I derived this idea from social psychology and I would love to hear what
you all think of it.
Hi, I think you're right. We're facing the same issue while trying to convince people to stop meat consumption.
Often I think it is a case of people valuing different goodnesses. A
person did not chose proprietary software for bad reasons, but
generally for reasons which when balanced seem good. Sometimes the
reasons come from a different perspectives which are often
unassailable, but not shared by both groups.
For example; with meat, I consider that I must eat some protein and
ask: which is most kind - to let the protein enjoy a few years life
as a cow, or to make it have a shorter life as a bean, or in a tank?
I consider that my protein would have more happiness as a cow and so
by market forces I eat meat so that more protein may have more
happiness. This is not a widely shared perspective but yet the only
pro-vegetarian argument I know that comes near it relates to
ill-treatment of animals, and of course I want my meat to be happy
before I eat it. (I don't eat a lot of meat).
I think this viewpoint may be instructive in the software-advocacy
field too, and that Jelle raises good points; So I now try to extent
what I learn from my views on meat to a general form and come to
this principle which I learned somewhere else:
Add to the good others already have
which means don't ask others to throw away their current position
and start again to "do it right" and this is logical for you would
be asking them to have confidence that you are exactly right,
otherwise the next day someone else may point out your error and
they would have to "start again" again.
I made an observation about contexts yesterday in relation to a
computer product that has Z in it's name. It's name is spelt TZ and
it's name is pronounced TeeZee because it is an American product. To
the American The product is "TeeZee" as spelt and there is an
unconscious underlying American context. To me as an Englishman the
American context is raised to surround the name and affect how it is
pronounced: "TeeZee" and spelt "Tee Zed".
The point of this observation is to show that the American does not
realise that the product name is not pronounced as it is spelt
because his context blinds him to that.
The American could have this explained to him, but he would only
truly appreciate it when he realises that outside USA represents a
bigger market than inside USA.
We know that the proprietary captive cannot understand the
disadvantages of captivity until it prevents him from exercising
liberty.
Therefore, as is said, attacking reasons which from his context were
un-important or seemingly somewhat beneficial questions his
judgement and as Jelle says makes you an enemy.
The safe thing to do is to add to the good they have. Once the TZ
product is marketed outside the USA, the marketing department are
happy to revise the "pronounced as it is spelt" belief, or even
change the name.
So my view is offer to add to the good people have; acknowledge how
their choice helped them, and offer them more help.