Dr. Dobb's Journal May, 2005
"Ah, word of no meaning! behind whose vast latitude of mere sound we intrench our ignorance..."
—Edgar Allen Poe, Ligeia
In taking the word "paradigms" as part of the title of this column when I launched it back in 1987, I was deliberately granting myself broad latitude in what I covered. The word had been popularized, or demonized in some circles, 25 years earlier by philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn in his landmark book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. In a postscript to the 1969 revision of that book, Kuhn acknowledged that he had used the word in a slippery fashion, letting it mean different things at different times. I took my inspiration from this, and determined to let the word mean anything I pleased from month to month. It's worked out pretty well, I think, allowing me to write about topics that impact computer programming with only a glancing blow. I could argue that I do this out of a belief that an occasional insight from the outside is needed to shake up our stagnant thinking, but mostly I just do it to entertain myself.
This month, in that spirit, I delve into a book by a professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Medical School. As it happens, what this book has to say is surprisingly relevant to the paradigms we encounter in the computer industry. Although I notice that even in that sentence, I am using the word "paradigms" in more than one sense. It's such a conveniently slippery word.
John D. Gartner has a favorite word, too, and while his word may not be as slippery as mine (and Kuhn's), he does get a lot of mileage out of it. His word is "hypomanic," and last October, he wrote to ask me to examine an advance copy of his book The Hypomanic Edge: The Link between (a little) Craziness and (a lot of) Success in America (Simon & Schuster 2005; ISBN 0743243447) when it was available in a few months. I agreed, and in February, the book arrived.
Although it is commonplace to describe the frenzy of entrepreneurial activity and the stock market feeding that went on during the dot-com bubble as "manic," the use of the word is metaphorical. Nobody has seriously suggested that entrepreneurs and speculators are crazy merely by virtue of being entrepreneurs and speculators. But Gartner, a clinical psychologist, decided to take the term "manic" literally—or rather the related term "hypomanic"—and see where that led.
Both "manic" and "hypomanic" are diagnostic categories defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the AMA (usually referred to as DSM-IV). The crucial difference is that mania is a disabling condition that almost invariably leads to hospitalization, while hypomania is a condition that one can live with and function in society. Hypomania is not an illness, but "a temperament characterized by an elevated mood state that feels 'highly intoxicating, powerful, productive and desirable' to the hypomanic," but that doesn't burn out your nasal membranes.
"Hypomanics," Gartner says, "are brimming with infectious energy, irrational confidence, and really big ideas. They think, talk, move, and make decisions quickly. Anyone who slows them down with questions 'just doesn't get it.' Hypomanics are not crazy, but 'normal' is not the first word that comes to mind in describing them."
Gartner's first example of a hypomanic is one familiar to readers of this publication: Jim Clark, founder of Silicon Graphics, Netscape, and Healtheon. Jim Barksdale, the normal cofounder of Netscape, described his colleague Clark as "a manic who has his mania only partly under control." Another source characterized him as "a perpetual motion machine with a short attention span, forever hurtling at unsafe speeds in helicopters, planes, boats, and cars. When his forward motion is impeded, Clark becomes irritable and bored. In his search for the stimulation of 'the new thing,' he quickly loses interest in the companies he founds and tosses them into the laps of his bewildered employees."
At this point, you are probably reflecting that this description also fits someone else you could name. In fact, it fits a lot of people in this industry. What is truly weird is that such behavior seems to be adaptive.
In the 1990s, Gartner decided to try a little pilot study to see if his hypothesis—that American entrepreneurs are largely hypomanic—had legs. He interviewed 10 Internet CEOs, asking them to judge which of a list of traits were typical, in their opinion, of an entrepreneur. The traits were those that define hypomania, although he didn't tell them that. Although his sample size was small, the results were dramatic: All of the entrepreneurs agreed that virtually all of the traits were typical traits of an entrepreneur, and did so emphatically, sometimes stating that they wished they could give a rating of 6 or 7 on the 5-point scale of agreement.
Rather than go on to further refine his hypothesis, Gartner thought about it further and decided to explore a slightly different theme—the relationship between being an American and being hypomanic. He began to entertain the idea that there was a genetic determinant of the characteristic American entrepreneurial spirit.
