18 ms·

If Nerds Can Learn Linux, Why Can't They Learn Not To Interrupt People?

107 points by AndrewDucker 17y ago

asolove 17y ago
Because society is basically one enormous, opaque device driver blob? It specifies an arbitrary input/output format so ugly that seeing the underlying reasoning would be an embarrassment.
madair 17y ago
Great article! I love this: "I'm continually amazed by how much better people react if I remember to arbitrarily throw "I think" before I state an opinion. I mean, it's coming out of my mouth, and it's not like there's some external arbiter of which sitcom is funniest, so of course it's an "I think." That's assumed. But, apparently, if I go out of my way to remind people that it's my opinion with a marker that makes little sense to me, they relax. So I do it." A lesson I have only recently learned in my 30s, it really does help!
- waterlesscloud 17y ago
  Yes, it does. I always feel silly adding it in, because of course what I'm saying is my opinion. What else would it be? But I say it when I'm talking to people who need it. I've always thought that the main reason for it is that most people are very easily threatened in their opinions, so without the "I Think", they can feel like they are being attacked. But it could be that most people simply haven't been trained to differentiate fact and opinion on their own, so they need clear markers. At least, I think that's possible.
  - hubb 17y ago
    it's rather that many nerds easily assume an authoritative tone when voicing their opinion. i think
    - kilian 17y ago
      That is true.
    - xenophanes 17y ago
      cause they thought about their opinion and have good reasons to believe it's correct. and they are open to debate. they aren't being closed minded. what they don't want or like is for you to say/think "that's just your opinion" and both not give a counter argument and also not accept they are right.
      - gizmo 17y ago
        I find that most people find disagreement of any kind uncomfortable. So whether you're open to discussion or whether you've considered your opinions carefully is immaterial.
        xenophanes 17y ago
        Yes. I'm just saying why people do that. Some people don't irrationally hate disagreement and instead see it as a learning opportunity.
    - Quarrelsome 17y ago
      I think it is more that a lot of people believe that everyone speaks in truths. It's the reason why some people can listen to Fox News with a straight face. Fair and balanced yo.
  - Periodic 17y ago
    "I think" implies that it is just your opinion and that others may think differently. Omitting it implies certanty and fact. You may think that those two words have no meaning, but to many people they say a lot. Most people are not literal. Their words are loaded with additional layers of meaning. For example, "I think the world was created 6k years ago," is a very non-threatening statement. It's just an opinion and by stating that it's just your thought, you imply that it's okay that others think differently. If you had said, "The world was created 6k years ago," you are stating a fact and inviting disagreement. It is not about differentiating fact from opinion, but rather not understanding what implications you words have. "Sometimes what wasn't said is more important than what was said." The stereotypical geek might not understand that, preferring a literal interpretation of everything. Note: I caught myself using, "I think," three times when writing this comment.
    - waterlesscloud 17y ago
      But isn't that an indication that most people are in fact very literal? Isn't it far more indicative of layers of meaning when someone distinguishes between fact and opinion without literal markers?
    - gizmo 17y ago
      The thing is, though, that people expect the inclusion of "I think" even when what you're stating is _obviously_ an opinion. The statement "The world was created 6k years ago" could be a scientific/objective truth. So by adding "I think" people won't feel like a fool by disagreeing with you (otherwise they might be unknowingly disagreeing with a fact). On the other hand a statement like "Redheads are hot" is obviously an opinion. Prefacing that with "I think redheads are hot" sounds unnecessarily insecure to me, but I suspect most people would add the "I think" qualifier anyway. I don't think it makes sense that a statement like "tomatoes are gross" is more threatening than "I think tomatoes are gross", but it might very well be the case. On a tangent, I find that when people say something that I know to be (objectively) wrong, I tend to correct them by prefacing my opinion with "I think...", or "I heard that...", or "I read somewhere that...", and I always end my disagreement with a (tonal) question mark. Even when I make a statement or correct somebody, ending with a higher pitch (question mark style) works wonders to avoid offense.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    It's probably because it is possible to pass on a statement of fact by speaking it too. To me personally not putting I think before my statements of opinion, as opposed to fact, seems weird. I think Firefly is the best Sci Fi show ever and Firefly is the best Sci Fi show ever Are 2 completely different statements :)
    - ryanpetrich 17y ago
      I find the second statement to be nonsensical because it is written like a fact, but can't be proven or disproven. Why do people speak like this?
