Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

skepticblog.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–79 of 79 posts

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

#71

Post by njharman »

endtime wrote: post #60
scott_s wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

but which label goes with which group, I've heard many, many. And no one has mentioned dork, dweeb, or other terms used to belittle the not popular. I know several definitions for geek

Geeks people who bite the heads off of chickens and other circus freaks.

Geeks people who are really into some niche such as game geeks, or mathgeeks.

Geeks socially awkward losers.

The definitions of geek and nerd are location and temporally dependent. That means if you grew up in KS during the 80's your definitions are far different than if you grew up in San Jose in the 90's.

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

#72

Post by apsec112 »

winter_blue wrote: post #67
apsec112 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Actually the people between the 90th and 95th percentile are the ones who have difficulty getting along. Those above the 95th percentile understand how society works and are as Confucius described, "the ones that lead society (by example) so that all of society is harmonious." I've met people from both categories. The smartest geeks I know have no trouble fitting into society, one of them is leading a startup that ha…

"Those above the 95th percentile understand how society works and are as Confucius described, "the ones that lead society (by example) so that all of society is harmonious.""

This isn't actually true. If you look at the SAT scores of Congressmen, Senators, etc., they average below 95th percentile. Many are above 95th, but the average is below 95th.

"The smartest geeks I know have no trouble fitting into society, one of them is leading a startup that has received over a million dollars in VC funding."

Citing anonymous friends is not evidence.

"The fact, is these socially-challenged geeks aren't so smart after all; they don't put much effort socializing with people, and then they whine and complain how they don't fit it."

That's a complete non-sequitur. What does that have to do with intelligence or lack thereof? It's perfectly possible to be smart and not socialize much. It's also possible to be dumb and not socialize much. It's like saying the Unabomber was dumb because he killed two dozen people. Killing two dozen people makes you evil, certainly, but it doesn't make you dumb (the Unabomber was actually a math professor at Berkeley before he went insane).

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

#73

Post by apsec112 »

tokenadult wrote: post #61
apsec112 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

10% above the 90th percentile, who are sufficiently different from the average as to make relating to normal people difficult. [citation needed] There is no confusion at all on my part. I knew what subset of the population I was writing about (perhaps an even narrower subset than the original Paul Graham article, the first of his I ever read, was about) when I started typing. I specifically disagree with "as to make…

" If high-IQ people have a social problem, as perhaps they especially do in certain parts of American culture, I invite them to use their high IQ to engage in problem-solving."

It doesn't work that way. The way humans usually solve social problems is through asking, "how would I react if I were in the other person's place"? We have specific biological structures, like mirror neurons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron), that are set up to do that. However, this only works if the person being modeled is similar to the modeler. Because of this, there are actually a ton of factors that can make relating to other people difficult, not just intelligence (like culture, age, socioeconomic class, mental strengths and weaknesses, etc.)

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

#74

Post by starkfist »

apsec112 wrote: post #72
winter_blue wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually the people between the 90th and 95th percentile are the ones who have difficulty getting along. Those above the 95th percentile understand how society works and are as Confucius described, "the ones that lead society (by example) so that all of society is harmonious." I've met people from both categories. The smartest geeks I know have no trouble fitting into society, one of them is leading a startup that ha…

"Those above the 95th percentile understand how society works and are as Confucius described, "the ones that lead society (by example) so that all of society is harmonious."" This isn't actually true. If you look at the SAT scores of Congressmen, Senators, etc., they average below 95th percentile. Many are above 95th, but the average is below 95th. "The smartest geeks I know have no trouble fitting into society, one…

How do you look at the SAT scores of congressmen and senators?

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

#75

Post by apsec112 »

tel wrote: post #59
apsec112 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"And if anything, that argument might suggest the upper 10% should almost have the lower 90 enthralled."

People in the top 20% of intelligence (the interval centered around the optimal 90th percentile for leadership) do dominate society. Virtually every CEO, every Congressman, every Senator, every President, every general, etc. etc. etc. is in that top 20%. See the Mainstream Science on Intelligence statement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intellige...).

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

#76

Post by thribbler »

AndrewDucker wrote: post #66
thribbler wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is in the nature of denial that one is unaware both of what is denied and of the denial itself. Only when denial is relinquished does one realise that the it was both real and voluntary.

And? Just because a person in denial wouldn't know it doesn't prove that I was in denial, it just means that you have a theory that's unprovable because you've set yourself up so that any evidence at all, both positive and negative, makes you believe that you're right.

You're right, the theory is unfalsifiable (for now at least).

However, I have argued for it, and I believe if offers the best explanation for the nerd-bully phenomenon. Bullies can't really pick on people who are simply mistaken, they can only pick on people who are (at some level) ashamed of themselves. [See my reply to zackattack for more.]

I'd like to stress that all this doesn't make bullying any less wrong or less damaging for all concerned.

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

#77

Post by AndrewDucker »

thribbler wrote: post #76
AndrewDucker wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And? Just because a person in denial wouldn't know it doesn't prove that I was in denial, it just means that you have a theory that's unprovable because you've set yourself up so that any evidence at all, both positive and negative, makes you believe that you're right.

You're right, the theory is unfalsifiable (for now at least). However, I have argued for it, and I believe if offers the best explanation for the nerd-bully phenomenon. Bullies can't really pick on people who are simply mistaken, they can only pick on people who are (at some level) ashamed of themselves. [See my reply to zackattack for more.] I'd like to stress that all this doesn't make bullying any less wrong or le…

Bullies can't pick on people who are simply mistaken?

Bullies can pick on anyone they choose. In my school they picked on everyone - including each other. The ones they continues to pick on were the ones that didn't fight back.

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

#78

Post by AndrewDucker »

thribbler wrote: post #41
zackattack wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"They lack social skills because they lack emotional intelligence." --> I agree "nerds lack emotional intelligence because they have learnt to ignore the relevant emotions." --> Maybe. "That is why bullies are able to bait nerds; they both feel that the nerds' denial of group emotions makes them culpable." --> I would love to hear you expand on this, and I loved that you invoked a concept of "group emotions", which I…

Part of my explanation would be that you can only insult a person with their compliance. If they become offended or defensive then they are implicitly conceding that you have a point. So, although nerds are consciously unaware of their denial, it lurks beneath the surface and effects their emotional response in ways that other people can detect.

If they become offended or defensive then they are implicitly conceding that you have a point.

Not at all true. Especially with children. Shouting rude words at kids, threats of physical violence, and implication of things they don't understand make kids feel awful very easily.

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

#79

Post by thribbler »

AndrewDucker wrote: post #77
thribbler wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, the theory is unfalsifiable (for now at least). However, I have argued for it, and I believe if offers the best explanation for the nerd-bully phenomenon. Bullies can't really pick on people who are simply mistaken, they can only pick on people who are (at some level) ashamed of themselves. [See my reply to zackattack for more.] I'd like to stress that all this doesn't make bullying any less wrong or le…

Bullies can't pick on people who are simply mistaken? Bullies can pick on anyone they choose. In my school they picked on everyone - including each other. The ones they continues to pick on were the ones that didn't fight back.

If you study bullies carefully you will notice that they are continually probing potential victims for the right kind of emotional response (prior to any further verbal or physical abuse). If they don't elicit one they move on to new targets,

Whereas there are people who aren't picked on by bullies, despite having never fought back. And I don't think they are necessarily the most popular individuals (although such people do fit into that category).

Post reply on HN