I've been reading this site for a while and hadn't seen this, so I thought it was worth it's own thread (Jacob posted it on another thread) http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html
If you're an old timer and have seen it, well just move along I guess.
For some reason, the whole ERE blog/nasty comment issue kept popping into my head while I read it. The author implies that it's easier for nerds as adults. I guess it is if you're not forced into close proximity, but how many of us aren't through work or social contacts? Plus, Jacob found out through the blog that the Lord of the Flies mentality still applies even when you avoid direct contact with people.
Paul Graham essay "Why Nerds are Unpopular"
I’ve read the Graham article before, and it does make some good points on why nerds or smart kids are unpopular, but I think the article misses or only touches on some important things.
The one time I was inside a popular group (which in my youth I loosely defined as people who are always posing and laughing with their mouths hanging wide open), what I’ve never forgotten was how much they secretly hated one another; knives always at the ready. Not something you see from the outside.
But I saw the same thing with nerds and smart kids. One that I counted a friend turned on me viciously just because I had done better on some test that I didn’t even care about. And I haven’t really seen it improve in adult life. A few years ago I was asked to essentially referee a nasty, bitter dispute among some very intelligent scientists. Lord of the Flies at the more genteel peer review level.
The Prometheus article that Jacob posted explains this sympathetically in terms of damaged people:
The tragedy is that none of the super high IQ societies created thus far have been able to meet those needs, and the reason for this is simple. None of these groups is willing to acknowledge or come to terms with the fact that much of their membership belong to the psychological walking wounded. This alone is enough to explain the constant schisms that develop, the frequent vendettas, and the mediocre level of their publications. But those are not immutable facts; they can be changed. And the first step in doing so is to see ourselves as we are.
A less sympathetic view comes from the opening scenes from the movie The Social Network:
“You’re going to be successful and rich. But you’re going to go through life thinking that girls don’t like you because you’re a tech geek. I want you to know, from the bottom of my heart, that won’t be true: It’ll be because you’re an asshole.”
It’s true that very smart people face a different set of problems from the majority (or pluralities) of their chronological peers, and I have often felt myself that I was (mistakenly) beamed down from outer space or woken from suspended animation ala Idiocracy. But I have always seen the basic problem as one of relentless, hostile, invidious competition and envy rather than just intelligence.
The one time I was inside a popular group (which in my youth I loosely defined as people who are always posing and laughing with their mouths hanging wide open), what I’ve never forgotten was how much they secretly hated one another; knives always at the ready. Not something you see from the outside.
But I saw the same thing with nerds and smart kids. One that I counted a friend turned on me viciously just because I had done better on some test that I didn’t even care about. And I haven’t really seen it improve in adult life. A few years ago I was asked to essentially referee a nasty, bitter dispute among some very intelligent scientists. Lord of the Flies at the more genteel peer review level.
The Prometheus article that Jacob posted explains this sympathetically in terms of damaged people:
The tragedy is that none of the super high IQ societies created thus far have been able to meet those needs, and the reason for this is simple. None of these groups is willing to acknowledge or come to terms with the fact that much of their membership belong to the psychological walking wounded. This alone is enough to explain the constant schisms that develop, the frequent vendettas, and the mediocre level of their publications. But those are not immutable facts; they can be changed. And the first step in doing so is to see ourselves as we are.
A less sympathetic view comes from the opening scenes from the movie The Social Network:
“You’re going to be successful and rich. But you’re going to go through life thinking that girls don’t like you because you’re a tech geek. I want you to know, from the bottom of my heart, that won’t be true: It’ll be because you’re an asshole.”
It’s true that very smart people face a different set of problems from the majority (or pluralities) of their chronological peers, and I have often felt myself that I was (mistakenly) beamed down from outer space or woken from suspended animation ala Idiocracy. But I have always seen the basic problem as one of relentless, hostile, invidious competition and envy rather than just intelligence.
In many areas of life, the spoils go not to the best or the brightest (as measured by IQ), but to those who are willing to show up consistently and demand better performance from themselves.
