11 ms·
Geek behaviors present during conversations
- Confusion 17y agoI don't think this article describes geeks: it describes the borderline autistic behavior of people that fail to evaluate their own peculiarities. I have the impression there's some serious confirmation bias at work if you become convinced this stereotypical behavior is actually typical geek behavior. I have to admit that I recognize all of the points he makes, but I recognize them because I have become aware of them. Some I had already remedied subconsciously, long before I became aware of them; others required some effort to change. I don't doubt it is exactly the same for other geeks. One of the main things this brought me is the guideline: don't obsess over perceived differences between you and others, because they are smaller than you think. For instance, (awkward) silences are normal things that occur in many conversations. After forcing myself to pay attention to people's faces and body language, the first thing that struck me is how little 'regular' people actually seem to be doing that. They look away and fiddle with their papers all the time.
- thaumaturgy 17y agoWhile it's possible to find exceptions, there are some strong indicators of mild (or high-functioning) autism among the geek crowd, and several of the points in the article could be described as autistic traits. Probably the best example is the stereotypical geek's inability to read facial expressions. Some geeks -- like me, and, it sounds like, you -- teach themselves how to do it, but this is still a trait which comes more naturally to most people. This, combined with the geek's active "inner world", causes awkward conversations and social behavior. Above average numeracy and a tendency to mentally model problems and situations visually are a couple of other indicators, as well as tendencies towards emotional irregularities. While you might be able to act as though the differences between you and others is not great, the fact is, their brain probably doesn't work very much like yours does. I knew someone for a while that was working on his thesis in psychology; according to him, the field of psychology had a certain reluctance to measure various disorders in degrees. Although psychologists might say, "this person is autistic, and can function somewhat in society", and, "this other person is autistic and cannot function in society", they're reluctant to say, "this person is only a little autistic". (This was the subject of his thesis.) Based on what I've read in the DSM and publications like SciAm:Mind, as well as what I've observed of people, I'd tend to agree with him, and I'd say that it's a pretty safe bet that the majority of stereotypical geeks are "a little autistic".
- dan_the_welder 17y agoI agree with your friend, it's my observation that all human behaviors are somewhere on a spectrum. People have different abilities or cultural ability to discern the resolution. Some see in black and white and some see greyscale.
- aaronblohowiak 17y agoA spectrum approach is one of the advantages of the Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual.
- aerique 17y agoProbably the best example is the stereotypical geek's inability to read facial expressions. Some geeks -- like me, and, it sounds like, you -- teach themselves how to do it, but this is still a trait which comes more naturally to most people. I've always wondered if it comes naturally to most people or whether they just learned it at a younger age while we were busy learning other things.
- thaumaturgy 17y agoVery young in fact -- I think I remember reading an article that claimed that very young babies could "read" facial expressions, at least in the happy-versus-sad sense. I can't find any references to it online in the thirty seconds or so I'm willing to spend on it, but I did find: http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2009/11/10/boston_lab_explores_childrens_complex_lessons_in_reading_faces/?page=full http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2009/11/10/bosto... ...which says that babies start learning facial expressions at 6 months of age. Autism is different though; it's not just a lack of ability, but a lack of interest. I distinctly remember reading that, for example, during a movie where the scene is primarily depicting two people talking, a "normal" person will watch the faces of the actors, while the "autistic" subject would tend to focus on the light switch in the background. I doubt this is universal, and the article may have even been about one person in particular, but at this point correlations between autism and difficulty with interpersonal emotional interpretation are accepted as generally true. ...I think this has an interesting, though probably coincidental, consequence: sci-fi shows and movies tend to focus much more heavily on objects and technology than faces and acting.
- zephyrfalcon 17y agoSo a quick summary would be: "Geeks" are mostly interested in technical details, rather than touchy-feely stuff, and (often incorrectly) assume their conversation partner is as well.
- byrneseyeview 17y agoIf you were self-conscious about your geekdom, and wanted to adjust it so you could better interact with the slows, that summary would be pointless, but the article would be useful.
- pvg 17y agoA better quick summary is that there are many socially awkward people who excel in technical fields. There are likely as many who do just as well and have no shortage of basic social skills. One just doesn't notice the awkward silences so there's nothing to write broad generalizing blog posts about.
