This blog typically focuses on technical matters - software architecture, deployment strategies, and the occasional deep dive into systems design. While I've shared personal musings before, I've never ventured quite this deep into the waters of self-reflection and social commentary.
What follows is perhaps the most personal piece I've written to date. It emerged, almost unbidden, from a long-standing tension between my nature and the prevailing winds of our time. While it may seem far removed from my usual technical discussions, I've come to realize that the philosophy underlying software freedom - particularly in the open-source world - is inextricably linked to the broader questions of personal freedom and the vital role of disagreeable personalities (my unhappy burden) in defending it.
Consider this both a warning and an invitation: we're about to venture far from the comfortable waters of technical discourse, into the depths of personality, purpose, and the preservation of freedom itself.
The Misunderstood Guardians
I have felt compelled to write on this topic for some time now. While I am not a professional psychologist, I speak from a lifetime of experience as someone measured within the 1st percentile in agreeableness - in other words, I am as disagreeable as a person can be, according to the science of personality.
This often surprises those who know me well, largely due to common misconceptions about what being disagreeable truly means. Many picture a disagreeable personality as arrogantly argumentative or utterly closed-minded. While such individuals exist, this reductionist view lies at the root of many issues plaguing our modern "polite" society.
In the Big 5 personality test, agreeableness (or lack thereof) is measured separately from openness. One can be highly disagreeable while maintaining high openness to experience. The stereotype of a closed-minded disagreeable person typically reflects someone low in both traits. As someone in the 97th percentile for openness and the 1st for agreeableness, I am essentially destined to be perpetually misunderstood. It has become an axiom of my existence.
This post represents part of my journey to embrace my nature, after spending years either misunderstanding or actively loathing it. I've learned to trust my perspective through painful experience - having ignored my own intuition countless times, only to watch opportunities pass me by, Bitcoin in 2008 being just one particularly stark example. Yet I'm not writing this for myself - a private journal would suffice for that purpose. I'm sharing this publicly because of a crucial truth: there seems to be a chronic epidemic of self-loathing and depression, particularly among disagreeable types, especially in a modern western culture that elevates "kindness" even above accuracy and truth.
But there's an even graver concern: the world depends on disagreeable personalities to defend individual freedom. The war on "meanness" is, in its final analysis, a war on freedom itself. This conclusion, while perhaps underappreciated, should be self-evident. It takes someone fundamentally different - someone who places the integrity of their beliefs above powerful social influences - to defend the freedoms that western society has come to take for granted. Someone willing to endure any punishment before conceding to beliefs they know to be misguided is, by definition, quite rare.
Freedom, contrary to our privileged experience, is not humanity's natural state. If current trends toward techno-feudalism are any indication, it may not remain our reality much longer.
This isn't merely philosophical speculation - the erosion of freedom is happening in real time, even in spaces supposedly dedicated to it. Take the open-source software ecosystem, a realm I deeply cherish. We're witnessing its very foundations being eroded by an insidious "daddy knows best" mentality, manifesting through oppressive Codes of Conduct that fundamentally contradict the freedom-loving philosophy that birthed the movement. The tragic irony is that many who claim to champion inclusivity are actually enforcing a new kind of conformity, one that would have stifled the very innovations they now take for granted. While I intend to explore this particular battle in far greater depth in a dedicated piece - as it deserves no less - this example illustrates why it's more crucial than ever to defend those who often appear as society's most misunderstood, underappreciated, and sadly, most miserable individuals.
Beyond the Boxes
Being highly disagreeable isn't my only outlier in the Big 5, but it's become one of the most defining aspects of my personality. Why this amateur obsession with personality? Because modern personality science has finally given concrete form to what Socrates understood millennia ago when he declared "know thyself" - or more starkly: "the unexamined life is not worth living." What the ancients intuited through philosophy, we now measure through science: that understanding one's fundamental nature isn't merely philosophical luxury - it's survival.
I've lived this truth quite literally, having spent the first chapter of my adulthood in complete ignorance of my nature - at best ashamed, at worst trying to be something I simply wasn't. My high openness means I often share things that perhaps I shouldn't. Even now, with greater self-understanding forged through life's trials, doubts and struggles persist. There are always more battles to conquer, more mysteries to unravel.
