is far more accurate than one individual and significantly more informed than any group of highly educated people. Check out this book: 'The Wisdom of Crowds' by James Surowiecki.

So what are the personality traits of someone who is as you define it?

by apotheon

Collectives don't have intelligence. Collectives contain individuals with intelligence.

"A person is smart. People are stupid." I recommend you do some research on the term "groupthink". There have been a great many studies conducted where the effectiveness of collective decision-making was evaluated, and it pretty much universally comes out as mediocre at best.

by jdclyde

If you are in direct contact with customers (all end users are the customers of IT) then you have to have the people skills to work with them.

Being polite to all customers and coworkers is not an option. Chosing to spend more time with the group is an option you can make without having to alienate everyone around you.

If you get annoyed with what you feel is a dumb question then you are supporting the wrong people.

Has nothing to do with being a loner or not. I work with a group of people, but take my projects back to my office to get done. Will aproach others if I need assistance and they do the same with me.

by dc_guy

These terms have various meanings depending on the paradigm of the human spirit one uses -- Freud's, Jung's, etc.

The one most commonly used now is the definition implicit in the Meyers-Briggs test that virtually everyone has taken.

An extrovert is a person who gains energy by interacting with a group of people. An introvert is one who loses energy and eventually needs to spend time alone to recharge.

Both extroverts and introverts can enjoy working with others and may be good at it. But introverts require more alone-time in order to replace the energy they lose during the group activity.

Most IT jobs involve a lot of time working alone, no matter how gregarious the title may sound. Even help desk people often have to go offline and do research to solve people's problems. So there is plenty of room in this profession for both types of personalities.

by tomsal

I think DC_Guy's definitions of what makes one introverted vs. extroverted is spot on.

I fully agree -- that extroverts gain energy from the social activity they are involved in -- they strive it. Whereas their "nemisis" the introvert, likes to have fun with social groups too -- however not to nearly the same extent or duration; as they "lose" energy from this and only re-charge with some "alone time".

I am an introvert. And the above describes me to a "t" with regards to how I am/handle social groups.

Sure I like to have fun with folks, get out, etc. etc. however I don't have the deep seated need that it seems extroverts do for social interaction. I can do fine with just social activity in small doses.

I value time alone HIGHLY (especially because its so rare anymore).

by fluxit

Introvertness or extrovertness is a quality a loner may possess in varying degrees.

So it appears that a IT loner is one who interacts with crowds/groups but handles it in a introverted way? Is that because he is socially dysfunctional in some way?

by admin

"So who is the genius with computers who writes sophisticated viri, hacks systems with ease, or builds computer controller bots that find their way into highly secure systems?"

It's a popular view, but quite erroneous that these folks are loners. Check out IRC sometime amoung other things. Groups always outperform individuals. One of the biggest driving forces behind many of these acts is community based.

:)

by apotheon

Groups do not always outperform individuals. In fact, the opposite is usually true. The only way a group effort can effectively outperform an individual effort consistently, and for more than a few minutes, is if it is organized and directed by a strong individual leader. I recommend doing some Google research on the term "groupthink" for more details.

by awfernald

The best of ideas/plans are generally based upon one person pulling together the ideas from many, and actually culling the best of the ideas and making a plan that utilizes them to solve the current dilemma.

Even when I was in my prime, my best ideas were almost always an amalgamation of ideas from other sources. I'm sure that I have had my own original ideas before, however, in most cases, they were based upon being able to take tidbits of information from other people and tie them into a cohesive plan.

by protiusx

Community? Perhaps a gang of kids seeing who could write the most sophisticated script or crack but 99% of these people are under 25 years old and either motivated by personal reasons (?gosh let?s see what I can do? graduates to ?Look what I can do!?) to monetary reasons. Crackers and phreakers are not kids but are young, smart, technologically sophisticated and are driven to do what they do the same way a burglar is. Its theft; nothing new. To think that these people are joined together under some quasi-communistic banner protesting the suffering of the masses is ludicrous (and I?m not talking about the rapper).

by mrafrohead

I, as my wife would put it, am a loner...