- psnj 17y agoNo mention of the "geeksnort"?
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- jsharpe 17y agoI think the propensity for geeks to prefer IM, Email and Texting has more to do with a lot of them being introverts and preferring to have time to consider their responses, than with a lack of social graces.
- sophacles 17y agoThat and the asynchronous nature of exchange -- i hate blocking on you formulating an answer, and all the rediculous connection setup/teardown required.
- og1 17y agoThis is definitely it for me. I wish I could operate with a 90 second delay like they have for live television.
- chipsy 17y agoThe lack of context for phones frustrates me because it means you can be "accidentally invasive." If you approach someone in real life, you can use your senses to gauge what they're doing, thinking, and feeling at the moment of contact, and make an social gesture that is appropriate. It helps with first impressions, which are always important. And with email the asychronity is high so your risk of reaching someone at a bad time is low, so again, you can make a good first impression. But if you're going over phone, there is some expectation of real-time availability - nobody really likes voice mail. Phone calls have a dreadful suddenness to them. Thank goodness we're moving past the days when almost everything had to be done by cold-calling a number. IM and texting can be even worse in some ways as the expectations of timeliness are fluid so communication may get frustrating when one person is moving way faster than the other, but I think they actually work really well when used for short-term "business update" types of communication: "I will meet you at 5pm." "Do you have a link for <x>?" "We changed our plans for the meeting." etc.
- dan_the_welder 17y agoI regularly find myself having two separate conversation threads in a text message exchange with one person. I don't know if that confuses people or not.
- andrewvc 17y agoWeird, I definitely suck at turn taking, but I love phone calls. I'd much rather talk than email/SMS/IM/whatever. In my mind those have even fewer social cues.
- zyb09 17y agoI just use IM for quick arranging or linking stuff around. Can't understand how people can chitchat on IM with each other for hours. You never now if that last message was supposed to be funny or serious or maybe even ironic? Then you don't know if your conversation partner thought your last message was serious, while you meant it to be funny...and it goes on an on and on... just can't do it. Don't have any problems with normal conversations and phone calls though.
- lmkg 17y agoThat's what emoticons are for: text-based representation of vocal tone.
- andrewvc 17y agoTrue, but I feel that using emoticons in business is seen unprofessional, which is a shame because they can be very useful.
- billybob 17y agoI find that a lot of what is seen as "professional" or "unprofessional" is dumb. I'd much rather do business with a human being who doesn't mind being a little silly sometimes than not. I do think it's unprofessional to say things that could offend people, because its inconsiderate. But emoticons? Loosen up, I say.
- hoggle 17y agoI am utterly afraid of phone calls. I act like it's no problem though.
- indiejade 17y agoThe commentary on "awkward silence" is interesting. Personally, I think it's kind of impossible to have an awkward silence; never do I find silence to be an uncomfortable thing, especially if there's the "comforting" sound of keyboard typing as background noise. "Thinking" noise, as it may be. Maybe the main differentiating factor between geeks and non-geeks (as the author calls them) is ability to deal with silence. Most geeks I get along with best tend to listen with their eyes and speak with their hands.
- jodrellblank 17y agoI must be a geek, this article is pushing all the right buttons. A quick summary might be: "When talking, geeks need to understand that the listener doesn't know anything and doesn't want to learn, doesn't care whether what you say makes sense or is accurate, isn't trying to understand, doesn't even want the answer to the question they asked but rather an answer to the question they were thinking of, and is often simply waiting for you to shut up so they can speak. Also, everyone else has a massive inferiority complex so stop suggesting things to improve their lives as they'll take it as a belittling insult and somehow that's now your problem."
- kalid 17y agoAnd perhaps a shorter summary. People chat for information exchange and entertainment. To geeks, these are the same. To many people, they are not.
- JanezStupar 17y agoIf you weren't a geek you wouldn't be here, right? And if I move to the point. <rant> I wholeheartedly agree with your summary. But there is one more point about "geeks don't have social skills" myth I would like to address. Myself being a very extrovert person, I have never had problems in mingling with people. But while wearing an engineer hat, I constantly get patronized by people who SHOULD listen to me for their own good. Yet, due to their willful ignorance and intellectual laziness, I get to clear the mess in the end. And it doesn't really matter how I try to present it. If I explain on simple terms - they don't believe me, but when I try to elaborate they just shut down. But! They do like listening to themselves, talking of lies. Yes Sir! They do! </rant>
- mru 17y agoAmen to that.
