[Thanks to Charles]
Isn't it interesting that nerds (geeks? whatever) has so low social status (more so in the US perhaps?) Some of the richest and most influential people in the world are geeks, and yet it seems that being able to dress to the fashion and socialize well are more important to people.
Rather than "E pluribus unum," I've thought for some time now that the U.S. motto might more appropriately be "vultus super substantia."
ReplyDeleteThe "rest of the conversation...
ReplyDeleteThe theory:
(Charles)
I have a theory about Nerdism & social eptness (I have theories about most things!)
The classic Nerd has very poor vision. At least in the US, until VERY recently, such things were often discovered only upon entering school.
Here, that's usually 5-6, by which time most of the personality features are fixed--including a huge amount of non-verbal communication (which is ~80% of human communications.)
Not being able to see, Nerds tend to have very poor grasp of non-verbal communications skills--which confuses them a lot because people often contradict their words with their bodies...leaving them wondering why everyone lies to them all the time, and unable to properly communicate. (And they tend to take jokes literally....)
Since there's difficulty in communicating with people, they tend to end up in professions where communication is primarily written or graphical.
Since the term has widened to include many people who do not fit this classic model--like anyone in a technical field--the model only explains some people. As it becomes more and more common for early testing of hearing & eyesight etc. I expect the 'classic' Nerd to become a rarity and the "new" Nerds will just consist of people in the sciences and related fields.
Of course, I could be wrong--but I don't think so. ;)
(Eolake)
I suspect, though, that nerds only get poor eyes years after they start reading. Either because of strain or because people who don't read a lot don't notice their poor eyesight.
(Charles)
Many, I'm sure, but if you are nearsighted, reading is one of the few activities that is fairly easy.
But you don't end up 5 or more diopters from normal just by eyestrain.
Bucky Fuller was so farsighted that he couldn't focus on anything much nearer than tree tops before he got glasses.
Myself, while I could read before that point, I was given glasses at 5, bifocals at 6 and run -11 to -12 diopters (20:1200.)
With my glasses off, I can just about see past my nose.
There are undoubtedly many different causative agents, but the 'classic' Nerd has always had thick glasses (usually broken--those early frames dealt poorly with the heavy glass lenses.)
Thanks.
ReplyDeleteDespite being a reader, I only discovered in my mid-twenties in a routine doctor review that I had astigmatism on both eyes, worst on the left.
I've tried bifocals, didn't like them, the clearest part in the middle often did not cover a whole page.
Instead I got reading glasses, and later mid-distance ones (tuned to 80 cm), which I can use almost all the time, for distance and reading, except the very finest print.
Couldn't be bothered to read most of what Chuck wrote, but the bit about vision is totally wrong. There are many, many "nerds" and "geeks" who have perfect vision, and often people don't get glasses until they're older. I've had the laser surgery, but my eyes didn't start to go until I was in my mid teens. Of course I wasn't a nerd, being as I am now big into sports, and having no problem with social aspect of school growing up. It also has nothing to do with physique, as I have known many who are of the "pencil neck" type of bod who weren't nerds. Nerds can be of any type. I've met a few guys of the Brad Pitt variety who should have been a menace to the sex and had to be kept on a leash, but for some bizarre reason were shy.
ReplyDeleteAs for why nerds aren't respected, it's because we're still essentially the same as we were 10,000 years ago and the meathead mesomorph jock type are what females are wired to find attractive, and athletic prowess is what males and females are wired to think is superior.
Charles
ReplyDeleteYou have a point, but I think you're over-simplifying it. There's plenty of socially awkward people with perfect vision. I'm one of them.
People have this stereotype that intelligent guys speak properly and read all the books college professors like. But in real life, smart and creative people tend to be a little eccentric. That's my observation anyway.
Eolake says...
ReplyDelete"...it seems that being able to dress to the fashion and socialize well are more important to people."
and...
harry s. morgan (ha, ha! Just, now, "got" that! FUNNY!! :-) said...
"the meathead mesomorph jock type are what females are wired to find attractive, and athletic prowess is what males and females are wired to think is superior."
Really?! Although "Gill Bates" probably ain't the snappiest dresser in the world, nor "Mr. Stud Muffin of the Universe" (sorry, Bill! ;-) I still find him fabulously fascinating! I could sit and listen to him all day! His MIND is the attraction...for me! Really! :-)
Jes said...
"There's plenty of socially awkward people with perfect vision. I'm one of them."
Jes...I think the social awkwardness thing (yours and others') might just possibly come from a lack of guidance, and/or example, by mentors (parents? older siblings? other family members?) in that whole arena, when we are impressionable. It seems as though it takes a certain amount of exposure to a variety of settings that, sometimes, kids don't always get the opportunity to experience. And...sometimes, the parents aren't very comfortable with the whole socializing thing, either, because they also were not exposed to many situations, themselves.
