Navigation
User login
Topics
Archive
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
Why Nerds Don't Have to be Smart
by Sofia Theotoky
Someone criticizingly mentioned that Corrupt was "anti-nerd" in the comments section. This seems to a point of recurring misinterpretation: generally taken as an espousal of empty machismo. Based on my cursory understanding of Corrupt's take on "nerd culture," I have to venture that it comes under attack for being a perfect demonstration of deflecting individual responsibility -- a continuing consequence of liberalism.
Nerds, to me - and this just might be a semantic point - in addition to being intellectual, bask in their social victimhood status. I study on a campus of 60 000 people who mostly identify as nerds. They all have a quest to be different and they wear their social defects as a badge of pride. Being socially isolated, or awkward, is no longer a mark of distinction when 59 999 other people suffer from the same issues.
Being a nerd isn't even a form of social rebellion so much as it is a form of social acceptance. It is a perverse source of happiness only found in relation to society at large. If nerds were able to re-structure the world as they saw fit, a world where sitting in basements and playing computer games all day were the societal norm (even though I would argue it already is), they would invent new ways to further differentiate themselves, more cripples to rely upon as a personality crutch.
The few intellectuals here in Toronto who seem to be well-adjusted, happy individuals - and I suspect elsewhere also - are often accused of being intellectual populists, as if their happiness was a bad thing. I fail to understand why perpetuating, or worse yet, creating, social weakness is positive. It certainly is not inherent to being intellectual, which I think is an important form of personal development!
Note that being socially awkward is often used as a funny replacement for being actually intelligent. It's as if playing particular computer games, wearing certain clothing brands, enjoying certain technologies are substitutions for the essence of being a nerd -- being smart.
Alpha Geek
As a self proclaimed Geek with Aspergers (gasp, I know, I'm such a self rightous victim cry baby, or I actually have a brain more prone to systemizing and visual spatial thinking than a verbal-linguistic and socially aware brain) I would like to chime in.
I am a Geek and have always been extremely popular (not with chicks, but I did score a hot wife) but I also am a smart ass and loved to fight, so the in-crowds always took me in. I like to systemize people.
Geeks break the rules.
Nerds follow them.
They both are obsessed with intellectual pursuits. Geeks are more likely to be social, as they are more likely to drink, do drugs, and break the rules. There is more to it then that, buts I got to go.
...
I can see that you study Psychology, because a lot of people who do have figured out some of the hows, but not the why's, and those are sometimes more important.
I can speak partly for myself and for people I've heard from that there are some "I-know-what's-best"-people who are very eager to diagnose people with this and that (mostly autism and ADD) because that will show how much they know how humans work. Sadly those people are completely ignorant of the philosophical fundaments of science, which psychology should still always be.
I've been told that when I was in elementary school teachers thought I was autistic. I am certain that if I was tested when being 5 the results would have been positive and I would've taken a whole different path. Luckily the test came when I had some more common sense and could understand what the meaning of such a test was. However, I know people who have been diagnosed with "mental diseases" when young, who turned out to be very intelligent people, but who were completely frustrated with the backwards system they've lived their youth through.
The problem here is over-socialization. Practically mental fascism. People who don't fit the norms become anomaly one, two or three and get excused for everything they do and don't have to live up to any expectations. There are of course people who are seriously delusional and who can't function, but this form of the socializing proces is an unnecessary evil. People who simply can't function will show sooner or later and can then be reassesed. Searching for tell-tale signs of certain diseases is the most unscientific thing to do. At least since Popper.
But, to comment on the article, this socializing proces takes on milder forms. What you do here is in essence the same: You classify a group who show certain symptoms as "nerds" and generalize them into a different species. Then you continue by saying they do not fit in with society, so they are wrong and they have "defects."
Speaking as someone who might be perceived as a nerd I can say that there is no "nerd". Merely people who want to belong to a certain sub-culture and people who are generally less active socially. What those reasons for relative social inactivity may be differs from person to person, but it is in no way something that is wrong and should not be. I recall that people with "Schizoid Personality Disorder" were regarded the same as you do nerds. They were recluses who had to be resocialized in order for them to become useful to society. What people didn't realize until not so long ago is that there is no absolute good and no absolute evil, and that a lot of those "mentally ill" were actually very well capable of contributing to society.