It doesn't get easier, but I cannot emphasize enough the vital importance of understanding one's place in it all. Life is hard - mine always has been and likely always will be. Facing such difficulty without self-understanding is unbearable. Even now, with clearer purpose and identity than ever before, it remains challenging. Having high emotional sensitivity (another personality quirk) is yet another aspect of existence I've learned to embrace. The isolation is perhaps the hardest part - living between camps, never fully belonging anywhere, always seeing multiple sides yet unable to fully commit to any one perspective. It's a peculiar kind of loneliness that comes not from lack of connection, but from the perpetual state of partial connection, of always being somewhat out of step with those around you.
In short, I am nothing that I'm "supposed" to be, perpetually evading the boxes others try to contain me in. This isn't by choice or force - though that is a common accusation - it's simply who I am, even when I don't wish to admit it. It's difficult to explain this to someone of a highly agreeable nature, just as I struggle to fully comprehend more agreeable types. This isn't meant as criticism - I truly believe every personality type has its place, and the world would be dimmer without this human variance.
Much of today's social conflict stems from a fundamental lack of appreciation for this innate diversity. The Big 5 has shown us that core personality traits remain relatively stable throughout life. Minor variations occur, and rarely even dramatic shifts, but by our early to mid-20s, our basic personality is largely set. Knowing this, I can hardly imagine a society more primed for perpetual conflict than one that elevates certain personality types above others, as we seem to have done today.
The Unbearable Burden
Where am I going with this? Well, I went on a tangent, but a necessary one. Throughout history, from Jesus to MLK, many have spoken to a similar message. In our laudable efforts to eliminate racism and other forms of naive prejudice, we have unwittingly retreated to venting our social biases through hatred of particular personality types.
If my previous arguments hold any water, having a bias against certain personality types may be nearly as misguided as having a bias against particular skin tones. People are what they are - love it or hate it, there's little you can do to change it. You can fight it, wage wars even, but until the day you die and far beyond it (at least as long as we remain human), you cannot change this fundamental truth. Some degree of acceptance, therefore, may simply be the wisest coarse.
Of course, some believe this irrelevant, arguing that we'll soon be a human-machine amalgamation, swiftly disposing of our previous biases as we transform into Nietzsche's übermensch and merge with machines. I maintain my skepticism - even in such a transhuman utopia, we might simply amplify our hatred of "the other" and deepen our divisions further.
Yet in wrestling with these questions of human nature and responsibility, I find myself repeatedly drawn to deeper, more haunting truths. No author has captured these truths quite like Dostoevsky, whose ideas seem to possess rather than merely inspire. Through his assertion that "every one is really responsible to all men for all men and for everything," he illuminates an unbearable truth - one I still resist. How can I be responsible for the man held captive by his corrupt government across the world, or for children I've never met suffering abuse? Yet whenever I question this burden, my mind floods with moments where I failed to act or speak when necessary. The social consequences of our collective silence, our failure to oppose injustice when we see it, echo through generations.
The burden Dostoevsky places on us is unbearable, yet my nature compels me to ask not what is comfortable or even bearable, but simply "what is true." And before you misunderstand my nature and assume I harbor delusions of grandeur - I assure you my openness and emotional sensitivity are far too high to sustain such delusions for more than an instant, if at all. I would not dare to claim I possess the truth, only that I seek it, even against my own best interest, at times.
So I circle back to my previous point: we may not like it, we may even despise it, but the wisest course might be to muster some form of acceptance of the way things are, some acceptance of "the other," some acceptance, even, of our enemy. Nietzsche would have you believe Christianity is merely a religion for milquetoast men without constitution, but to the Dostoevskian, it requires Herculean will to sustain something as inhuman as "love" for one's enemies.
This sentiment emerges repeatedly throughout history not out of misguided kindness or passivity, but because it is equally true as it is unnatural. There is an innate paradox in humanity, and as part of this contradiction, the more we resist it, the more we fight against it, the more it grips us and pulls us into a never-ending cycle of loathing and hatred. Yet within this paradox lies another truth - one that brings us to the very heart of belief itself.
Wrestling with Truth
After that last segment, you might try to classify and dismiss me as a closet Christian. Candidly, I sometimes wonder that myself, having been profoundly influenced by Christian writers and thinkers (exluding overt theologians, if that's any indication of my nature) throughout my life. Part of this might just be my western cultural inheritance, but it's also rooted in my captivation, from a young age, with the actual story of Jesus.