- shawndumas 17y agoPeople with an IQ of 100 ("Normal or average intelligence") are two standard deviations from people with an IQ of 70 ("Definite feeble-mindedness"). People with an IQ of 130 ("Very superior intelligence") are two standard deviations from people with an IQ of 100. A normal person will have to change basic communication skills to be found engaging by a feeble-minded person. Likewise, an intelligent person will need to accommodate a normal person. The term condescension has come to have a pejorative connotation[1] but is actually fitting in this context. [1] Compare Webster's 1828 Dictionary: condescension, n. Voluntary descent from rank, dignity or just claims; relinquishment of strict right; submission to inferiors in granting requests or performing acts which strict justice does not require. Hence, courtesy. - “It forbids pride and commands humility, modesty and condescension to others.” - “Raphael, amidst his tenderness, shows such a dignity and condescension in all his behavior, as are suitable to a superior nature.” With Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition: condescension, n. 1. act or instance of condescending 2. a patronizing manner or behavior
- Nwallins 17y agoMoreso than an altruistic desire to educate their audience, I think geeks rather desire to preserve the validity of discourse -- i.e. prevent the spread of "false" memes or concepts. It's not a patronizing focus on a peer's education, but rather a way to preserve the truth and correctness of human understanding of the world.
- 3pt14159 17y agoI agree, although I do find it funny that this comment is self reinforcing.
- amichail 17y agoPerhaps it's an anxiety disorder? They would feel anxiety when less than perfect information is communicated?
- jsharpe 17y agoI'd say less a "disorder" and more a point of view. The spread of false information hurts everybody.
- billybob 17y agoYES. Like XKCD said: "someone is wrong on the internet." (http://xkcd.com/386/ http://xkcd.com/386/) Geeks are obsessed with correctness. Sometimes this is helpful, sometimes not. Witness Slashdot discussions.
- kilian 17y agoI completely suck at turn-talking, even when actively trying to anticipate when my 'antagonist' wants to say something. Does anyone have actual tips for improving this?
- mrtron 17y agoPractice.
- sp332 17y agoA sharp intake of breath is a pretty solid indicator. The more pronounced it is, the more agitated they are that you're still talking. (Unless they're just yawning.) Looking away for a while and suddenly looking back with their mouth open slightly can also be an indicator. If they have their mouths closed tightly, they're deciding whether to interject, so you might want to check a sentence or two later to see if they've made up their minds.
- sketerpot 17y agoI have the opposite problem: I'm bad at knowing when I can take a turn (so I end up being very quiet) and when it obviously is my turn to talk, I often can't think of anything to say.
- thirdusername 17y agoI love your comment, it's really informative and just what I need. Do you have any suggestions of references (online or offline) where a layman can learn more about social queues? :)
- kylemathews 17y agoI think I used do more of those. Being at college has exposed me to far more people and social situations than high school and rubbed off many of my sharper social edges.
- pgbovine 17y agohi everyone: this is the author here. i'm pleasantly surprised to see this pop up on HN. please reply to my comment if you have any suggestions for improving this article. thanks!
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- corysama 17y agoThe line "awkward silences often arise because the geek doesn't pay enough attention to his partner's attention level" struck me as a misunderstanding. Often when in a group, I'm doing nothing but focus on everyone else's rhythm because following it doesn't come naturally to me. I find everyone else trading off speaking and often just interrupting or talking over each other without issue. But before I've phrased my thought and found a place for it, the topic has moved on.