I read you loud and clear
I read you loud and clear about nerdiness being another cult of victimhood, but I don't think all nerds are this way.
Many of them, I find, are quite happy to accept their limitations and don't walk around with this idea that society owes them.
"It's as if playing
"It's as if playing particular computer games, wearing certain clothing brands, enjoying certain technologies are substitutions for the essence of being a nerd -- being smart."
Sounds like an example of symbolic gratification--an issue I think Alex addressed a little while ago, a few times even.
I think that for most nerds,
I think that for most nerds, the problem is less a lack of intellect, and more of a lack of motivation & strength of character, and an unwillingness to focus their intellect into something actually worthwhile. Of course, I am only talking about the nerds I have encountered.
This article is worth it just for this line alone:
"Nerds...bask in their social victimhood status"
Very true, which is why, as I've said time and time again before: bullying, outside of a friendship context, does not work, and drives nerds further into their romanticized nerd identity.
Only socialization based on the nerd being part of a local community based culture will work.
Your post is not about nerds
Your post is not about nerds... it's about geeks. Nerds are into intellectual stuff and love learning, someone who's playing videogames all day and failing school is certainly NOT a nerd, but just someone who's socially awkward who sucks at school. If you dont have any serious scholastic or intellectual interests you cannot be a nerd, period. You are merely a geek with a hobby.
Nerds are smart, geeks are retards.
Stupid people think they are smarter then smart people, this is why stupid people cannot recognize who genuine smart people are and resort to steretypes.
The nerd/geek distinction, to be a little tangential
It's interesting you have the definition of 'nerd' and 'geek' you do. I've heard 'geek' plenty of times as a suffix to mean "someone ostensibly uncool with focused and extensive knowledge on a given subject". For example, the "computer geeks" are the computer enthusiasts and know-it-alls, exchange for 'guitar' or 'science' or whatever other non-socially oriented pursuit it is. The word nerd can act as a suffix in the same way.
There's been no consensual definition to the words 'nerd' and 'geek'.
Dictionary.com says:
Nerd
–noun Slang.
1. a stupid, irritating, ineffectual, or unattractive person.
2. an intelligent but single-minded person obsessed with a nonsocial hobby or pursuit: a computer nerd.
Geek
–noun Slang.
1. a peculiar or otherwise dislikable person, esp. one who is perceived to be overly intellectual.
2. a computer expert or enthusiast (a term of pride as self-reference, but often considered offensive when used by outsiders.)
3. a carnival performer who performs sensationally morbid or disgusting acts, as biting off the head of a live chicken.
If you ask me, they're both kind of arbitrary and loaded terms, though an unintelligent person can certainly not be a nerd and I'll give you that. Excuse my geeky pedanticalness (pedantry?)
Nerds ...
... It's the nerds who know how to program C++, how to use Linux command line or how to solve complex mathematics problems. You know, the IMPORTANT stuff. All a geek might know is the full dialogue of Star Wars or Lord of the Rings or whatever that he memorized by watching that movie over a hundred times. That's why sofia's post is just sad.
"The stupid person thinks she's smarter then the smart person"--Anonymous Corrupt reader
Um, if you read the post you
Um, if you read the post you would know I made mention that the semantic distinction is immaterial to the point of the post. Which is that it's wrong - whatever you're called - to intentionally harbour yourself in alienation.
Alienation
and who alienated the nerds that drove them into alienation in the firstplace? Self important douchebags akin to Martin, many nerds start out just fine but get crushed by environments of vicious people, because normal people are addicted to their prejudices and sensibilities, they lack the IQ to look beyond surface characteristics they personally find annoying, if the world is not arranged around their aesthetic and other sensibilities they flip out and become hostile little monsters.
The truth is nerds become nerds because most normal people are just prejudiced trash in their youth.
Many nerds do try over and over again to fit in but eventually give up because they are not in the right environments. Most kids don't choose where they grow up or the kinds of kids they are around, so if you are with kids that aren't going to meet you halfway that's going to buildup a pattern and strategy of behaviour and perception of the world learned in the school system thats going to be exceedingly difficult to break away from.