I've been somewhat immune for some time from having any overtly religious sentiment foisted upon me for what I believe to be one simple fact: I actually read the Bible (willingly, without coercion) at a young age. It never ceases to be hilarious how essentially nobody who claims to follow the book seems to have any inkling of what it actually says or teaches. I truly believe that if they did, they might not be followers at all. Jesus himself, contrary to modern Christian doctrine of easy salvation, spoke to the rarity of his true followers with phrases like "if you left me, you never knew me" and "many are called, few will answer."
Yet Christians worldwide, seemingly unable to accept the profound and difficult truths presented earlier, somehow delusionally cling to a simpler notion of salvation - one they can digest and accept. That a simple word and prayer is enough, and no actual work or effort is required. It's certainly a comforting thought, but not one I subscribe to.
I don't self-describe as a Christian for two simple reasons: First, while I believe many of Jesus's teachings in the gospels are true and correct (if you can decipher their meaning, which is no trivial task), I disagree fundamentally with virtually every Christian sect in practice today. Second, I don't currently believe it's tenable to "know" whether God exists in reality. I think the whole business of "knowing for sure" either way is utter folly. Even the book itself teaches this, if you pay close attention - this is why the chief patriarch is named as one who "wrestles with God." One cannot wrestle with a concept they're fully satisfied to be true.
The proper tension in the question of God's existence lies in that uncomfortable space virtually none of us wish to occupy - the simple admission of ignorance: "I don't know." This perpetual wrestling with uncertainty isn't weakness - it's the natural state of honest truth-seeking. The paradox lies in knowing that the closer you get to truth, the more you understand how much you don't understand. The more certain you become of uncertainty itself.
It's a peculiar burden of the disagreeable truth-seeker: we're compelled to chase truth relentlessly while simultaneously accepting that complete certainty may be forever beyond our reach. We must somehow maintain the passion of the search while embracing the humility of perpetual uncertainty. This isn't relativism - there is only one Truth (big T). But our relationship with it is far more complex than most are willing to admit.
Take, again, the question of God's existence, for instance. Some days I'd like to believe it is so, and some days I certainly hope not, usually when I consider my inadequacies and myriad mistakes. Still, I don't think belief is as ignorant as most modern atheists would suggest, and I must acknowledge the profound contributions that men of faith have made to science, which many modern "scientific" types are happy to ignore, seemingly to strengthen their own position.
By now, perhaps you can see how isolating my experience of profound disagreeableness truly is. There is no sect I belong to, or even can belong to, whether concerning profound questions like "does God exist" or more mundane matters like "what school of engineering do you subscribe to?" As uncomfortable as it is, I can only feel honest with myself by answering such questions with "it depends." This is something most people in my life simply cannot accept. And if I'm being honest, it's for this reason that I sometimes try to hide this aspect of my nature, placing myself in one camp some days, and another others.
Some might accuse me of being a simple fraud or charlatan, and while that might make things simpler, it isn't quite right either. You see, I have some very real and demonstrable engineering and scientific ability, even without formal credentials. Through a love of reading and just plain raw experience I also have some profound understandings of life, philosophy, religion, and psychology, though I dwell in none of the myriad camps permanently. I certainly don't prescribe my way of being to anyone else - in fact, I would caution against it. If you can imagine for a moment the type of experience I'm describing, you'll understand why it's quite uncomfortable. Yet any and all attempts to run or hide from it fail, sometimes spectacularly so. The conclusion, by now, is quite apparent: Love it or hate it, this is who I really am.
The Purpose of Dissent
What's the point of this self-reflective journey? To illustrate the vital importance that individuals like myself play in this world. For most of my life, I found myself rather repugnant, unable to exist long in any one state - never content to be a true believer, yet never comfortable being a total denier. Never fully subscribing to rabid belief in human progressivism and technological advancement, yet never able to fully deny its contributions to the human condition.
It wasn't until I came to realize the purpose of being me, and others like me: Someone must occupy this uncomfortable space in between, precisely because the majority of humanity simply will not. This isn't about maintaining perfect centrism - rather, it's about the willingness to lean one direction today, explore another camp tomorrow, and perhaps abandon the whole enterprise entirely in the future.
