Here’s two versions of the story of Ignaz Semmelweis. You may have heard it as it’s quite popular in the programming & craftsmanship community. I heard the two versions about a year apart and together they’re even more interesting.

First Story

Ignaz Semmelweis was a Hungarian physician. He believed that by washing their hands consistently and well enough, doctors can significantly reduce the infection and mortality rate among mothers and their newborn children.

Unfortunately, those findings were in conflict with what most doctors believed at the time. They were prejudiced and had their old, established point of view and would not listen to the poor man.

Semmelweis did not manage to convince his peers to his findings. He died a miserable death in an asylum.

Second Story

Ignaz Semmelweis was a Hungarian physician. He believed that by washing their hands consistently and well enough, doctors can significantly reduce the infection and mortality rate among mothers and their newborn children.

Unfortunately, in the process of achieving his superior results, he managed to alienate or offend his entire profession. Things eventually got so bad that his colleagues started to deliberately avoid washing their hands just to defy him.

Semmelweis was a genius but he was also a lunatic, and that made him a failed genius. He died a miserable death in an asylum.

Which is True?

I heard the first story for the first time on the last year’s 33rd Degree. The way my inner wannabe-craftsman understood it at that time was: poor guy ahead of his time was tormented to death by his prejudiced, petrified community. He was right, and his stubborn peers made his life miserable.

I read the second version in Apprenticeship Patterns by Dave Hoover and Adewale Oshineye. Here the lesson is completely different. There is no way you can get your point across if you alienate or offend your peers. You have to be very patient and careful, especially if your ideas do not go hand in hand with what the community believes at the point.

Even if your peers are willing to listen, and you have convincing evidence or arguments, you can never play the one and only enlightened man in the world. It goes the other way round, too. Learn to listen, even if some ideas don’t exactly go hand in hand with your point of view. See if there is any value you can take from them. And even if you disagree, have some respect and don’t play the “we know better, be gone ye stupid lunatic” role.

I suspect both versions of the story are true. People are full of judgement and prejudice. Such is human nature. It’s rarely a wall that you can take down with a ram. More often you find yourself sitting on a giant elephant and trying to convince it to go in a specific direction. The only way you can succeed is preparing and cutting the way through the jungle and pointing the elephant into the opening.

This elephant rider metaphor comes from an awesome talk by Venkat Subramaniam. Heck, I would say his presence alone makes 33rd Degree 2012 a must-see.