The ironic part is I thrive online... I love it. I really don't care for people in general. I think that they are rude, selfish, uncaring. I don't care to talk to them. I dont' like their reactions, smirks, body language, etc... I HATE their prejudice... And most of that nonsense doesn't exist when it's just you and your keyboard.

Other than my family, I have two real life friends. One at work, and one left from high school.

Here's the kicker... I'm probably more of a 1. I don't do well in social functions anymore. I think that I fried too much when I was younger. I don't do crowds anymore. They're overwhelming. The ironic part is when I was in school (high school) I was usually the life of the party. I knew EVERYONE and everyone knew me, or at least knew who I was. I couldn't walk down a hallway without seeing at least a dozen "friends".

Online, I get along very well with a small group of friends. We do all kinds of stuff, and when there's a task at hand, we all work together very well to defeat it. And for the most part, we're good at what we do.

To answer your question about who writes all of the stuff. From my POV - I would think that it's the st0ned pothead pounding his techno in his blacklit room with tweaker lights... Or it could be the geek amped up on Jolt and watching porno...

The point is, it could be anyone. Remember when DoD got busted? A few of their members were high ranking officials up the Corporate chain... You'da never guessed it...

I guess the moral of the story, is there is no mold of the hacker/cracker. They're all different in their own ways. Their main commonality is that they have a similar hobby or interest. That would be what links them together, other than that, who knows...

The groups exist because each person has their strong suits. We count on each other for support and to do what we are not able to. But for those few who are truly on their own, I would guess it's because their intellect has so far surpassed the rest of us that they don't "need" anyone else for anything because they can just do it all on their own...

Mrafrohead

by fluxit

the same as the wisdom of a crowd. Group think is the outcome of a bunch of people who get together for the purpose of leveraging intellectual capital and make assumptions that influence the outcome of the groups thinking.

Wisdom a crowd is the result of a highly diversified population or large collective and is the outcome of 'natural order' in which the collective intelligence far exceeds that of any single person or group leveraged for intellectual capital.

A good example, the US navy lost a sub at sea and needed to recover it. Several groups were assembled having various focuses and experts. Each made its recommendation on where to find the sub. The Commander in charge of the recovery took each groups results and used a mathematical probability principle called Bayes Theorem. They found the sub being off by only a small fraction. But each of the groups were significantly off individually. This seems to support that large populations have a collective intelligence beyond that of any expert group or individual.

by apotheon

What that actually shows is that the commander was able to make good decisions with the information he got from others.

by fluxit

He was able to gather the information from a several groups and experts who were very far from the truth in thier estimations individually. But because of the diversity across all these groups and experts the collective judgement or decision was more accurate.

This kind of 'think' can be seen in all kinds of systems where large diversified populations steer outcomes and decisions.

by awfernald

But where would the commander have placed the location of the downed submarine if he had no information from other sources?

Though you can say this is an individual sign of genius, it is the application of collective knowledge applied through an individual.

by fluxit

I am surprised that so many people call themselves loners in thier postings. It is such an extroverted thing to do.

by apotheon

You obviously started out with a foregone conclusion in mind and have only been looking for people to agree with you. Now that people aren't agreeing, you're acting like nobody else has anything to offer that you didn't already come up with. Somehow, you're not managing to impress me.

by fluxit

your postings. It is extroverted to proclaim to be a loner which is not a loner character trait per psychological definitions.

by awfernald

Are you trying to say that loners don't have anything productive to say? Or are you trying to say that loners must be introverts? Or that loners just won't post (in an environment that can be considered relatively anonymous and "safe" from that infection we call people ;) ?

Maybe a loner is such by choice? Maybe a loner is tired of dealing with the petty games that a lot of people tend to play? Maybe a loner feels himself above/below the rest of the crowd and thus shies away from it to avoid being the one who is "different"?

by fluxit

People are an infection. The sounds sociopathic? Your comments seem to point towards an individual who is affected on a daily basis by routine social interactions driving his loner state.

by vltiii

Being a loner doesn't mean isolating oneself from all contact with others. Posting here is a form of interaction which in many cases (I presume) is from the privacy of ones own computer be it at work or from home. Interacting via message boards is in reality an excellent avenue for those that do prefer to be alone. Privacy is maintained while at the same time allowing contact with the outside world.

by olprof67

Show me a man or woman who lives within themself, and I'll show you a saint.