Some might call this wishy-washy or lacking discipline. And yes, there's some truth to that. But then again, I also possess the will to run 20+ miles or completely reimagine software deployment from its foundations, so it's not just that. I must give myself some credit where the existing system - one that requires we exist in predetermined boxes - refuses to do so.
I don't write this for myself. As a fairly private individual, sharing this is quite unnerving. But I choose to face this discomfort for one simple reason: others like me exist, and they exist for good reason. Judging by my own unlikely journey to self-acceptance, they are likely suffering, confused, perhaps self-loathing, maybe even considering a way out. To them, I simply say: we need you!
Painful as it is, as much as the world would rather have you jump into this camp or that, if you did - if we all did - the entire enterprise would collapse. We need the disagreeable to remind us that nothing, absolutely nothing - not science, not religion, not philosophy - is beyond reproach in the final analysis. This has never been easy to accept, yet no matter which discipline you explore, honesty compels you to admit its truth.
As much as we delude ourselves into thinking we live in an enlightened age, we remain, like all humans before us, desperately uncomfortable with lingering doubts, hell-bent on jumping into the first camp that alleviates ambiguity. Whether it's vaccines, political ideology, or faith doesn't matter - just please, oh please, let us take a side so we don't have to live with not knowing.
This is precisely why individuals like ourselves are necessary, perhaps now more than ever. Society needs us to contend with the uncomfortable, because most simply refuse. We must speak our minds, even to that charismatic demagogue, even to that possessed acolyte of the "one true" religion, even at the cost of our own livelihood. The world needs this from us precisely because the majority will not, because they refuse, and while they dare not ask - indeed have no right to ask - they need us all the same.
And you will do it too, not because you want to, not because you particularly enjoy the constant difficulty it poses in your life, but because it is who you are. We just need you, my fellow disagreeable types out there, to understand more deeply and live more truly to your nature, for all our sakes.
A Prayer for the Defenders
As I said earlier, I believe this is true, to some extent, for all personalities in the world. We need all of these perspectives to reinforce what would otherwise be a rather brittle and shallow existence. Yet as I write this - and I realize this now more clearly than when I began - this piece has become both a prayer for my fellow disagreeables and a reminder to myself of why we must persist in the face of a world that would much rather we simply did not.
We may not like it, we may even mostly despise it, but we are all needed. It's just that the disagreeables have their moment, and it is now - now or never. As techno-feudalism looms and conformity tightens its grip through coordinated debanking campaigns, manipulative codes of conduct, and the creeping implementation of "social credit" systems masquerading as progress, we stand at a precipice unlike any in human history. The place where we might go from here if we don't encourage our more contrarian friends to stand for us, knowing we are too cowardly to stand for ourselves, is not a place I care to visit in my lifetime. I feel quite content having read enough about such places to never need to experience them firsthand.
But if the disagreeable do not defend us now, that is precisely where we are heading - of that I am deathly certain, as much as I wish I weren't. My journey from self-loathing to self-understanding has taught me this: what seems like a curse - this inability to conform, this compulsion to question everything - may be society's last defense against the crushing weight of conformity that continues to slowly tighten its grip. The very traits that make us difficult, that make us challenge and resist, are the traits that keep the doors of freedom propped open.
Don't be fooled into thinking this a partisan issue, either. History shows us the truth - the very same loyalists who assisted Stalin were the first to be lined up and shot when the "revolution" was finally accomplished. This isn't about left or right; it's about the fundamental nature of human freedom and those rare few willing to defend it.
And I'll be clear - I am pessimistic. The most probable outcome is that we will, yet again, descend into utter enslavement - not just of body, but of mind. Perhaps more deeply and fully than at any time in the past, perhaps never to return again. Yet still I myself, even if it is in vain, choose to remain true to my being, if just for once, in all my strengths and flaws, and I ask you - rather out of character for my usual way - to do the same. Even if the worst comes to pass, there is far less shame in remaining true to yourself and your convictions, in my estimation, at least.
So live, and live unashamedly, whether I am your political ally or your bitter enemy. I implore you to live true to yourself. Not this nonsense of "living your truth" - that's preposterous. There is only one Truth if the word truth is to have any meaning at all. And the only part of it that we might possess is the part that tells us we will never know what it is in its entirety, and for this very reason, you must endure.
For our sakes, and for yours. On this Christmas day, I salute you, my fellow disagreeables, on all sides, for if not for you, whether we know it or not, we'd all be in chains at this very moment. Thank you.