Although researchers at Johns Hopkins and elsewhere have found evidence of genetic determinants of mania and possibly of hypomania, it seems odd to suggest that there is any genetic determinant of American character. After all, America is the great melting pot, a nation of immigrants. Surely it is the last place you would look for a genetic component to national character.
But what if there is a genetic factor that predisposes one to take the rash step of abandoning one's home and moving across the ocean? And what if it is the same genetic factor that predisposes one toward other forms of bold behavior, such as starting a business from a plan sketched on a napkin and convincing venture capitalists to back you? If we are a nation of immigrants and descendants of immigrants, have we inherited an entrepreneurial spirit?
Americans work more hours than any other people in the world. Starting a business is a more respected activity in America than almost anywhere else. And failing in business carries very little stigma in America, in marked contrast with Europe and Japan. Is this American entrepreneurial character due to a large proportion of hypomanics in this country? That's what Gartner thinks.
In his book, Gartner profiles people from each century of America's 500-year history. The people he selects all played a big part in making America what it is. They also, Gartner hypothesized, were all hypomanic. To test his hypothesis, he consulted their biographers.
Christopher Columbus? "He was a stranger to doubt," according to biographer Gianni Granzotto. William Penn? Hypomanics always think big, and Penn biographer Paul Johnson confirms that "[e]verything in Pennsylvania was big from the start." Alexander Hamilton? He typified the hypomanic's supreme confidence and rash risk taking by walking brashly into cannon fire during an early Revolutionary War skirmish. "He wasn't so much brave as unafraid," Gartner says. Andrew Carnegie, Louis B. Mayer, geneticist Craig Venter: hypomanics all, by the compelling evidence that Gartner presents.
In researching the personalities of each of these historical figures, Gartner presented their biographers with this checklist of hypomanic traits:
energy
restless
active
quick-thinking
jumps from idea to idea
distractible
fast-talking
talks a lot
dominates conversation
grandiose
feels destined
elated
charismatic
charming
attractive
irritable
explosive
suspicious
impulsive
acts on ideas immediately
risk taker (financial)
risk taker (physical)
risk taker (sexual)
sex drive
needs little sleep
dresses for attention
As was the case in his pilot study of entrepreneurs, he found a high degree of matching. I thought I'd see how this list applies to some characters familiar to readers of this publication, by consulting books written about them. Understand, I'm not doing serious research here. For one thing, since I was looking for material supporting a match, I was clearly biasing my investigation toward finding hypomania. Still, I thought it would be interesting to try the exercise.
To start out, I decided to see how well Oracle's Larry Ellison fits the profile. My primary source on Larry was Mike Wilson's book The Difference Between God and Larry Ellison: God Doesn't Think He's Larry Ellison (Quill, 1998; ISBN 068816353X), and I found evidence of just about every one of Gartner's checklist items. Thus:
Talks a lot: "The man across the hall talked constantly. That is what Stuart Feigen remembers. The foaming white water of words, the rushing river of noise. Larry Ellison just never quits."
Energy, active: There's plenty of evidence of this, including the hair-raising yachting stories. Larry's a maniac.
Restless, jumps from idea to idea, fast-talking, dominates conversation: "He talked so fast that he mutilated some sentences and even some words...[W]hen he said the word 'graduating,' it sounded like 'gradjing.'"
Quick-thinking: "Things he doesn't know he picks up very, very quickly." "He is one of the most agile...minds I have ever met." Wilson also describes a scene in which Larry talked his way out of a speeding ticket by claiming to be a doctor on the way to the hospital to "witness a craniometry." To one witness to this act, it illustrated "just how quickly this guy could think on his feet." To you and me, it may illustrate something else.
Distractible: I'd say so. Consider this Ellison self-appraisal in which Larry contrasts his ability to stay fixed on a topic with that of Bill Gates: "I was talking [by phone] with Bill Gates about an issue, and he and I disagreed about something, and he got off the phone. He called back two hours later and continued the conversation. He had thought about it for two hours solidly. Which is something I would never do. I can't imagine."
