Live data from Hacker News

Why Are Nerds Unpopular, An Alternative To PG's Essay

skepticblog.org

51–60 of 79 posts

Re: Why Are Nerds Unpopular, An Alternative To PG's Essay

#51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note: I consider myself a nerd. But honestly, all of this pointing at other people is kind of annoying. We are just as culpable in our social ostracism as everyone else. Nerds lack emotional intelligence because they have categorized it as pointless - at least seemed to have convinced themselves of that point. I disagree that they've learned to ignore the relevant emotions, it's more like they've convinced themselves…

In terms of "fitting in": many nerds conclude that paying attention to pop culture, sports, and fashion (Brad and Angelina, Eminem, Kobe Bryant) is pointless. We could learn about them if we wanted to "fit in", but we often find them just plain boring. Why would we do something boring just to get the attention of a bunch of kids who like boring stuff? Why not do stuff we find interesting, like math or reading, and be…

> " Why would we do something boring"

Because, surprise, that's what people do. Do you really think all those "normals" really like Brangelina, Eminem, and Kobe Bryant? Hell no. In the "real" world everyone learns about things, and talks about things that do not interest them for the sake of socialization. Nerds seem to think they're the only ones who find these things dull and pointless - but here's the trick: so does everyone else! The difference is that normal people are willing to suck it up for the sake of staying in the social graph, while nerds don't. "Normals" acknowledge that in order to participate in this society, there will be a mix of shit that interests them vs. shit that doesn't.

The extension of that...

> "just to get the attention of a bunch of kids who like boring stuff?"

... which proves my point. Nerds lord their intelligence over other people, while being generally clueless as to how "normals" operate. They're not people, they're kids who like boring stuff. I'm such a unique snowflake, only I can see how boring all this celeb gossip is - clearly those dim-witted normal people actually like this shit. If you actually took the time and participated in society at large you'll know as well as everyone else that socialization is a great deal of give and take, and that what people object to isn't your boring interests, it's your complete unwillingness to participate in their boring interests.

I've had the opportunity to talk about things other people are interested in - the general rule is, if you show interest in what they're doing, they will reciprocate. A lot of the hostility that nerds get from the world at large is simply a direct reflection of the hostility they show the rest of the world.

> "Why not do stuff we find interesting, like math or reading,"

Surprise: the rest of the world does these things too. Especially reading. Like I've said above: their acceptance of your weird/boring interests is positively correlated with your acceptance of their weird/boring interests.

If nerds in general would just stop behaving as if they're kings of the universe, better than everyone else, they would ostracized a lot less. In fact, there are a large number of nerds who have figured this out - I know more than a few hackers who fit into society just peachy.

Re: Why Are Nerds Unpopular, An Alternative To PG's Essay

#52
post #25
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't confuse 'nerds' with 'geeks'.

I find the quibbling over nerds versus geeks or whatever other term one wants to use silly. You may subscribe to that distinction, but most people don't - which makes it hard to communicate meaningfully with those terms.

Whatever your favored labeling, the distinction is valid. If people in general don't distinguish between "nerds" and "geeks", then people in general are suffering from a misconception, and encouraging usage of two distinct terms is surely a good way to combat that misconception. No?

Re: Why Are Nerds Unpopular, An Alternative To PG's Essay

#53

The populist definition of "nerd" has shifted significantly with the times. In the 1980s, saying you had a computer at home could have you cast as a "nerd." In the 1990s, saying you used the Internet could automatically make you a nerd. In the 2000s, saying you met your girlfriend (or had a girlfriend you'd never met) online could automatically make you a nerd. A similar shifting of definitions over time even occurre…

What's nerdy right now might be the next big craze.

Heck, it's now less nerdy to be on Facebook than not.

Re: Why Are Nerds Unpopular, An Alternative To PG's Essay

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In terms of "fitting in": many nerds conclude that paying attention to pop culture, sports, and fashion (Brad and Angelina, Eminem, Kobe Bryant) is pointless. We could learn about them if we wanted to "fit in", but we often find them just plain boring. Why would we do something boring just to get the attention of a bunch of kids who like boring stuff? Why not do stuff we find interesting, like math or reading, and be…

> " Why would we do something boring" Because, surprise, that's what people do. Do you really think all those "normals" really like Brangelina, Eminem, and Kobe Bryant? Hell no. In the "real" world everyone learns about things, and talks about things that do not interest them for the sake of socialization. Nerds seem to think they're the only ones who find these things dull and pointless - but here's the trick: so do…

> "normal people are willing to suck it up for the sake of staying in the social graph, while nerds don't."

I think much of the problem for nerd kids in particular is that they're both unwilling to learn truly boring stuff (like celeb gossip), and not socially adept enough to steer conversation to interesting common ground with others (that's hard work for introverts.) This leads to the social ostracism you noted previously.

Given the tradeoff between "pretend to care about truly boring stuff" and "have a small social graph", I'd take the small social graph ten times out of ten. I would not recommend "suck it up and learn boring stuff" as a solution. A better solution is learning to find true common interests, maintaining a large social graph because everyone has some interests that are worth learning about.