      - jrockway 17y ago
        The word "ever" works like "I think" in that sentence. That's why the "I think" version sounds weird.
  - brettnak 17y ago
    Leaving out "I think" tends to make people think that you are stating a fact that you learned somewhere or somehow, and that it's a step above a "normal opinion"; if that makes any sense. The offense comes in the future as well when they discover you told them something wrong with out the "I think" prefix. Stating opinion as fact is a sure fire way to loose the trust of colleagues.
  - mattm 17y ago
    Taking Toastmasters, one thing tip they give about giving feedback to speakers is to preface your feedback with "I". There's a big difference between: "Your voice was too soft." and "I found your voice to be too soft." In the first statement you are speaking for everybody. But just because you had that insight, doesn't mean everyone thought that way. In fact you might be the only person who thought that and by stating it as universal, you could cause the speaker to think it was a major problem. This is what the article is addressing. When nerds give an opinion, they will say it as if it is a fact that everybody knows. It really turns me off wanting to discuss anymore with someone who does this as he believes his opinions are the opinions of everyone.
    - rbanffy 17y ago
      It's not logical to believe the given nerd's opinion is universal. Why would anyone, however nerdy, think so? When someone tells me my voice was too soft I immediately recognize it as a perception of that person and assign it a value based on that.
  - dkarl 17y ago
    Like so many other things, "I think" usually doesn't have the literal meaning "I think." It indicates a low-to-moderate level of conviction. Stating something without saying "I think" (or doing something else to soften your statement) indicates a high level of conviction. It implies that people without a similar level of conviction should defer to your opinion. That's what people find objectionable.
    - jamesbritt 17y ago
      " It implies that people without a similar level of conviction should defer to your opinion." Really? How so? I understand that an opinion expressed without qualifiers may indicate a strong belief, but I don't get the implied "defer your opinion" part. Perhaps this is something that some people infer, whether intended by the speaker or not? There are some people for whom every strongly voiced opinion is taken as a personal challenge, rather than being just one person's thoughts, typically offered without any supporting evidence. Hence flame wars and such. Maybe people need to be encouraged to assume every expression has an implied "In my opinion ... " unless there is something offered to back it up.
    - ErrantX 17y ago
      I beg to differ; obviously no hard proof to back this up but I expect that "I think" is used to express an opinion as much as it is to express uncertainty. Also uncertainty is presented in delivery and tone too; so distinguishing the two is relatively easy. When uncertain main emphasis is on the word "think". In an opinion (where you have conviction) the emphasis is on "I"
  - stonemetal 17y ago
    What else would it be? Fact, conjecture, a hypothetical that you don't currently believe, someone else's opinion, something you read on a bill board, demon possession, a marketing message, something you read in a book, something you learned via a diving method such as reading tea leaves... The list is actually quite long. I say "I believe" if I don't have any facts to back it up, I don't say "I believe" If I do.
  - uriel 17y ago
    > I've always thought that the main reason for it is that most people are very easily threatened in their opinions, so without the "I Think", they can feel like they are being attacked. Probably because they have not thought much about why they hold the opinions they have, and are afraid of any external input that might force them to question their world view.
- ShabbyDoo 17y ago
  Prefixing a statement with "I think" signals that you are open to alternate theories. Without this prefix, social rules like "silence implies agreement" kick in.
- TravisLS 17y ago
  I find this interesting because it's something that I've worked really hard to un-learn. I used to say "I think" before nearly every opinion, but I found it hard to have any of my opinions taken seriously. After all, why should anyone care what I think? These days, I'm much more inclined to say "What if..." or "We should also consider..." to preface an opinion, such that consideration is required before dismissing what I've said.
  - pavel_lishin 17y ago
    My stepfather told me to never preface a counter-argument with "yeah, but". He told me that other people hear it as "I didn't listen to what you said, but am talking anyway."
    - TravisLS 17y ago
      Probably the most useful piece of advice I've ever heard regarding this kind of discourse: A mediator friend of mine once told me to always attempt to briefly recap the other person's point before beginning a counter-argument. That way they know you heard what they said, and they have the opportunity to correct any inaccuracies before you get going.