I know I'm stuck in N. Taleb land these days; but I can't help but think about his Fat Tony storyline - commonsense can be more useful than academia-sense when it allows you to open up to a broad world-view that allows for reality, as opposed to the narrow-view of nerd-dom and the world of professional thinkers (on par).
Which jives with Jonah Lehrer's notes on creativity from "Imagine". The genius comes from looking far and wide and stepping outside the conventions of focussed attention.
It's a different measure of genius; and maybe its own type of nerd-ity; but a significantly different concept than what I think of when I hear "nerd" - and imagine a cloistered computer-science geek pounding away at c0d3 while slamming MountainDew.
I know I'm stuck in N. Taleb land these days; but I can't help but think about his Fat Tony storyline - commonsense can be more useful than academia-sense when it allows you to open up to a broad world-view that allows for reality, as opposed to the narrow-view of nerd-dom and the world of professional thinkers (on par).
Which jives with Jonah Lehrer's notes on creativity from "Imagine". The genius comes from looking far and wide and stepping outside the conventions of focussed attention.
It's a different measure of genius; and maybe its own type of nerd-ity; but a significantly different concept than what I think of when I hear "nerd" - and imagine a cloistered computer-science geek pounding away at c0d3 while slamming MountainDew.
The Graham article stirred up some old memories of mine. In elementary school in City A, I was a diligent student, frequently on the honor role, but not a statistical outlier relative to my classmates. Starting junior high in City B, I soon realized that I was >2Sigma (though I wouldn't have put it that way then) relative to all my new classmates. I was not well-liked and had only one good friend who was a similarly ostracized outlier. And, of course, the tension between wanting popularity and wanting to be smart that Graham writes about was omnipresent. Perhaps the desire to be smart made it impossible to devote any effort to the mystery of "how" one becomes more popular. Graham doesn't really explore it, but I think the root of the tension is the sexual awakening of puberty. I wanted to be liked by the prettiest girls with a new urgency that I didn't fully understand but felt as a relentless physical imperative. They, of course, had no use for a non-atheletic boy of average looks. It was a recipe for frustration that is probably all too familiar to the majority of young adolescents. I can remember making bargains with God to sacrifice 1/3 of my intellectual power for a proportional increase in my atheletic ability (foolishly believing this was the key to popularity). Thankfully, God did not oblige.
I basically arrived at high school with the knowledge that the sexual frustration was inescapable, but that focusing on my intellect was the path to success as an adult. Strangely, by making almost no effort to conform or court popularity or date, I managed by my senior year to experience at least some social success. My one friend from junior high and I were the co-valedictorians of the class, and I felt then (and still do) that many of our classmates celebrated our accomplishment, and the opportunities it would bring, with genuine admiration untinged by envy.
At some point every smart person realizes that intelligence is a necessary but not sufficient quality in the economic arena. The intellectual facinations of one's private life don't necessarily have any currency outside the immediate circle of family and friends. Organizations (or clients for freelancers) don't want to hire stupid people, but they also want to like (or "have a good fit") with those they do hire. It seems to me that the only hypersmart people who escape this dilemma are those who's knowledge is in such demand and who's skills are so rare that the demand for that person is inelastic. He or she can set a high price and express whatever personality traits he or she likes. Maybe that's the 1000 folks Aldous Huxley was writing about in @Jacob's other quote.
I basically arrived at high school with the knowledge that the sexual frustration was inescapable, but that focusing on my intellect was the path to success as an adult. Strangely, by making almost no effort to conform or court popularity or date, I managed by my senior year to experience at least some social success. My one friend from junior high and I were the co-valedictorians of the class, and I felt then (and still do) that many of our classmates celebrated our accomplishment, and the opportunities it would bring, with genuine admiration untinged by envy.
At some point every smart person realizes that intelligence is a necessary but not sufficient quality in the economic arena. The intellectual facinations of one's private life don't necessarily have any currency outside the immediate circle of family and friends. Organizations (or clients for freelancers) don't want to hire stupid people, but they also want to like (or "have a good fit") with those they do hire. It seems to me that the only hypersmart people who escape this dilemma are those who's knowledge is in such demand and who's skills are so rare that the demand for that person is inelastic. He or she can set a high price and express whatever personality traits he or she likes. Maybe that's the 1000 folks Aldous Huxley was writing about in @Jacob's other quote.
