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

The Weird Nerd comes with trade-offs

writingruxandrabio.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 505 posts

Re: The Weird Nerd comes with trade-offs

#211

Post by tetromino_ »

programjames wrote: post #132
doug_durham wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The intent is to de-stigmatize the labels. I consider myself a "weird nerd". I find the use of the label affirming. Perhaps ASD or other symptom descriptive way to describing things would be more "correct". However "weird nerd" is what the other parts of society use to describe these terms. Using the term to describe the positive aspects of these symptoms helps to take the sting out.

I think "genius" fits the author's meaning and connotation much better than "weird nerd". If the author wants to fight for genius rights, why start from a position of weakness?

Because 99% of weird nerds are not geniuses. I know that I am a weird nerd, I work surrounded by a significant percentage of weird nerds, but in the past, a couple of times, had the privilege of working with a true genius - and I can say that we weird nerds and the geniuses are as different species. It's like yard birds vs. eagles: both have wings and feathers and lay eggs, but the final product is very different.

Re: The Weird Nerd comes with trade-offs

#212

Post by mmcgaha »

cbozeman wrote: post #171
bradleyjg wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

However, in my experience the vast majority of brilliant nerds way overextend themselves, and are much too confident outside their domain. They're also much more likely to be jerks and will tumble from conflict to conflict until they get their way by attrition or status. Conflicts are strangely more personal because so much ego is tied up into it. They're more likely to assume they're right in every (non-tech/science…

"You're out of your depth." That's what you do. A lot of very smart people think because they're very smart they have some kind of exceptional insight into the inner workings of all things. They don't. And they need to be reminded of that. Intelligence allows someone to gain that insight faster than those in the middle of the bell curve of IQ, but it doesn't magically confer it . It still takes time, reading, researc…

A better response would be to tell them you are done trying to convince them because you own the responsibility and consequences of the decision. "You're out of your depth" is an insult and is intended to be one.

Re: The Weird Nerd comes with trade-offs

#213

Post by red_admiral »

Waterluvian wrote: post #2

I’m not sure I follow the first sentence. What does this have to do with Women in STEM? (I’m not being political. I just don’t follow the connection)

There is an argument that, to make STEM more friendly to women, it needs a culture change - which implies less weird-nerd culture. Whether this argument is correct or not is a separate matter (I'm leaning towards "it's complicated, but I'll round off to 'no'.") But what's going on here is people holding this argument are dunking on a woman in STEM.

Re: The Weird Nerd comes with trade-offs

#214

Post by alistairSH »

sneed_chucker wrote: post #133
sctb wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being married and gainfully employed and able to build and maintain relationships as well as hold conversations with strangers when necessary can come at an exceptionally high cost for neurodivergent people in the form of masking (like a kind of mental tech debt). Instead of overt social difficulty, this might present itself as anxiety, depression, and suicidality—those conditions are worthy of medicalization IMO.

I agree with what you're saying, but also - everyone has problems. Is anyone truly normal or neurotypical? Why do some people's problems get the validation of the medical system and others don't? (These are non-rhetorical questions, I'm really not sure about the answers to them myself)

Why do some people's problems get the validation of the medical system and others don't?

Very roughly, because some people can't function without intervention (for loose definitions of "function"). And some treatment (therapy, drugs, whatever) can help them function.

Autism 1/Aspergers is sometimes kind of borderline - some people can function with it, but it can exact a heavy tool on them as a sibling comment noted. Depress and suicide are relatively more common. Why go through life miserable if it's not necessary?

People without autism or other diagnosable issues are generally more resilient. a bad week, one-off negative occurrence, etc won't send them into a tailspin. That's a very real concern with some neurodivergent individuals.

And you do have to remember, it's all a spectrum. And as observers, we don't know what a person is feeling/thinking internally and not expressing.

Re: The Weird Nerd comes with trade-offs

#215

Post by faeriechangling »

WereAllMadHere wrote: post #160
faeriechangling wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really accept the validity of people who are generally more functional and conventionally successful than average being called "disordered" in the first place. It seems like a weird arbitrary insistence of the medical system to simply pathologize anybody who fits into a certain box.

What about someone who needs a wheelchair but is conveniently successful?

Being in a wheelchair is rarely going to be caused by a disorder, also autism is different insofar that the negatives and positives seem to be linked to eachother and are not merely a matter of random circumstance.

But practically, the disorder definition above basically would lump the above poster in with somebody who was struggling to hold down a part time job or any social relationships as having the same level of disability. All therapies, treatments, accomidations, etc will end up calibrated for the more profoundly disabled person while being offered to the above poster. Generally, peoples first impression of the person will understandably be based on that of the average person with autism spectrum disorder if they're told they're autistic which will cause them to be pretty profoundly misunderstood.

That's just my take on this.