- midnightmonster 17y agoIt's terrifying to consider that you wrote this article without knowing me and in fact without living inside my head. Anything in your list that I don't do I avoid only by conscious effort. Of course many of these behaviors are not bad so much as different, but my "best" categories are: * Most of the time I actively analyze conversations for signs that people are talking past each other, so I usually catch myself if I'm using jargon without adequate explanation. (Of course this is fed by the commitment to accuracy and desire to educate, though.) * I don't think I often evangelize technology, but that's mostly because I discovered some time ago that if I recommend it I'm going to end up supporting it. Thing I'd most like to improve on in myself is struggling with turn taking in conversation. Like many of these categories, I can behave more normally, but it's amazing to me how much effort and attention this one requires. Most cognitive dissonance for me is the whole issue of caring about the "how" more than other people do. I think I appropriately focus on what and why when making decisions, and on one level I know that most people do not in fact care about the how. But on another level I can't quite believe that (e.g.) anyone who watches American football wouldn't want to know how they make the yellow first down line show up.
- 17y ago
- dpatru 17y agoIt bothers me when people use the word "many" when single digit numbers will do. For example someone might say, "I read many books," when it would be more informative to say, "I read about 5 books a week."
- billybob 17y agoI think from a non-geek perspective, "I read a lot of books" might mean "I enjoy reading, perhaps we can talk about books we've read?" Whereas "I read about 5 books a week" sounds more like "I count how many books I read so that I can one-up anyone who thinks they are as smart as I am." A non-geek who reads 5 books a week might admit the exact figure if probed, but would be more likely to look slightly embarrassed, to imply "yes I know that makes me odd" and "don't dislike me; I'm not trying to seem superior but you asked."
- jpwagner 17y agoi like the article and the main theme of the post. one thing i'd point out that tends to be forgotten is that these "traits" are merely results of having not practiced (unless of course there is a condition such as OCD, autism, etc preventing development of certain social norms.) Someone who does not practice verbal communication will suck at it. Someone who does not practice understanding others' interests will suck at it. Put these together and they will suck at teaching. Someone who doesn't practicing noticing others' clothes will not notice their own clothes. "geek" is a choice, not a condition.
- gills 17y agoThis seems tautological in the mainstream thought? Degrees of these behaviors are often used to identify geeks in the first place.
- masterponomo 17y agoI would be interested in a database conveying this article's information in tabular form. Then it would be useful to record the traits of other population strata, each in its own row (or with one row per observer/observed combo, to allow capture of multiple points of view). I would enjoy reading, searching, updating and sorting that.
- petercooper 17y agoA behavior in a similar vein that I see on Twitter a lot: some_twitter_person: I went to the park tday. some_twitter_person: In the last tweet, I meant "today" and not "tday." Unnecessary overcorrection. I've seen it on HN a lot too. It's as if making a mere typo will make everyone think they're an uneducated idiot.
- dkarl 17y agoI don't remember seeing that kind of post on HN. If you mean people editing their posts, I blame/credit the ease of editing. I tend to post before proofreading and then clean up any mistakes. It just seems like the natural way to do it.
- Goladus 17y agoThis is a great article, but I don't notice the "awkward silences" aspect of turn-taking to be as much of a problem as interruption and waiting to say something. That is, as soon as you get an idea you immediately begin plotting to share it with everyone, and you either blurt it out or you stop listening until you get a chance to talk (thereby causing you to say things that don't seem to fit in the conversation or make it seem like you aren't keeping up) Not yielding the floor when appropriate is definitely a problem too, but doesn't always result in awkward silences.
- 10ren 17y ago- self-centered - blind to the relative importance of issues These are also characteristics of children. I note them in myself. I think every human being has these characteristics to some extent, but they are especially prevalent in geeks/nerds. As a result, if you can overcome them enough, and you have some technical competence, you can be absurdly successful.
- Raphael_Amiard 17y agoI think this article, while raising some valid points in some valid contexts, is very stereotypical. I'd very much prefer watching The big bang theory for a fun explanation of these stereotypes to be honest
- jackchristopher 17y ago"they often make heavy use of technical terminology because it's the most concise and accurate way to convey their thoughts." If you get your point across by using terms no one understands, you're not getting your point across. It's not efficient at all, since you'll have to explain yourself further. But we all do this, not just "geeks". We're inferentially distance from each other. Who doesn't compress their understand of the world into their own specialist jargon?