Give me two and they'll fall in love.

Three, and you'll have that charming thing we call "society".

Four, and they'll build a pyramid.

Five, and you'll have the first outcast.

Six, and they'll re-invent warfare within three weeks.

Man may have been made in the image of God, but human society seems determined to take the form of His opposite number.

(Stephen King - "The Stand")

by fluxit

Will there be future IT people like JME Baudot or Alexander Graham Bell who develop, discover, and design new technologies?

Will there be lone inventors? Or is the future of IT the outcome of collective participation by a large population of techies? For example, all these open source consortiums, Request For Comments, or IEEE Boards.

by awfernald

There is a significant difference between being a "loner" and being an "introvert".

I would generally be called a loner because I prefer to work alone, resolve issues alone, and only refer to outside assistance when necessary. This is by choice.

At the times when I am put in a group situation, I would be willing to bet that almost everyone in that group would say that I am a very outgoing and open individual. Thus, I am not an "introvert".

I don't socialize; I don't attend office parties; I can count on one hand the number of people I call friend; I don't share feelings; and in all cases, I try to keep everything professional.

HOWEVER!!! (yes you have to read part two)....

When I was working PC support, most clients preferred that I respond to their issues because:
a) I could get the problem resolved;
b) I was courteous and respectful; and
c) I was not condescending about computer skills.

When I was working in the software development side of IT, clients preferred to work with me because:
a) I listened to what THEY wanted;
b) I was courteous and respectful; and
c) I created software application according to how they could/would use it (while conforming to the SDLC)

I could go into more details about when I've been filling positions of system architecture, IT Supervisor, CIO, IT Consultant, etc... however, suffice it to summarize the following:

In all positions I have ever held, being a "loner" was neither a good nor a bad thing when dealing with end-users/clients. Dealing with your own chain-of-command/peers is a totally different matter.

The IT loner "community" I believe does not exist. Many people who are introverts do indeed hide behind their computers and establish their own world to be anonymous in, however, most loners (I would assume) do not feel the need to have even this level of interaction.

I could ramble on for a long time on the subject of loners and their "advantages/disadvantages" in our community. I could also draw many conclusions as to causes of "isolationism" in loners from my own experiences. However, now is not the time, nor the place.

by fluxit

how do IT loners define themselves. The clinical definition of a loner is different than what IT people think a loner is.

IT people seem to think that alone time at varying amounts to conduct work is a quality trait of a loner. Clinical definitions seem to focus on the emotional reason or state a person needs alone time.

by apotheon

There is no such thing as a clinical definition of a loner. "Loner" isn't a clinical term.

by fluxit

I was making a contrast between views. Professionals like Dr. Laura, Dr. Phil, and Dr. Ruth have clinical definitions of people and thier character traits. It so happens that a 'Loner' has a clinical definition.

My intention is not to be Dr. Laura just contrast views as a talking point.

by house

I dropped a never ending cycle of substance abuse and partying to persue my interest in self education. I smartened up - to attend school, learn a few things, fill in the holes, and get my career on track.

Some of my friends think that I have retreated to an antisocial state where I do not leave the house. This is far from the truth. Everyday, I am pursuing greater knowledge.

Every now and then, I will make an appearance just to keep in touch with my buddies.

Personally, I might fall into category number 2. I am self sufficient, confident, and (now) career driven. I take part in activities that promote my professional relations. I don't want to insult my friends, but I can't live the rest of my life in a sedated stupor. I am interested in Information Technology and that is a full time job outside of work.

I enjoy the feeling of being settled at home. Life is a bit more relaxing now.

by apotheon

My point isn't that people can't interact for greater benefit than they'd get from acting alone. My point is that individuals can make better decisions than group decisions.