I work with very nerdy people much of the time to get their lives back on track, and much of what you write is absolutely sophomoric because it takes a superficial view of the stereotype instead of addressing the individuals and their problems directly, I've had to deal and watch good people die because of the worlds self-righteous ignoramuses who superficially talk about these people as a group as if they knew something, anything at all about who these people are and what kind of shit they had to go through in their lives.
Victimization
"The truth is nerds become nerds because most normal people are just prejudiced trash in their youth."
While other people may have a little bit to do with a nerds alienation, it largely lies on the fault of the nerd himself. For one, when all one does is mostly solitary activities such as play games, they tend to lose social skills. Staring at pixels all day is not good for human interaction. Second, if a nerd is going to willingly allow someone to alienate him and not stand against it, then it is largely the nerd's fault for being socially inept.
"Many nerds do try over and over again to fit in but eventually give up because they are not in the right environments. Most kids don't choose where they grow up or the kinds of kids they are around, so if you are with kids that aren't going to meet you halfway that's going to buildup a pattern and strategy of behaviour and perception of the world learned in the school system thats going to be exceedingly difficult to break away from."
Most children don't choose where they grow up, you're right. But you can't expect people to always meet you halfway, thats just the way life operates. Sometimes you have to have the will and strength to do most of the work yourself, instead of relying on people catering to your needs.
"...as if they knew something, anything at all about who these people are and what kind of shit they had to go through in their lives."
This, as another comment has stated, is an excuse for victimhood. Not all nerds have had tragic lives, and even if they did, it is no excuse to be a pathetic loser. If someone did have a lot of shit going on in their lives it, ideally, should motivate them to become stronger so they can be happier.
That's the liberal minded
That's the liberal minded victim-hood she was talking about.
Stupid kids know nothing about the world
"That's the liberal minded victim-hood she was talking about."
The problem is there are too many douchebags in the world, given the worlds problems are caused by warrior / hostile psychological types (the assholes who viciously attack nerds) these douchebags grow up to be even bigger douchebags and get into positions of power and fuckup countries - i.e. like the GOP in america
It has nothing to do with victiumhood, victimhood is a word that wants to naturalize people being assholes towards one another. Perhaps sofia is a masochist. If she ever gets raped hardcore by someone that's been bullied to the max, the problem is not with the nerds, it's with the douchebags and the douchebags that don't help the nerds.
I think the problem involves "kids raising themselves."
This old article does a great job of covering this:
http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html
Basically, nerds have weaknesses in terms of social skills and assertiveness. Bullies have weaknesses in terms of a lack of control and constructive application of their strengths (assertiveness and physical strength.) As the article suggests, both spend most of their childhoods in a flawed psuedo-society created by kids, with minimal feedback from adults (or bad feedback, such as nerds being told by their parents: "you're fine just the way you are!")
Considering nerds and bullies are both just kids with childish emotional and intellectual states, to place the blame on either of them is short-sighted. During childhood, most nerds getting picked on don't have the level of self-awareness to stop and think: "Hmmm, they are clearly picking on me because I am showing social weakness, I better step it up!" They usual default to "They're picking on me, and I feel bad." and then shift into their natural default introvert mode and shut themselves off (them playing video games is not them trying to purposely screw their own social skills over, it's a product of their natural defense mechanism.) On the other end of the spectrum, bullies, especially as children (or as man-children) don't have the level of self-awareness to go: "Hmm, my bullying of people is morally wrong and could have far reaching consequences. I should use my strengths to build rather than destroy." They usually default to "This is fun and makes me feel good! I'm going to do more!" Exceptions exist, but above is the general rule of thumb for both parties.
In short, they are kids who are ultimately not responsible for their actions (at least during childhood. As they get older and older, this leeway gets less and less) and are in need of better guidance and socialization that public schools fail at.
"While other people may have a little bit to do with a nerds alienation, it largely lies on the fault of the nerd himself. For one, when all one does is mostly solitary activities such as play games, they tend to lose social skills. Staring at pixels all day is not good for human interaction. Second, if a nerd is going to willingly allow someone to alienate him and not stand against it, then it is largely the nerd's fault for being socially inept."