- chaostheory 17y agoA good way to end or reduces these geek mannerisms: Dale Carnegie's "How to Make Friends and Influence People"
- dkokelley 17y agoIf someone tells me that the DVD player they recommend costs $297.89 at Costco but I can get a $49.95 mail-in rebate, then I need to spend some time rounding that to $250 before committing it to memory. Did anyone else file that as 'less than $250' in their brains?
- adrianwaj 17y agoGeeksDoItRarely.com - true, true (no site exists here as yet)
- abalashov 17y agoIt is a strange premise, from my point of view, to characterise rather militant anti-intellectualism and hostility to the achievements of science, culture, scholarship, etc. as merely a trait of the majority of "ordinary" (non-"geeky") people. I hope the author is wrong about that, or, alternately, that my understanding of what exactly is meant by "geek" is a bit off.
- drtse4 17y agoBeing from another continent, i don't even get why is even necessary to catalog people (and sometimes how it could be done) either in the geek or non-geek category. Each one of us should have a multi-faceted personality that makes hardly possible to confine ourself in whatever definition we apparently seems to adhere to.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- StudyAnimal 17y agoGeeks have really got to spend at least as much time with people as in front of the keyboard, which is something they can only partially influence by themselves. Employers have to realize that too and redesign jobs so that no-one should be spending more than 50% of their time in front of a keyboard.
- tumult 17y agoI'd choke you if you dragged me out of deep thought just for the sake of it.
- defdac 17y agoThe comments of this article are so great. I can see myself in so many of them and I love how the topic can be seen from so many angles. I've always wondered over the telephone phobia that I've seen from time to time with my geek friends. I'm also a geek, but intro+extrovert. I feel more comfortable around geeks than noisy people though. My father was extreme introvert and my mother extreme extrovert.
- elblanco 17y agoI think most geeks misunderstand the nature of the problem. They look for the kind of precision and completeness necessary in technical fields in all areas of life. When really they should understand that there are different kinds of precision and completeness present in many different milieus. A good geek might recognize this and seek to understand various types of complex systems and seek the type of precision and completeness necessary to model and work with that kind of system...a party is nothing more than a complex system that has a complex and complete set of rules that have to be adhered to with high precision in order to get invited to another party. To play on this example, a geek might realize that he is failing in social interactions. Thus she/he might look at socialization as a complex system akin to a technical field and look to operate successfully at socialization by understanding it in detail. For example, learning how to take turns in a conversation, how to participate in small talk or tell an entertaining story to somebody from a different, non-technical background. They'll learn precision in using pop-culture references and completeness regarding the social situations to use them in. They'll learn about the social graphs of the people in the party, and when and how to reference other people ("don't talk mean about Suzy to Greg, they broke up, but he still digs her"). In programming a geek may test their knowledge by writing a program and seeing if it works "correctly". In electrical engineering they may build some useful gadget. If a geek is trying to "hack" socialization, they might test their knowledge by navigating a party without causing uncomfortable silences in conversations they participate in. A party thus can be thought of as a particular kind of social "application" like a software application on a computer. Given time a geek might learn several different kinds of "social applications" like "giving a toast at a wedding", "having a 1-on-1 conversation with a cute girl", "going on a date", "selling software" etc.
- ilitirit 17y ago> Non-geeks might perceive such behavior as rude and arrogant, like the geek is trying to show his smartness and be a 'know-it-all'. It's only perceived as rude when it comes across as rude. For example, if you interrupt someone mid-sentence to correct something insignificant, then that's rude. Waiting for the person to finish talking and then immediately correcting something they said earlier gives the other person the impression that you weren't listening to what they were saying. There are better ways of dealing with this in conversation. One of them is simply to ignore irrelevant inaccuracies. Calling it "altruistic behaviour to educate" is also disingenuous. I've met many geeks who thrive on expounding minutiae about irrelevant or insignificant topics at the most inappropriate moments, all for the sake of recognition. It's the same as when jocks try to impress others by being macho. Obviously not all geeks are like that, but they definitely exist. My dad is geek who is like this but for him it's also about self-affirmation. Finally, I often see articles on the net trying to explain "geeky" social interaction, but I rarely read articles specifically targeted at people with these tendencies describing how to improve their social skills. That's because, IMO, people who have these skills recognize that intelligence has little to do with it.
- Abook 17y agoInteresting Article