An individual decision-maker with the resources of a group will make better decisions, all else being equal, than an individual alone or a group without an individual decision-maker. The reason for that is simple: individuals make decisions, not groups. When a group seems to be making a decision, what's actually happening is that each individual in the group is making the decision to sacrifice efficiency and effectiveness in exchange for consensus. What appears to be group decision making is actually nothing more than aggregate compromise.

If an individual decision-maker has the final word, and can draw on the information, knowledge, and experience of subordinate group members, the decisions made will maximize the potential of the individual. If a group has to make consensus (or near-consensus) decisions, those decisions will in all categories be dragged down to the level of the least common denominator.

by fluxit

Wisdom of Crowds by James Surowiecki

In this endlessly fascinating book, New Yorker columnist James Surowiecki explores a deceptively simple idea that has profound implications: large groups of people are smarter than an elite few, no matter how brilliant?better at solving problems, fostering innovation, coming to wise decisions, even predicting the future.

This seemingly counterintuitive notion has endless and major ramifications for how businesses operate, how knowledge is advanced, how economies are (or should be) organized and how we live our daily lives. With seemingly boundless erudition and in delightfully clear prose, Surowiecki ranges across fields as diverse as popular culture, psychology, ant biology, economic behaviorism, artificial intelligence, military history and political theory to show just how this principle operates in the real world.

Despite the sophistication of his arguments, Surowiecki presents them in a wonderfully entertaining manner. The examples he uses are all down-to-earth, surprising, and fun to ponder.

The Wisdom of Crowds is a brilliant but accessible biography of an idea, one with important lessons for how we live our lives, select our leaders, conduct our business, and think about our world.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=gF4ea7aAaX&isbn=0385503865&itm=1

by apotheon

1. You should credit the author of a quoted passage at the point where you quote it, even if the passage is only a review of another author's work.

2. The guy may be a great writer, but his precept is nothing but a fancy idea. Not only do I find it to be fanciful at best, and more likely ludicrous, but it runs counter to decades of research in psychology, both group and individual, as well as running counter to all logic if you simply accept human beings as individuals. Considering that I'm utterly convinced of my own existence, and not so convinced of yours, it should be obvious that I will likely find any rejection of human beings as individuals to be absurd.

Pestering me with preposterous notions of collective "intelligence" won't get you anywhere. You read one book, and think yourself an expert.

by fluxit

1. The author was quoted.

2. I read this book. You did not. I also have some background in this topic other than this book.

3. You apparntly feel you are 'losing' and resort to projection of fault on me. How immature.

by awfernald

First off, the ;) means 'tongue in cheek', i.e. not to be taken seriously. :) So the people are an infection comment was not meant to be taken seriously.

Anyways, I would agree with the part about the routine social interactions driving a loners state of mind.

It's not possible to go into the why's or the how's here, however, we can at least attempt to share the results.

In every office, politics seems to play a major role. So what is the goal of office politics? If you can answer that question, then you are halfway to the answer of what generates an office "loner". This will not necessarily be a person we would call a "loner" outside of the office, but I believe that it is the type of loner that was being addressed in the original topic of this thread.

Once I see your response, I'll let you know what the connection is between office politics and being a loner (unless you ruin the surprise).

by awfernald

The word clique indicates a group of people, however, I submit that a more apt word would be a team. Each team has their leader, and the goal of the members of that team is to raise the power of their leader while simultaneously being pulled up behind him/her, thus raising their own apparent power.

Unfortunately, in office politics, there are normally more than two teams, and many people are left out of the political disputes because:

a) They opt to not directly support any team;
b) They haven't yet been picked by a team;
c) They have been "booted" from a team through their actions/inactions.

We'll save the person in situation 'a' for last as he is our "loner".

The person in situation 'b' is relatively safe from a direct attack because of their anonymity. People from the different teams don't yet know their concerns/capabilities/history, and thus are more apt to try and "win" that person to their side. In a few cases, they may be "attacked" by a team, but this will usually result in protection being offered by an opposing team.

The person in situation 'c' is relatively safe as well, as people from other teams will either choose to recruit him/her to their side, or will ignore him/her completely as the persons original team will eventually welcome him/her back with open arms.