      - mcantor 17y ago
        This simple exercise is more than just a trapping of mutualistic discourse. It actually forces you to think about their point, and leads to a greater understanding of what they are trying to say... which, in turn, allows you to waste less time by explaining a counterpoint to an argument that they didn't make. I try to make myself do this even when I'm not arguing with someone. If a task comes to me from my boss, I will do my best to rephrase it in my own words (not verbatim, unless it's something really simple) to make sure we're on the same page.
        count 17y ago
        People who do this in every conversation annoy the everliving hell out of me. In a philosophical or rhetorical debate, it's an excellent strategy, but in day to day office conversations, ugh.
- evanrmurphy 17y ago
  It's funny to me that the article frames it this way. I understand the comment = opinion perspective now, but I grew up saying "I think" a lot for a different nerdy rationale: I considered my statements to be like logical propositions, and there's almost nothing you can be totally sure about, so why wouldn't you qualify? Otherwise you risk making false claims unnecessarily, which undermines the system we're building.
  - dkarl 17y ago
    I think the coding theorists here feel that it's an inefficient encoding if the most common case requires more syllables than an uncommon case ;-)
- xcombinator 17y ago
  In my experience people prefer the "I think" when you are unsure of what you say, and to be clear when you know what you are talking about. Odds are that a person that never ever say "I think" believes that his opinions are 100% right, witch nobody else will like(Mr Perfect) and a person that always says "I think" is insecure, weak, always depending of what other people think about me mentality. As the romans said: The true is in the middle.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- EdwardCoffin 17y ago
  This reminds me of something Seymour Papert talked about when he was interviewed in "The Media Lab" by Stewart Brand, talking about an African conference on The New Math: "... At a certain point the Nigerian delegation stood up and walked out. It was quite dramatic -- they were dressed in beautiful African robes. Then the meeting broke up and I had this conversation with one of the people from the Nigerian delegation who went by. 'Why did you walk out, what's going on?' 'I can't talk to these Americans.' (Nobody thought of me as an American.) 'Why not?' 'Because they say what they mean.' "We're so brought up with the idea that communication fails when people don't say what they mean. The man explained, 'When two Americans have a conversation, each says what he thinks, and then there's a confrontation -- one's going to be right and the other one's going to be wrong. We don't do it like that. We sit around under the tree, and somebody says something, and somebody else does, and we talk and nobody has a position. It goes on for a long time, and maybe tomorrow, or eventually, everybody agrees on a position. Then everyone is right and there isn't anybody's point of view left out.'
  - billswift 17y ago
    And nothing ever gets done.
- uriel 17y ago
  For years I have been trying to learn not to say "I think" before every opinion I express. As Strunk&White point out: it is redundant verbiage, if you say something it is because it represents what you think, only when you are saying something you don't think (eg., what somebody else thinks) does it make sense to clarify. You would never say "I think that he thinks ...", which is the logical conclusion of the advice the article gives. Being humble and recognizing that you could be wrong is important, but there are better ways to express this than by preceding all you say with "I think". Sadly my eloquence is still lacking so I keep automatically resorting to adding "I think" and similar filler, but I try to catch myself and instead think (pun not intended ;) about what I'm actually saying and how can express it more clearly.
andywood 17y ago
Spot on. I'm one of those who eventually adapted to the way people are. Mostly. I even came to see all these customs as "true", in a perverse sense, just because people do in fact hold them in their minds. But internally, I still distinguish between things that are true independently of human social wiring, and things that are only "so" because a lot of people think so. And my loyalty is still mostly to the former, and this probably does still limit me socially, and perhaps even career-wise. But I'm not sure I would feel better about giving in than I feel about being a little limited in those ways.
dschobel 17y ago
In what way does this analysis of a caricature (based on sitcom character!) resemble reality? Is this really the most sophisticated thing we can say? that "nerds" don't like society because it's illogical? Color me underwhelmed.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  Very little. Also, in my experience (including personal experience in the past and observing friends handling the same difficulties now), most of the inability to fit meet social norms is driven by fear more than any other factor.
- xenophanes 17y ago
  I identified with the article. (And I don't identify with most nerds on TV.) Just because you don't get it doesn't make it a caricature.
