Live data from Hacker News

The Weird Nerd comes with trade-offs

writingruxandrabio.com

471–480 of 505 posts

Re: The Weird Nerd comes with trade-offs

#471

The author is missing a crucial pressure that pushes against weird nerds, the people that have to work underneath them. I’ve had to answer to a Weird Nerd when I was starting out in my field, it was the worst fucking experience of my life, and I’ve spent the years since warning people away from that person, their career and their contributions to their field have stagnated due to all the people like me that they burn…

There's really no such thing as "working with computers" (as is often said), because every piece of tech was made by and for humans, so social skills always matter. The hardest projects I've succeeded at depended on looking at things that way, even purely technical solo ones.

Re: The Weird Nerd comes with trade-offs

#472

I've met a handful of people who have won at least one of the top prizes in mathematics, i.e. a Fields medal, Abel prize, or Wolf Prize. I would describe none of them as "weird nerds", and I don't think any of them are autistic. I chafe pretty hard at the suggestion here that one has to be socially ill-adjusted to advance scientific knowledge at the highest level.

Selection bias, the people who likes to socializes meets more persons so you are much more likely to encounter such people than the ones who keep to themselves. So even if most of those math winners hated socializing you wouldn't meet those so your conclusion would be the same, meaning we can't tell much about it.

Re: The Weird Nerd comes with trade-offs

#473

It feels like more and more areas of life are regressing to the mean in terms of how status is distributed. The mean being some sort of centralized cabal-like structure (perhaps autonomously/accidentally centralized, like an algo) doling out status. By design, it is highly uneven, quasi-random (there are things that make you eligible but there are no guarantees), and their authority to do so unquestioned. Take social…

You can already see echoes of this in the software community, which was historically populated by such "weird nerds" and computer geeks who traded off social tact and grace for a childhood, or even a lifetime, spent understanding the technical minutiae of software, hardware, and computing in general.

Now we have self-identifying "computer hackers" and "security researchers" and "red team operators" who probably have never heard the words "shellcode" or "ASLR" in their life, and whose technical chops cap out at wrapping payloads from hardcoded URLs in a 100-line golang script and call it an advanced exploit. We used to call them "script kiddies." "Compiler developers" who couldn't tell you the difference between a regular expression and a context-free grammar, and simply wrap babel in a javascript snippet, calling their glorified terminal alias a real compiler.

Go look at the posers on r/programminghumor, or, god forbid, fucking Instagram influencers releasing content and memes about programming instead of having any technical competence with computing itself. While being a computer nerd used to be looked down upon with derision, it's now trendy and hip to be a "software engineer," much in the same way geek culture was appropriated and colonized by outsiders to the field. People think that 16 weeks spent studying JavaScript at a bootcamp puts them on even footing with shut-ins who spent tens of thousands of hours in front of a bash terminal and customizing their vim setups. It's the absolute depths of Dunning-Krugerism. These aren't geeks; they don't act or talk the same as people who have been embedded in this culture for years and lifetimes, even if they parade around superficial status markers to try to pose as one. It's as if an Anglophone went to a country where the predominant language was one other than English and started appropriating a few dozen words from the native tongue to pose as a local - "you're not from here, are you?"

Perhaps this stance on computer geek culture is "elitist" or not "inclusive" enough, but be aware that maximum inclusivity tends to result in the same regression to the mean that you describe. It's much easier to spin a narrative about how 31337 at programming you are when you can write any bullshit you want on social media and pose and identify as something you are not, while those who are actually out there writing software instead of posting about it, pushing commits instead of simply updating their GitHub READMEs, have scant little to show to the blithering masses of people who confuse Internet Points, narratives, and hearsay for actual competence. It's a continuation of the postmodern trend to socially construct status, narrative, and indeed, even truth, by manufacturing simulacra and digital content to stand in for and completely replace any underlying reality.

Re: The Weird Nerd comes with trade-offs

#474

weird nerds depend on a kind of nobility and magnanimity from the people they work with that is perhaps a bit much to expect in academia, or anywhere that isn't a high-growth environment where participants can afford the risks of eccentricity. middling people indexed on in-group status aren't equipped to handle exceptional people who don't reciprocate what is essentially corruption, and so they force them out.

> weird nerds depend on a kind of nobility and magnanimity from the people they work with that is perhaps a bit much to expect in academia

I thought academia was created by the nobility to be a place for weird nerds since the weird nerds were useful.

Re: The Weird Nerd comes with trade-offs

#475

There's definitely been a move to demand individuals be good at everything... old stereotypes of the nerd brought a lot of negatives, but they were also apologetic, acknowledging the trade off, that paying attention deeply to one thing does lead to being worse at other things. The exact stereotype differed by domain... the performer who is a diva, the self destructive author, the manic artist... each with a hint of n…

This bizarre romanticization of autism is frustrating for those who are or have loved ones who are nonverbal, stim all day, etc.. I almost wonder if nerfing autism to the point where it's a fun thing to talk about having on tiktok is a way to demonize effective interventions so insurance companies won't have to pay for them.

