Live data from Hacker News

Geek Social Fallacies (2003)

plausiblydeniable.com

31–40 of 47 posts

Re: Geek Social Fallacies (2003)

#31
post #7

I don't get it. This just seems like an attack on an entire group of people that I'm guessing have annoyed or belittled the author at one time or another. For what purpose? I don't believe he is genuinely trying to advise and help here. The tone isn't right for it.

What group of people do you think he's attacking?

I think he's attacking the stereotype of the 'geek', rather than individual attitudes. If he was attacking attitudes, he wouldn't need to cast aspersions on an entire group (stereotype) in the way that he is, because nothing about the attitudes he is criticising are exclusive to 'geeks'.

It's a cheap and hostile article masquerading as socially conscious self-reflection. To put it like a conservative might, it's 'virtue signalling' without any self-awareness.

I'm not a fan of stereotyping people this way. It's never helpful and is merely an attempt to elevate oneself by putting another group down.

It's hostile and crass.

Re: Geek Social Fallacies (2003)

#32
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of these are common social fallacies, and associating them with “geeks” in particular seems like stereotyping, and seems to me to be reflecting the authors own poor experiences with a subset of geeks coupled with a lack of exposure to the same problematic elements in other social groups. I believe the author meant well, and these are social fallacies, but attaching them to “geeks” seems more out of bias than fact…

"geek" is a meaningless genericized hypervague word, like "smurf".

Vague, but hardly meaningless. Most people have a concept of a "geek".

A more valid criticism might be that the shared concept is harmful to the discussion of people, as it doesn't fairly communicate a reality of their personality, like the concept of "monsters".

Re: Geek Social Fallacies (2003)

#33
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What group of people do you think he's attacking?

I think he's attacking the stereotype of the 'geek', rather than individual attitudes. If he was attacking attitudes, he wouldn't need to cast aspersions on an entire group (stereotype) in the way that he is, because nothing about the attitudes he is criticising are exclusive to 'geeks'. It's a cheap and hostile article masquerading as socially conscious self-reflection. To put it like a conservative might, it's 'vir…

I suspect it looks cheap simply because culture has changed in the 16 years since this was published. Remember that in 2003, the only way you're going to be reading an essay online is if you're devoting the time to sit down at a desktop to do so.

Do you feel your criticism would still apply with the same force if it was clear that the author was considered to be a geek by himself and others?

*Edited to add a quote from http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/fifteen.html regarding this point:

  > First up is the issue of what "geek" means. It's an ill-
  > defined subculture at the best of times, but I generally
  > see two loose and overlapping superfamilies. On the one 
  > hand, those geeks whose common denominator is a passion 
  > for technical pursuits of all sorts -- OS geeks, coding 
  > geeks, sysadmin geeks, etc.; on the other, those whose 
  > common denominator is a passion for media -- comic book 
  > geeks, film geeks, anime geeks, gaming geeks, etc. I'm a 
  > game designer with a degree in performance studies. You 
  > can probably guess where I fall. I wasn't thinking espe-
  > cially rigorously when I wrote 5GSF (or, for that matter,
  > Why Geeks Like Anime), so while I defined my terms, I
  > used the media-geek definition throughout. This caused
  > problems for some readers coming from the other side of
  > the tracks -- like, say, Metafilter.

Re: Geek Social Fallacies (2003)

#34
> Less commonly, people form a sort of counter-fallacy which I call "Your Feelings, Your Problem". YFYP carriers deal with other people's fallacies by ignoring them entirely, in the process acquiring a reputation for being charmingly tactless.

Hahaha, I empathise very much with the YFYP guys. I don't think it's a fallacy though. It truly is the case that the blame lies with those who subscribe to fallacious thinking.

Re: Geek Social Fallacies (2003)

#36
post #16
post #7

I don't get it. This just seems like an attack on an entire group of people that I'm guessing have annoyed or belittled the author at one time or another. For what purpose? I don't believe he is genuinely trying to advise and help here. The tone isn't right for it.