However, the person in situation 'a' is open to attacks from all sides. In this case, you have a person who MUST be able to defend their own actions/inactions/plans/policies etc... This person is (in the context of this thread) a loner.

Is this person anti-social? not really. Is this person good at his job? he/she MUST be! Does this person do well with customers/clients? probably.

This loner is simply someone who is there to do a job the best he/she can, and who is not interested in becoming involved in the various power struggles going on in the organization. Each side can use this person to their advantage, but this person generally will help ALL teams if asked.

Over time, this person is seriously affected by office politics, but only for the reason that the different "teams" that are out there start to sense a "threat" to their power base in this person. And since he/she is not on THEIR team, then they must be against their team.

For some reason, office politic teams cannot seem to realize that 'loners' like this are not there to take their power away, but rather, if used appropriately, can significantly enhance the power the teams currently have.

I'm not sure if what I have explained made any sense (to me it makes perfect sense), however, I have tried to explain it as best I can. Maybe the purpose of this post is simply to let people out there know, that people who don't want to get involved in politics are much better to be USED by the people for their political gains, then attacked for those same political gains.

Take what you can from it :)

by awfernald

Didn't think we were going to go into "clinical definitions" in this thread when it was started out with some obviously non-clinical references.

Let's all agree to keep the shrink speak out and keep the discussion fun rather than all dry and boring!

by apotheon

1. You named the author of the book, but not the author of the review. A random passer-by that doesn't follow your link and read closely might think YOU wrote that review (if this passer-by doesn't notice that the review's author has better spelling and grammar skills than you).

2. Oooh. And?

3. Go on. Make another ad hominem attack. Build another straw man so you can knock it down.

by fluxit

1. Go follow the link to the book and publisher. That is a pretty good reference.

2. And... Don't talk out of your butt. It shows

3. It was an observation on YOUR behavior.

by apotheon

1. I did. That's not my point.

2&3. Since you've gone to juvenile insults and failed to try to have an actual conversation, I'll just ignore these topics from here on.

by apotheon

Are those are the "professionals" you respect? That explains a lot about your skewed notions.

by fluxit

Those are ones you identify with. I don't think you know about Pimbrahm and others.

by vltiii

Let me see if I got this straight. If an opinion is counter to yours it's skewed? That defensive position would lead me to believe that what they speak of is most likely right on the mark. Regardless of whether you agree with their views or not they are credentialed "professionals" each with many years of experience.

by apotheon

They're pop psychology spotlight seekers. There's some question about whether Phil is really any kind of doctor, too, as I recall. Laura Schlessinger is so full of it she can't even keep her ditherings straight, and contradicts herself constantly. These are people with years of experience in getting paid to appeal to the baser, voyeuristic natures of their audiences.

I've heard many opinions that conflict with my own that don't come off like they're screwed on backwards, but Mr. Miami's opinions aren't among them.

by house

1. You... back to your corner.

2. Miami... back to your corner.

3. Round four... [i]DING! DING![/i]

Is this one going the distance?

Apotheon: Insulting somebody's English skills is "below the belt".

Miami: You should be more open to feedback.

by apotheon

You're right. Mea culpa. He just wasn't making any actual points, so there wasn't anything else to argue against.

by maecuff

as I read this thread..I'm a loner, Dotty, a rebel. There are things about me you wouldn't understand..things you couldn't understand..things you shouldn't understand..

by awfernald

there might even be things you might not want to understand ;) sounds like a plan to me :)

by maecuff

That came from PeeWee's big adventure. I know it's a stupid movie, but it makes me laugh.

by lonersrock

For me Friendship is not a necessity but as a human being we need to share out thoughts and feeling through something, whether by friends, journals, music, so on.. IMO a loner is a person (and is often intelligent) who's just comfortable and confident for being himself without trying to fit in by expecting acceptance from others. And IT Loners and Loner Artists are the coolest among other kinds of Loners because they express themselves through their work and make money from it. It would be fun if all loners would stick together as a one big happy loner family though, like on www.facebook.com group, myspace, or www.loners-club, and so on.

This discussion is closed to new replies.