I think that it is a certain type of confidence that just comes with encouragement...or not, if it isn't encouraged, of course. And...if it is not something that a person has been exposed to and is noted that the person would like for it to be different, then one must just be determined to push forward and through the inhibition. Just my own observation in my own life. :-)
It's kind of like relationships: if a person knows that they aren't good at them but "wishes" or wants to become so, that can only be accomplished by continual practice. Just push yourself to move through the discomfort of the awkward stages and before you know it, it's "old hat" and you end up discovering that you're a pretty "fine fellow" to hang around with! :-)
"But in real life, smart and creative people tend to be a little eccentric."
ReplyDeleteI think you're right. Or very.
"Jes...I think the social awkwardness thing (yours and others') might just possibly come from a lack of guidance"
ReplyDeleteWell, it's more like my temperment. Even when I was a kid, my parents would try to get me to play with other kids, but I was more interested in hanging out in my little pretend world. It's not something that concerns me, I've found plenty of people who love me for my weirdness. Normal people just talk about money and gossip anyway, so I like to think I'm a little more interesting than that.
Not a bad point.
ReplyDeleteNot a bad point.
ReplyDeleteGot to disagree.
It's only natural for someone outside the norm to try to make the best of things and see their "weirdness" as superior. Doesn't mean it is. Fact is, we're supposed to be social.
Supposed to by whom?
ReplyDeleteExtraordinary things don't get done by people who hang out with their friends six nights a week.
Not necessarily, I hardly think I'm superior to anything. I'm damn good at a lot of things and completely inept at others. Things balance out. Also, if I was supposed to be social, I assume I would be naturally.
ReplyDeleteWhoopsie! I did NOT mean to imply that there was anything "wrong" w/you, Jes! Just wanted to start by writing that, first!
ReplyDelete"Well, it's more like my temperment. Even when I was a kid, my parents would try to get me to play with other kids, but I was more interested in hanging out in my little pretend world."
You are probably just an introvert: someone who draws their "inspiration" from within. Nothing wrong w/that...at ALL! :-)
"It's not something that concerns me,"
...as it shouldn't. :-)
"I've found plenty of people who love me for my weirdness."
Nothing "weird" about you; just unique YOU! :-)
"Normal people just talk about money and gossip anyway, so I like to think I'm a little more interesting than that."
And...what is the measurement of "normal" and "weird"? There isn't one. :-) Rather, perhaps, there are majorities of certain personality types and minorities of others...ALL within the spectrum of...being "human". :-)
And...I think that it's GREAT that you "embrace" your uniqueness!! If ALL of us could do that...about ourselves...and each other; that would be WAY COOL!! :-)
Jimbo said...
ReplyDelete"...someone outside the norm to try to make the best of things and see their "weirdness" as superior."
The "normal" vs. "weirdness" [B.S.] "barometer" just showed up, again. Not sure where this guideline is to make such a determination. But...back to the "nerd" thing; if that seems to equal "weird" to you, Jimbo, then I would have to disagree in that I don't see people behaving like they are superior. Quite the opposite, really, when I think about it: quiet; reserved; respectful...among many others but...I don't usually see someone who might appear to be a "nerd" behaving as though they are "superior". And...funny 'nuff, when I see the word "superior" I wonder if you equate the word with "arrogance"...which is still not a trait I see exhibited in a "nerd".
"what is the measurement of "normal" and "weird"?"
ReplyDeleteNormal just means "like most". But for some reason, just normal group ego I guess, it's acquired a value taste, meaning "good", and by implication something not normal being "bad". Which is far from always true (and neither is the opposite).
Supposed to by whom?
ReplyDeleteCome on, use your head. Humans are social animals. As are all primates.
Extraordinary things don't get done by people who hang out with their friends six nights a week.
That is not supported by the facts. Many people who have done just that achieved great things. Leonardo, for one. Raphael was also very social. Newton didn't hide himself away. Samuel Johnson. Shakespeare. I could go on. How many names do you need to accept how very, very wrong you are?
Also, if I was supposed to be social, I assume I would be naturally.
ReplyDeleteWell, humans like all primates are social, so anyone who isn't does have something wrong with them. That's just the way it is. Blame natural selection if like so many people you've got to blame someone for your shortcomings. Eolake was just talking about people not blaming their parents for their problems but I guess it's okay to blame others after all.
That's true, but a lot of people just aren't naturally outgoing. In any case, if there's something wrong with me, I don't care. I'm proud of who I am. Lol, and who the hell am I blaming? For what problems? If I felt like I had a problem, I'd take responsibility for it. Dude, are you trying to make this into an argument? Cause I'm not into that game.
ReplyDeleteTC Girl, no offense taken. I know you weren't trying to be critical. :)
Not that jocks and bullies exactly display what you'd call confidence. More like spreading the "kill or be killed" social attitude.
ReplyDelete