As a side note, there are smart semi-nerdy popular football players. I was one, as were a few of my teammates. Hell, one is going to be the #1 pick in the NFL draft next weekend. And, chasing that oblong ball is much more fun than Mr. Graham thinks. Football gets such a bad rap.
Overall, I agree with Graham. His discriptions of high school are spot on except for his main theory that nerds are only nerds because they opt out. While, I agree this is definitely one of the main reasons nerds are nerds. I hardly think it's the prime reason or even just one of a handful of reasons.
Overall, I agree with Graham. His discriptions of high school are spot on except for his main theory that nerds are only nerds because they opt out. While, I agree this is definitely one of the main reasons nerds are nerds. I hardly think it's the prime reason or even just one of a handful of reasons.
-
aussierogue
- Posts: 379
- Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:02 pm
I went to selective boys high school here in Melbourne that is ranked in Australias whos who in the top 5 schools in Australia. The only thing my school hasnt produced is a prime minister but we have had 4 deputy prime ministers over the last 25 years. All kids need to pass a scholarship to get in so by defintition smart kids..
But guess what...there were still jocks on one end and spaz's on the other....go figure..ie you could have done the same experiment at lunchtime with the tables of popular vs unpopular..
But guess what...there were still jocks on one end and spaz's on the other....go figure..ie you could have done the same experiment at lunchtime with the tables of popular vs unpopular..
-
jennypenny
- Posts: 6853
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
Sorry Chad, I didn't think of you when I posted the link. And I agree with you--I only dated a couple of guys before I got married but one was the captain of the football team and he was one of the nicest guys I've ever met.
The nerds can be mean too. I ended up a freak (as Graham calls them) because I was rejected by the nerds. I was a bit rebellious which set me apart from the other smart kids. While they spent their weekends doing sensible things, I was sneaking into the Stone Pony. The freaks only accepted me in the end because I would help them with their schoolwork. Unlike Graham's school, the freaks and nerds in my school didn't get along.
The nerds can be mean too. I ended up a freak (as Graham calls them) because I was rejected by the nerds. I was a bit rebellious which set me apart from the other smart kids. While they spent their weekends doing sensible things, I was sneaking into the Stone Pony. The freaks only accepted me in the end because I would help them with their schoolwork. Unlike Graham's school, the freaks and nerds in my school didn't get along.
No need to apologize, as it was a great article. I wasn't angry or offended by any means. I hope I didn't come off that way, but I do try change the football stereotype even if some do fit that steretype.
No one takes into account that the vast majority of high school football teams are at minimum 2-3 times larger than any other sport (in college it's probably 4-5 times larger). This larger population means it's more likely they will get more of the creatons than other sports. Plus, it's usually the most visible sport, which highlights those creatons even more.
Ok, done with my little football rant.
Interestingly enough my class had rather vague cliques. The lack of cliques was prominent enough for the teachers to actually make comments about how the cliques were missing. I'm by no means suggesting there weren't any of the cliques Graham suggests, but based on the stories from other schools our cliques were much less rigid and vicious.
No one takes into account that the vast majority of high school football teams are at minimum 2-3 times larger than any other sport (in college it's probably 4-5 times larger). This larger population means it's more likely they will get more of the creatons than other sports. Plus, it's usually the most visible sport, which highlights those creatons even more.
Ok, done with my little football rant.
Interestingly enough my class had rather vague cliques. The lack of cliques was prominent enough for the teachers to actually make comments about how the cliques were missing. I'm by no means suggesting there weren't any of the cliques Graham suggests, but based on the stories from other schools our cliques were much less rigid and vicious.
@Chad
The social experiment that is "high school football" does seem to be a stereotype magnet. And I agree that the size of the team can easily represent a majority of the male student population. Indeed, at my high school a part of my unpopularity (and that of the other co-valedictorian) was our refusal to play despite being about 200 lbs. and in good physical condition. The coach constantly insisted that we had a God-given duty to play tackle or guard for the glory of our alma mater.