Sounds like GSF2 on full display...

Sounds like you let people do your thinking for you.

Re: Geek Social Fallacies (2003)

#37
I have an entirely different result. I certainly felt ostracized as a child. For a VERY long time. For me at one point the desire to belong to a group at all just snapped and let go. I distinctly remember it being there, and being a very strong desire. But it just disappeared, very suddenly, I think when I was 15 or 16 years old and I've been much happier since.

Now I simply have zero interest in people. I mean I can see people as a puzzle that needs solving, or a means to an end and this I can find very interesting and can result in a lot of attention from me. This is always misinterpreted. But I just don't care. I work with people for years, I "know" my neighbors and so on, and I do the necessary social events and such, but it's fake. It's a calculated move, so to speak. Like doing groceries, just somewhat more involved. I don't enjoy doing this, and it drains my energy. People generally find this very surprising, especially when suddenly that attention totally disappears.

I feel like all my social interaction is mechanical. People's reactions are very predictable, and if you want to get what you want, you have to go through some motions. I may want to learn from someone, figure something out, and they have a wife and kids, they may have a boyfriend/girlfriend, may want to have a drink, etc. Fine. I do that, but it feels like work and drains my energy just like work does. I also don't care and generally don't really remember much of that.

There are some exceptions to this. My wife and my kids, and a few, very few people around us. In total, 6 people.

Re: Geek Social Fallacies (2003)

#38
post #25
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not lost. 15 years later, it is still up, and it is even featured on Hacker News ;) https://www.google.com/search?q=link:http://www.plausiblyden... revealed 370 results, including social networks, blogs and the like. What may be true is that the global signal to noise ratio is lower than before. A consequence of the web being cheap and accessible. However, that kind of content is not only present but there is m…

Something can be an example of what was lost without itself actually being lost. The pyramids are an example of this distinction. However I think, from your examples, that you see the world in a fairly similar way to @le-mark and your distinction is more one of labels than anything else.

> The pyramids are an example of this distinction.

The pyramids were never lost. They were in plain sight the entire time. Local people knew about them. They were 'discovered' by European colonizers and integrated into a pop culture phenomenon back in Europe, which included racist tropes and undertones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptomania

Re: Geek Social Fallacies (2003)

#39
Great post, and an opportunity to talk about something that some in our community really need to hear: Don't neglect person hygiene.

I have literally stopped attending group events because of extreme B.O. that one or a few people have (and I'm not typically sensitive to odors). I don't expect you to care about me, but I guarantee there are people you care about who feel the same way.

Please just do these things. I know sometimes they are a hassle, and issues with depression and such can make them even harder, but please try:

1. Take a shower every day. Preferably in the morning. You may still stink even if you can't smell it yourself. This still applies even if you didn't work out or otherwise don't think you sweat.

2. Wear deodorant. Trust me, you need it, even if you can't smell yourself (others can)

3. Long hair and beards are cool, but they need to be kept clean or they become cess pools of funk.

4. Do your laundry. Taking a daily shower won't matter much if you put on a B.O. riddled shirt from the day before because you don't want to do laundry.

5. Your co-workers are often afraid to tell you when you smell, but they are trapped and helpless when they are forced to share a space with you. Don't do that to them.

6. Cigarette smoke and cologne do not cover B.O. They blend together to create a whole new type of nasty funk. But you should put on cologne after your shower. It smells good and makes other people happy. It will also raise your confidence and put you in a better mood.

7. You are an awesome person, and I love you.

Re: Geek Social Fallacies (2003)

#40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the possible exception of GSF1, I'd say all of them are done by some people from all groups.

GSF1 appears among artists, hippies, and that sort of crowd in addition to geeks. It’s a common response to social bullying, and not limited to geeks — though it tends to manifest in marginalized social groups, for obvious reasons.

GSF1 is also exploited by sociopaths in those crowds. Even if everyone knows that so-and-so is an asshole you're always the bad guy to call them out on it.
Post reply on HN