Nerds Are Not Socially Inadequate - They Just Don't Want To Make You Feel Dumb

Ironically enough, that suggests a certain degree of social awareness.


Original post from: http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=9430835&postID=8620459563504897631


Anonymous said...

(quote)
During conversations social clues have to be picked up on the fly while other stuff (talking, walking, ambient distractions) is going on. Nerds are bad at that. And we know it. We miss a lot of clues. No one likes to do things he's bad at, especially with people who happen to be good at it. It turns into a long, continuous reminder of one's inadequacy. This is why nerds tend to avoid social situations.
(/unquote)

This is very prescient. I'm not sure if that many introverts can actually articulate why they don't like these situations, other than the general sense of being uncomfortable. But there are other reasons as well.


I can articulate why - because most social situations feel overly contrived. Most people put on false fronts when dealing with acquaintances.

Not that I can't handle these. If need be (during interviews/negotiations etc) I can play the mummer and easily get the job done. Doesn't change that it feels meaningless and distasteful though, so I avoid such situations if possible.

I value authenticity when interacting with people, to the point that I'd rather not have friends if I couldn't be myself around them.


I think a lot of it is not so much the discomfort of engaging with groups, it's the engaging with groups of average or lower intelligence that is particularly taxing. Consider a discussion with a group of grad students versus an ordinary group of football fans. One is going to be a comfortable situation, the other isn't.


Every gifted person knows how this feels. Eventually you get tired of dumbing things down.


One reason for the discomfort in the low-IQ groups is that in many cases you hear a discussion where the rest of the group is either wrong or grasping slowly towards a truth they will never reach unaided, and even if unaided may be unable to grasp once it is explained. 


A standout example that stuck: a friend once claimed that "funds spent on education cannot be wasted because they are always used".

Seriously, how would you have replied? It gets trickier when human relationships are involved.


I recall trying to explain on the Internet (yes I know!) to a fellow blogger how the Singapore Government's sale of various GLCs was not looting public assets, but rather a reinvestment of the funds into overseas growth sectors in order to create sustainable jobs for Singaporeans.

Many of his claims were blatantly wrong, yet he kept pushing them with the conviction of a zealot. He couldn't understand the simple concept that even though those companies were currently profitable, their long-term prospects were suspect.

Or what about Alex Au's ridiculous notion that HDB is bankrupt and requires a bailout? All he accomplished was to demonstrate his ignorance of real estate.

Here lies the conundrum. Alex might have been turning up the hyperbole to boost his readership. But there are people out there like our blogger who are mistaken in good faith. So is educating them worth the trouble?


You then have to decide whether to a) shut up, and contribute nothing to the discussion (boring and making one look like a loner), or b) just make chit-chat while offering little of value (intellectually dishonest), or c) give and explain the answer, and possibly get into an argument (confrontational, makes one look like an asshole).


Given the choice, I'd be an asshole every time. Reality punishes the wrong.

But I no longer bother convincing people.

After far too long, I finally realized - the Singapore blogosphere is more about signalling and peer groups than rational debate. That's why sites like TOC are as boring as the Straits Times - only from the other end of the political spectrum. You know how their articles will end before they even begin.

Singaporeans can't put up a good fight anyway. I participated partly because I enjoyed the cut and thrust of rebutting arguments. It was fun playing the devil's advocate and seeing what they could throw at me. Alex was supposedly the most prominent blogger - he gave it a shot and failed. Half of them can't even properly string a sentence together.

Far better to read sites like MR and Steve Sailer, which occasionally do throw up original, provocative ideas, in contrast to Singaporean sites which merely parrot each other.

So now I just mock them instead.

Average Is Over

Inspired by : http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=9430835&postID=6433970346816727800


 jody said...

is there any serious discussion in the literature about whether the middle class is actually an aberration, that never existed in the past, and will not exist in the future? 50 years from now we may look back and realize it was an artifact of unique circumstances that existed for only 100 years.


I think most people take for granted the prosperity they currently enjoy.

Pain and suffering have been the mainstays of human existence for millennia. Through our efforts we have earned ourselves a brief respite, yet it's amazing how many - especially those who have known nothing else - feel entitled to this state of affairs.

It's been a mere two centuries since the onset of the Industrial Revolution. Bismarck's welfare state is but 140 years old. The United States is 237, Singapore a mere 48.

All of these are still works in progress. All of them could fail.


people better make their fortunes now, and i mean, right now, during the early 21st century currency and real estate bubbles. if you can get to 2 million or 3 million in fairly liquid assets, then you'll never have to work again, nor will your descendants, at least the first generation. your giant pile of money will be able to do all the work for you.


I realized this during my last year of college.

So while others were enjoying their 20s, I was building an asset base.

She's about 2 decades off though - it's a little late to join the party now. Gen X had the best shot at making this work.

One rule of thumb I've noticed: it takes two 'good' generations to make up for what was lost by one. This applies to nations and families both.


everybody else without a giant pile of money, and with average intelligence, will be screwed by 2020. it's back to serfdom for them, as they'll be unable to accumulate enough wealth to escape the dual trap of declining hourly wages and inflation. in many cities they will not even be able to afford to own property.


Realistically, 1 million dollars at 4% = an income of $40,000/year, in perpetuity. Net of inflation, naturally.

This is what I mean by destroying your childrens' opportunities through inaction. If you even manage to have any.