Actual Obsessive Compulsive Disorder is a crippling pathology

Re: The Weird Nerd comes with trade-offs

#476

There's definitely been a move to demand individuals be good at everything... old stereotypes of the nerd brought a lot of negatives, but they were also apologetic, acknowledging the trade off, that paying attention deeply to one thing does lead to being worse at other things. The exact stereotype differed by domain... the performer who is a diva, the self destructive author, the manic artist... each with a hint of n…

> "The author wanting to combine Weird Nerd with autistic is very incorrect IMHO... I've known a lot of weird nerds, am one myself, and there's lots of different flavors, most of them not autistic." That makes one of us - no consensus required. Monotrope? AuDHD? Brenner's Lacanian "Way of Being"? Forensic accounting of which spectrum owns which symptoms is the new ultra-sport - winner take all. The thought that we wi…

Can I ask you to explain how this is at all relevant to the clear statistical fact that not every weird nerd is autistic?

Re: The Weird Nerd comes with trade-offs

#478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the weird nerd is rarely a good people manager. As useful as they might be as an individual contributor when property channeled, they can easily be a -10x contributor when you put them in charge of people.

I disagree. A "weird nerd" is much better in leadership than a socially adept careerist to parachutes in to get a bump on their resume. To build good products you need to care. A "weird nerd" is more likely to care.

It would help your point to separate design leadership from supervisory management. You do not want weird nerds in charge of personnel decisions beyond "Yes, we get along" and "No, we don't"; you do want them in decision-making roles about the product.

Re: The Weird Nerd comes with trade-offs

#479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is anyone truly normal or neurotypical Yes. I get that your questions appear to be sincere and genuine, but, yes. Relative to the actual, demonstrable, neurological differences in connectivity and so forth in the “neurodivergent” brain, the overwhelming majority of people are “normal”. Relative to the actual lived experience of “neurodivergents”, the overwhelming majority of people are “normal”. These kinds of ques…

Much like people who don’t have aphantasia speaking to people who do. And so forth. Aphantasia is one that I find extremely hard to wrap my head around. The notion that somebody who’s otherwise normal can’t visualize things is really interesting. I have a friend who has it. The only outward symptom is his dislike of fiction and most TV/movies (and you’d only notice that if you knew him fairly well).

Reading about aphantasia was a trip. I couldn't even understand it at first, so curious if this condition fit me I looked up the test for diagnosing aphantasia which started describe scenes of a beach, now with a sunset, and so on, to which I was hopelessly lost because the responses seemed to suggest I should be "seeing" something. I could "imagine" a beach, and think about how wet sand feels and what waves sound like; but of course I couldn't "see" it, it was just imaginary. I had to read an essay from someone else with this condition discovering that other people do "see" things before I had my little spit-take moment.

I think I _used_ to be able to visualize things. I remember feeling frustrated when I was younger and did a more art because I could never imagine the same thing twice when I wanted to draw it. Every time I tried to think about about it, it would have a different pose or texture or orientation. But even then I think I just had a different "level" of aphantasia. I could never figure out how to use color. I kept to pens and lead pencils for art and couldn't get into painting. Even now, staring at a wall and thinking about repainting it, I cannot visualize it with any other color, much less two or three colors for trim and accents.

One of the advantages, perhaps, is that I don't need to close my eyes to imagine things. There's no point, there's nothing there. I may let my focus drift so I don't get distracted by shiny or moving things. But I can stare at a wall, or go for a hike or a run and just let my mind go wild.

That said, I do enjoy fiction, though I never really get "into" anything in particular. In light of this discovery, perhaps it is because I'm not really able to "visualize" scenes to recreate memorable moments, I can only really enjoy it in the moment and maybe recall a few quotes and descriptions, which are harder to get excited about.

Re: The Weird Nerd comes with trade-offs

#480

There's definitely been a move to demand individuals be good at everything... old stereotypes of the nerd brought a lot of negatives, but they were also apologetic, acknowledging the trade off, that paying attention deeply to one thing does lead to being worse at other things. The exact stereotype differed by domain... the performer who is a diva, the self destructive author, the manic artist... each with a hint of n…

Mental illness is somewhat linked to creative productivity, sadly. Bipolar disorder is somewhat overrepresented in highly-accomplished musicians, artists, and writers (with the trend going as far back as the 1800s). It would not surprise me if ASD is overrepresented in scientists and engineers. However, people also imitate their tribe, and seeing "weird nerds" with mental illness may get other nerds to emulate that b…

Pretty sure the weird nerds the article is talking about are not the type of people that are looking at their “tribe” trying to figure out what to imitate next in order to maintain or increase their social status. They’re Weird because they pay no attention to those fads and eschew social effort in favour of dedicating the largest portion of their time to their passion. They tend to be idiosyncratic in the extreme because they aren’t constantly synchronizing their behaviour with society at large. But maybe you’re right that there are people in science and engineering that put on those trappings as a way of blending in. I think the article is arguing that the balance of poseurs is increasing and that of the genuine article decreasing.
Post reply on HN