But I realized after freshman year that there is a heirarchy to football. And linemen don't rate as highly as backs and receivers. Additionally, the school ultimately sent guys to the pros. This was a serious development path, and I didn't feel like being the canon fodder than enabled some other guy's destiny.
I didn't mean to imply that some of the jocks weren't decent human beings. By senior year, I had strong friendships with a few guys who understood that we had different paths toward different goals.
The social experiment that is "high school football" does seem to be a stereotype magnet. And I agree that the size of the team can easily represent a majority of the male student population. Indeed, at my high school a part of my unpopularity (and that of the other co-valedictorian) was our refusal to play despite being about 200 lbs. and in good physical condition. The coach constantly insisted that we had a God-given duty to play tackle or guard for the glory of our alma mater.
But I realized after freshman year that there is a heirarchy to football. And linemen don't rate as highly as backs and receivers. Additionally, the school ultimately sent guys to the pros. This was a serious development path, and I didn't feel like being the canon fodder than enabled some other guy's destiny.
I didn't mean to imply that some of the jocks weren't decent human beings. By senior year, I had strong friendships with a few guys who understood that we had different paths toward different goals.
@Maus
No need to apologize. I didn't take any of your comments harshly. 90% of my response was really at Graham rather than anyone on here. I think he put a little too much blame on football. If tennis had 50 kids on the team and was the most popular sport, it would pull the same "popularity jackasses", who like to torture "lessor" cliques, as football currently does.
I completely understand your mindset. The average lineman is lower in the hierarchy than the average skill player. Though, that hierarchy changes the more talented the lineman gets. Good at any position is always rewarded with status.
You are correct in assumming that a 200 pound lineman would just be "canon fodder that enabled some other guy's destiny." But, football really needs those players to be able to practice (it's almost impossible to practive appropriately in college without 90 or more players). This is part of why you and your friend got the "strong sell" from the coach. If I had been in your position I might have made the same choice. My parents actually thought I wouldn't last two weeks when I started playing in 8th grade.
No need to apologize. I didn't take any of your comments harshly. 90% of my response was really at Graham rather than anyone on here. I think he put a little too much blame on football. If tennis had 50 kids on the team and was the most popular sport, it would pull the same "popularity jackasses", who like to torture "lessor" cliques, as football currently does.
I completely understand your mindset. The average lineman is lower in the hierarchy than the average skill player. Though, that hierarchy changes the more talented the lineman gets. Good at any position is always rewarded with status.
You are correct in assumming that a 200 pound lineman would just be "canon fodder that enabled some other guy's destiny." But, football really needs those players to be able to practice (it's almost impossible to practive appropriately in college without 90 or more players). This is part of why you and your friend got the "strong sell" from the coach. If I had been in your position I might have made the same choice. My parents actually thought I wouldn't last two weeks when I started playing in 8th grade.
-
Spartan_Warrior
- Posts: 1659
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15974
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
One framework [in wide usage when it comes to semantics] seems to be
normal: social skills, no technical skills
nerd: no social skills, technical skills
geek: social skills, technical skills
dork: no social skills, no technical skills
I think Graham's article is compatible with this seeing that "nerd = no [interest in acquiring] social skills". One of his points is also that while social skills are all that matters in HS (the main reason being that technical skills are largely irrelevant), technical skills become important outside institutionalized frameworks.
As a corollary, one may derive that institutional systems are set up to remove the important of technical skills ... or at least render them irrelevant. (<=- there's some free career advice right there
).
I think the IQ issue just adds another somewhat correlated dimension to this. In particular when it comes to the Hollingworth gap (the observation that communication breaks down when there's an IQ gap over 30 points because the thinking style becomes qualitatively (not just quantitatively) different).
From this it follows that if someone is significantly intelligent (more than 30 points above the mean), there's a natural barrier in communication to the majority of (random) people(*). The intelligent person may then just decide, perhaps unconsciously or simply through conditioning through too many failures, that talking to random people is unrewarding. Thus social skills never develop and the intelligent person defaults to nerddom. The way around this is if the intelligent person is lucky enough to be surrounded by intelligent peers or parents or whatever... enough to foster an interest in "other people". Otherwise "random other people" can easily come to be seen as something not worthwhile to spend time on.