As a moderately extroverted nerd, I didn't have that hard a time growing up, nor do I have a hard time now. I've always participated in people's interests, it's just that I've known how to participate in their cool, real interests instead of their boring, fake ones. But for those few people who I couldn't find common ground with (for whatever reason), I made the choice not to invent boring common ground. Yeah, that means "not fitting in" with them is my fault -- but that doesn't make it a bad thing.

Re: Why Are Nerds Unpopular, An Alternative To PG's Essay

#55
post #20
post #10

I wonder why people spend so much time deconstructing and perpetuating a classification that has absolutely no meaning outside of highschool.

I disagree that it has no meaning outside of high school. In any big city, there are still many scenes which play on the old stereotypes -- the club/bar scene, rock n roll scene, bohemian scene, gay scene, etc. For example, if you bring up that you work with computers or have a desk job in a club, it is very noticeable that you are stereotyped as "boring" and "geeky" (at least in LA). It's all part of the popularity…

So true. Having written one book, I can refer to myself as a "writer", which is somehow more relatable. What I really need to do is learn a few chords on the guitar, come up with a name for a band, and call myself a musician. That, I think, is the only hope for a future generation of jrockways ;)

Re: Why Are Nerds Unpopular, An Alternative To PG's Essay

#56
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds of a an account I read about a kid whose hippy-throwback parents didn't own a TV. He did ok socially, however, because he had access to their old music collection and played Jimi Hendrix tunes on the electric guitar.

Cool. I plan to be one of those parents that don't own a TV.

> I plan to be one of those parents that don't own a TV.

The modern equivalent is denying your kids Internet access. According to a (somewhat) recent Variety article, the median age of TV viewership is 50.

(Yes, I do trust Variety to get entertainment news right.)

Re: Why Are Nerds Unpopular, An Alternative To PG's Essay

#57

We've created popular culture that doesn't value intelligence. This has an intergenerational compounding effect. When smart people aren't socially valued for their intelligence, they mate with less attractive people, and the effect is reinforced in the next generation. The opposite is happening in India. Intelligence is a high ideal, and seen as insurance against abject poverty. Men with prestigious degrees and good…

Men with prestigious degrees and good careers regardless of their attractiveness generally have their pick of wives through arranged marriage. I would say its more about 'good careers' than prestigious degrees or intelligence here in India. I am pretty sure even a guy with a 'prestigious' degree but an 'unsettled' career (Startup? NGO Worker?) would have a lot of trouble going through the arranged marriage routine. (…

Hmmm... as a single 29-year old here in Uruguay... I'd say that the advantage starts to show only when you're older than, say, 25 - the older girls realize their looks aren't going to last forever, or want to have a baby and start to worry about having a husband able to provide. It's a bit cynical but I believe it's mostly true.

That said, I think there's hope for love too :) - only not always the kind you see in the movies.

Re: Why Are Nerds Unpopular, An Alternative To PG's Essay

#58
post #52
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find the quibbling over nerds versus geeks or whatever other term one wants to use silly. You may subscribe to that distinction, but most people don't - which makes it hard to communicate meaningfully with those terms.

Whatever your favored labeling, the distinction is valid. If people in general don't distinguish between "nerds" and "geeks", then people in general are suffering from a misconception, and encouraging usage of two distinct terms is surely a good way to combat that misconception. No?

I don't agree. Many people who use the labels on themselves and their friends have conflicting definitions. Further, I see the distinction as a false one. It boils down to "people within my subgroup that I like" and "people within my subgroup that I don't like."

Re: Why Are Nerds Unpopular, An Alternative To PG's Essay

#59

I learned a lot about my cultural assumptions on the meaning of high intelligence when I traveled from the United States to Taiwan to study the Chinese language twenty-eight years ago. Here in the United States, I had imbued the idea that high-IQ people are disliked because they are smart, and that above a certain IQ, a person has no hope of having a friendship relationship with a person of average IQ. (I especially…

I think there's a bit of confusion here. People up to roughly 90th percentile or so intelligence will be able to use their smarts to make more friends, get along better with others, etc. The problem that Paul Graham is talking about is the 10% above the 90th percentile, who are sufficiently different from the average as to make relating to normal people difficult. Not coincidentally, the intelligence of Congressmen a…

And if anything, that argument might suggest the upper 10% should almost have the lower 90 enthralled. Society is a fundamentally mental event. To claim you're more skilled than 90% of it and still fail to succeed is to not really be telling the whole s story.

Which is fine. Maybe you don't care about other people enough to invest. Maybe you've decided to spend time elsewhere. Just stop trying to be so holy that you can't overcome the challenge of learning about and appreciating others.

Re: Why Are Nerds Unpopular, An Alternative To PG's Essay

#60
post #58
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever your favored labeling, the distinction is valid. If people in general don't distinguish between "nerds" and "geeks", then people in general are suffering from a misconception, and encouraging usage of two distinct terms is surely a good way to combat that misconception. No?

I don't agree. Many people who use the labels on themselves and their friends have conflicting definitions. Further, I see the distinction as a false one. It boils down to "people within my subgroup that I like" and "people within my subgroup that I don't like."

That's not the distinction at all. The distinction is between antisocial people who like sci-fi and fantasy and smart, somewhat obsessive people who like technology. The groups are not disjoint, but they're by no means the same group.
Post reply on HN