Grandiose, feels destined: Wilson calls him "a myth of his own making," someone who "lived partly in a world of his own invention."
Elated: He is "always unflaggingly positive and optimistic."
Attractive, charismatic, charming: "Ellison's charms were such that even [an employee Larry let go just before his stock options would have made him a millionaire] said he still liked him." When he testified in court against an ex-girlfriend, the court staff pronounced him "charming." "Even as a teenager he was the kind of person whom other people followed..." And again, "He was the kind of person you would like to follow."
Irritable, explosive: "Ellison often erupted when someone did something he did not like or said something he considered stupid."
Suspicious: Do pre-nups count?
Impulsive, acts on ideas immediately: Wilson recounts the story of Larry driving home from a date, seeing a house that he liked, and ringing the doorbell and offering to write the owner a check on the spot. Applying for a job, the young Ellison wants to start immediately. He speaks of the "instant attraction" between himself and a woman.
Risk taker (financial): Well, there's the entire history of Oracle. And earlier in life, he "never worried about how the bills would be paid." "He admitted that he was 'cavalier' about spending money..."
Risk taker (physical): Let's just consult the index of Wilson's book, shall we? Here we find entries like "Ellison, bicycling accident of," "Ellison, body surfing accident of," and "Ellison, broken nose of." I think we get the picture.
Risk taker (sexual), sex drive: Wilson sums it up by saying that Larry "lived...unmonastically." I'm happy to leave it at that.
Dresses for attention: According to The Mac Observer, "Larry Ellison does tend to dress like a million...err...billion dollars. He wears an outstanding assortment of excellent suits, and we doubt many of them came from The Men's Warehouse."
Needs little sleep: This one's not clear, although his Gulfstream jet has reportedly been interfering with the sleep of 900,000 residents of San Jose.
It seemed obvious to me that Steve Jobs would fit the profile, but after I looked through a few books and then consulted my own memory for the evidence, I wasn't so sure.
Energy, restless, active: Certainly. Apple's forgotten founder, Ron Wayne, said, "Steve Jobs was an absolute whirlwind and I had lost the energy you need to ride whirlwinds." [Owen Linzmayer's Apple Confidential]
Quick-thinking, jumps from idea to idea, dominates conversation: I've interviewed Steve, and I'll testify to all these traits. But distractible, fast-talking, talks a lot: It seems to me that these traits are at most a 3 or 4 in terms of fit, not a 5.
Grandiose, feels destined: "He would have made an excellent king of France." [Jef Raskin, quoted in Apple Confidential] Guy Kawasaki summed it put thus: "Steve is off the scale when it comes to chutzpah." [Kawasaki, The Macintosh Way] Alan Deutschman, The Second Coming of Steve Jobs: "His astonishing energy and charisma and chutzpah." But I'm not so sure he feels destined to change the world; I think he just feels supremely capable of doing it.
Charismatic, charming, irritable, explosive: In Steve, these traits are all part of the same thing. "Working for Steve was a terrifying and addictive experience. He would tell you that your work, your ideas, and sometimes your existence were worthless right to your face, right in front of everyone...Working for Steve was also ecstasy...We would have worked in the Macintosh division even if he'd given us Tang." [Kawasaki]
Attractive: Despite the glasses, thinning hair, and middle-aged bulge, to Deutschman, Steve at 40 is "still a handsome man."
Risk taker (financial): He's an entrepreneurial risk taker. I don't see much evidence that he's a financial risk taker. I think there's a difference.
Risk taker (physical): Not really.
Risk taker (sexual), sex drive: On this point, Steve doesn't fit the profile. I'm a journalist; it's my job to know this kind of stuff. And I'm confident of my sources on this. And I'm not naming names.
Needs little sleep: I couldn't find anything on this.
Dresses for attention: Maybe he does, but the impression is that he dresses to please himself. At times in the past, he has appeared "slovenly" [Deutschman], but today he favors those black mock turtlenecks and jeans. Surely, if he were dressing for attention, he would vary the formula.
I'm not saying that Steve Jobs is normal. I just think that he requires his own DSM-IV classification.
DDJ