(*) Since everybody goes to HS these days, the HS population is practically randomly sampled.
normal: social skills, no technical skills
nerd: no social skills, technical skills
geek: social skills, technical skills
dork: no social skills, no technical skills
I think Graham's article is compatible with this seeing that "nerd = no [interest in acquiring] social skills". One of his points is also that while social skills are all that matters in HS (the main reason being that technical skills are largely irrelevant), technical skills become important outside institutionalized frameworks.
As a corollary, one may derive that institutional systems are set up to remove the important of technical skills ... or at least render them irrelevant. (<=- there's some free career advice right there
).I think the IQ issue just adds another somewhat correlated dimension to this. In particular when it comes to the Hollingworth gap (the observation that communication breaks down when there's an IQ gap over 30 points because the thinking style becomes qualitatively (not just quantitatively) different).
From this it follows that if someone is significantly intelligent (more than 30 points above the mean), there's a natural barrier in communication to the majority of (random) people(*). The intelligent person may then just decide, perhaps unconsciously or simply through conditioning through too many failures, that talking to random people is unrewarding. Thus social skills never develop and the intelligent person defaults to nerddom. The way around this is if the intelligent person is lucky enough to be surrounded by intelligent peers or parents or whatever... enough to foster an interest in "other people". Otherwise "random other people" can easily come to be seen as something not worthwhile to spend time on.
(*) Since everybody goes to HS these days, the HS population is practically randomly sampled.
@jacob said, "From this it follows that if someone is significantly intelligent (more than 30 points above the mean), there's a natural barrier in communication to the majority of (random) people"
Seems to me if someone is that much smarter than the average person he should be able to figure out how to have a meaningful conversation with them.
Seems to me if someone is that much smarter than the average person he should be able to figure out how to have a meaningful conversation with them.
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15974
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
@Ego - The gap is not insurmountable. It can be brute forced. However, the bigger the difference in intellect/intelligence, the more effort is required. The point where the required effort has become too large for natural relations to form is a 30 point difference or 2 sdevs. If very bright people somehow find themselves in a situation where they are not surrounded by equally very bright people, they may just decide that the reward/effort of socializing (in Graham's words, being popular) is not worth it and decide to become nerds.
Evolution favors the cooperative. The second largest creature on earth as measured by biomass is also one of the smallest, the hyper-cooperative ant.
Cooperation requires communication. Those who cannot communicate are shunned by the group and do not pass on the incommunicable genes.
Zoom in from the species level to the individual and we see parallels. Pheromones, touch, eye-to-eye contact, physical connection, ect... these all have physiological and psychological benefits beyond their simplest functions.
Jacob, you were spot on to express the variability of IQs in terms of standard deviation from the mean. Two STDV above average IQ can be equally as devastating as two below. The ultra-low-IQ individual relies on pure instinct and training without applying reason. The ultra-high-IQ individual can use their superior mind to override instinct and training.
This can be a blessing and a curse. Instinct drives us to work together. It makes us want to communicate in order to promote cooperation. Ultra-high-IQs are masters of rationalization/justification. They do a cost/benefit analysis of each and every conversation and consciously decide to refrain from engaging in all of them. They fail to see the forest through the trees.
Average is average for a reason. Extremes adapt or are wrung out of existence.
Cooperation requires communication. Those who cannot communicate are shunned by the group and do not pass on the incommunicable genes.
Zoom in from the species level to the individual and we see parallels. Pheromones, touch, eye-to-eye contact, physical connection, ect... these all have physiological and psychological benefits beyond their simplest functions.
Jacob, you were spot on to express the variability of IQs in terms of standard deviation from the mean. Two STDV above average IQ can be equally as devastating as two below. The ultra-low-IQ individual relies on pure instinct and training without applying reason. The ultra-high-IQ individual can use their superior mind to override instinct and training.
This can be a blessing and a curse. Instinct drives us to work together. It makes us want to communicate in order to promote cooperation. Ultra-high-IQs are masters of rationalization/justification. They do a cost/benefit analysis of each and every conversation and consciously decide to refrain from engaging in all of them. They fail to see the forest through the trees.
Average is average for a reason. Extremes adapt or are wrung out of existence.