This sounds suspiciously like the "the weak deserved to be picked on/it's okay to do something wrong if you can get away with it" mentality (ie. "she deserved to get robbed, she didin't have bars on her windows!"), which is morally lax and involves rationalization, and also does not really take into account the bully's role in this.
At the same time:
"It has nothing to do with victiumhood, victimhood is a word that wants to naturalize people being assholes towards one another. Perhaps sofia is a masochist. If she ever gets raped hardcore by someone that's been bullied to the max, the problem is not with the nerds, it's with the douchebags and the douchebags that don't help the nerds."
No. Being picked on is not a "license to be a shithead" card, anymore than the aforementioned "weakness/might is right" rationalization above.
That article...
... was really bad.
The real problem is nerds are often more like adults in their views and their interests then their peers and this causes problems because they can't stand their peers immaturity. That is the issue, their mental age is uneven, part of their brain is adult, part of their brain is a bit childish (because of their age, i.e. the physics of biological development).
Umm... you do realize...
...that your post is essentially a Cliff Notes version of part of that article, right? The author basically agrees with you.
The article..
... was still horrible. Many nerds don't want to fit in only because their mental age is higher then their peers, not because they really lack in social skills, it's that their peers are immature.
Your best line was "I think the problem involves "kids raising themselves.""
I agree and endorse your message 100%
We have the undeveloped raising the undeveloped.
If you read the article, my
If you read the article, my distinction for "nerd" was the v. unwillingness to be helped out of their victimhood. I stated that if they had the chance to restructure society, they would find alternate ways of alienating myself from it.
a word from a computer programmer
That's true. I know few people who think that all people should be proficient in Terminal commands and use Linux as their main OS. What nerds fail to understand is that no one cares about their ultra-elitist nerdy stuff and the non-nerds just want to use their computers without having a headache, that's why GUI's have been invented. Some nerds would like to come back to 70's when their were the only computer users - it's a quest for self importance, it's childish and they should be mocked to death.
Sofia
"If you read the article, my distinction for "nerd" was the v. unwillingness to be helped out of their victimhood. I stated that if they had the chance to restructure society, they would find alternate ways of alienating myself from it."
I read it just fine. If the real nerds had a chance to restructure society, you would not be alienated from society because real nerds (the best of the best) would take the best of human qualities and eliminate the worst, the point of nerds developing technology is to ultimately transcend biological deficiencies both in themselves and in others, real nerds know they too are just as flawed as those they feel alienated from, the elite nerds have a love and sympothy for human beings that is unmatched, because of their closeness to the sciences they understand well the nature of how nature works and the element of fate and cause and effect in human life that most normal people can't even begin to appreciate. Real nerds want the world to be a much better place then it is and they realize that it is the biological inferiority of mankind as a whole that is the problem.
In short you're attacking a strawman, under the assumption that nerds have the same ideas of what a better world looks like, because you haven't thought about the matter to the depth necessary to make those kinds of claims.
Parody?
>"Real nerds want the world to be a much better place..."
So are you "SpokesNerd" with your own straw "real nerds"?
Honestly, this sounds like emo high school writing. The real world is not a clicque-stratified romper room. Pull your weight or don't. No crybabies.
>"Real nerds want the world to be a much better place then it is and they realize that it is the biological inferiority of mankind as a whole that is the problem."
I'm sure Hitler and Stalin thought the same. (Ooops! Godwin's Law violation.)
>" If the real nerds had a chance to restructure society..."
Just growing up would take far less time and effort.
"If the real nerds....."
Yes, and if the true Scotsman had such an opportunity as well!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman
Moron
Note I said if the RIGHT people were put in charge, way to take my comment out of context. We could argue the same for sofia's argument btw.
1. The fallacy illustrates
1. The fallacy illustrates that this is a problem of terminology.
2. Sofia's article defines nerds as possibly intelligent but socially retarded people.
3. Therefore when she means nerds, she means socially retarded but intelligent people. 4. Note that this excludes people referred to as nerds or people who refer to themselves as nerds who are not socially retarded/possibly intelligent.
There was no fallacy
you just created a fallacy because you misinterpreted by post. I even put in brackets "the best of the best".