Re: The Weird Nerd comes with trade-offs

#216

Post by fdw »

_yb2s wrote: post #122
fdw wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm understanding your statement to mean that caring about something because of itself, without external motivation (like validation or money), is neurodivergent. So neurotypical would be to only care about something if you profit from you caring about it? Is that reading correct? If so, I have to disagree vehemently. That is not my experience at all and feels extremely homo economicus and - to be honest - depressing…

It sounds to me like you probably are introverted, but might not be familiar with exactly what that means, or how neurodivergent is really is from much more common extroverted people. Most extroverts aren't ruthless machivellian self interested people like you are worrying I am claiming, but they are focused primarily on fitting in and being accepted by others- and do choose their activities and behaviors mostly base…

> or how neurodivergent is really is from much more common extroverted people.

Do you mean to say that neurodivergence is more common among extroverted people? If so, do you have sources for that? I have not yet heard of any relation between extra- (or intraversion) and neurodiversity.

Re: The Weird Nerd comes with trade-offs

#217

Post by parineum »

kylebenzle wrote: post #146
parineum wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn't use this word specifically but this whole conversation has the underlying prior of the "everything is a spectrum" mindset. In that context, everyone is neurodivergence because, afterall it's a spectrum we're all on and nobody is going to be deadest average. At some point we have to define at what point these spectrums become clinical. The kind of language you see in the DSM for stuff like this is "does it…

Autism is a result of neurons failing to "trim" or being over-connected. Being "on the spectrum" refers to the degree of above average physical over-connection of neurons. The opposite, when neurons fail to connect or lose too many connections is called schizophrenia. People that are between the two, the vast majority of people, are not said to be either autistic or schizophrenic (you can't be both at the same time b…

You've really only redefined the spectrum. It's now a single spectrum from Autism to Schizophrenia. You can't be on two spots on the spectrum at once. You've still put everyone on a spectrum and my question still stands.

How far on the spectrum towards schizophrenia have to be before they are clinically schizophrenic?

I don't disagree with the tendency to place things on spectrums but I find that people fail to adress that some people are so far on any spectrum that they become clinical.

Re: The Weird Nerd comes with trade-offs

#218

Post by newzisforsukas »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #152
newzisforsukas wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The industry has really changed though. It is much easier to hire social well adapted people who can code at all than to hire a bunch of people with social problems who can code really good If you have no financial constraints? In what world do you spend massive amounts of money to mitigate people being "weird"?

The shift to high level languages like COBOL, BASIC, FORTRAN from machine language? The shift to GC languages? The shift to vastly inefficient but easy to use scripting languages like Python? There's a long history of trading off CPU/RAM/storage efficiency (i.e. massive amounts of money) to make computing accessible to less and less nerdy people.

Those also save time for all people? Which also saves money? I don't think anyone was like, "we need a language to save us from having to hire all these weird people!"

Re: The Weird Nerd comes with trade-offs

#219

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

I'm a bit "spectrumish." It's definitely way better, this late in life, than it was, when I was younger, but it's still there, if you know what to look for (my wife knows what to look for).

One aspect of it, that has always been a part of the package, is that folks Just. Don't. Like. Me.

Most, if questioned about their dislike, may come up with a couple of things, like "He's abrupt," or "He's arrogant," but these are also exactly the traits present in many folks that they do like. They are just trying to justify this "feeling" that they have about me.

As anyone in my shoes can tell you, we're "bully magnets." Most of us were recipients of multiple atomic wedgies, in school. My grade school days were a living hell. Again, there's no real "reason" for the hate. There's just something about us that pisses them off. I suspect that the "resting bitch face," prevalent amongst us may have something to do with it. It often looks as if we're being hostile, when we're not. I spent many years, training my "resting" face to be one that's basically "harmless dork," as opposed to "angry bastard." Doesn't win me a lot of respect, but, at least, I'm not being attacked out of the starting gate, anymore.

I've gotten used to it. It doesn't even really bother me too much, these days, and it happens a lot less. Feeling sorry for myself is a waste of time. I used to get all butthurt about it, but that was just stupid of me. Others have far worse crosses to bear. In the aggregate, it's been a good thing. I'm fairly decent at my software development.

The folks that matter, stick around. I do have a fairly large circle of close friends and associates that don't let my "oddness" get in the way, and enough folks have respected me, that I was able to make a decent living.

But many of us don't have those "soft" skills, that can be important, when working in a team, or trying to establish relationships with other people.

Re: The Weird Nerd comes with trade-offs

#220

Post by faeriechangling »

detourdog wrote: post #173
faeriechangling wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really accept the validity of people who are generally more functional and conventionally successful than average being called "disordered" in the first place. It seems like a weird arbitrary insistence of the medical system to simply pathologize anybody who fits into a certain box.

The disorder is how they affect their social surroundings. Everyone is on the spectrum and the disordered are having social problems.

Yeah but we don't call people disordered for lacking the talents of these gainfully employed autistics, so it seems sort of arbitrary to me.
Post reply on HN