- orblivion 17y ago
  I take this attitude, but for things like arbitrary table manners. I have a friend who doesn't understand the idea of wearing a suit to interviews. Or to some degree, button down shirts ("the buttonless kind covers me just fine"). So it varies.
kevinp 17y ago
Context? I have a natural tendency to start sentences with "I think" and the like, and I have to fight myself to NOT to use such phrasing on the job. Every "perhaps," "maybe," "why don't we ... ?" opens a door through which the other party can force his own agenda, I've found. This advice doesn't work in business.
pook 17y ago
At the risk of sounding an ass-kisser, this is good, but not as good as PG's Why Nerds are Unpopular ( http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html ) I tend to think of sociability more in terms of the opportunity cost of Chinese-Walling blackboxed components. The cost of the time it takes to learn the muddled API of mores is the time that could be spent learning those muddled API's we actually find fascinating. It is recursively self-reinforcing as well. An hour spent in hacking Smalltalk will get you more immediate and interesting (to us) results than an hour rehearsing small talk. Which choice will look more appealing the next time? Almost inevitably you will focus on those things that you're already good at, that provide tangible rewards.
groaner 17y ago
> If nerds become the dominant consumer of any given entertainment, it's fucking doomed. I'm not sure I understand this statement. I don't see the gaming industries (card-, board-, and video- varieties) going out of business. I'd even go as far as saying nerds popularized many of these.
- sketerpot 17y ago
  Doomed to be forever dominated by nerds, perhaps. Can anybody name an example of a field of entertainment that was successfully de-nerdified?
  - ricree 17y ago
    Video games, to an extent. Though at least some of that comes from branching out into new genres that appeal outside of what would be considered traditional nerd interests. Sports games come to mind, for example.
  - uriel 17y ago
    > Can anybody name an example of a field of entertainment that was successfully de-nerdified? Reddit. (Or great parts of it anyway.)
    - cheald 17y ago
      World of Warcraft. MMORPGs were very squarely the domain of the archtypical basement-dwelling nerd - they were intensely mathematical (which is natural, given its D&D lineage), brutally punishing in the case of mistakes (corpse runs, XP loss), and tuned to the highly-methodical, cause-and-effect nerd mentality ("blind" crafting lists, week-long spawn timers, etc). Then WoW came along, sucked out all the "nerd sauce", and replaced it with an easily-accessible set of rules that made the game approachable and appealing to the mass markets, and it has been wildly successful as a result. The nerd bits are still there, buried deep down, but the average player never has to touch them to fully enjoy the game. Sure, if you play WoW, you're still a "nerd" by social standards, because hey, let's face it, you're playing an online role playing game in your underwear with hundreds of people you've never met, but there are a lot of people who we wouldn't classify as "nerds" that play the game.
tomsaffell 17y ago
Good article, but I found this one line surprising: ..many nerds actually like being interrupted in mid-sentence when they're wrong.. I don't feel that way (semi-nerd). Do you?
- AndrewDucker 17y ago
  I think that observation stems from this: http://www.fantasymaps.com/stuff/fanspeak.html http://www.fantasymaps.com/stuff/fanspeak.html
- epochwolf 17y ago
  I prefer to be interrupted if I've made an important error in an explication or my ideas are off base. (Or correcting my pronunciation)
  - gizmo 17y ago
    ... provided you're allowed to continue your train of thought after the quick interruption/correction. Getting interrupted just because somebody wants to explore a different tangent can be very annoying.
    - rbanffy 17y ago
      I think the "when they are wrong" is the key. Exploring a different tangent is not being corrected.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  We have a guy in the office who is very low-social skilled and is definitely a nerd (of the D&D tabletop variety). He's a nice enough guy but if you speak before he is totally finished he will ignore you and continue. He also gets stressed by the interruptions. However he does interrupt others frequently in the same way and will just power on with what he wants to say. This makes having a 2-way discussion really hard. I suspect that from a nerds perspective it's fine to interrupt - and they forget they hate it (he says this is the case when I call him on it)
ShabbyDoo 17y ago
"In a sane world, I think, people would listen to what's coming out of your mouth" Yes. And, that implies that you were not interrupted during that process! A simple social rule that usually works is, "Never interrupt." This implies, of course, that the other social rule of "Provide others with period chances to speak (pauses, questions, etc.)" is also followed. Interruption is more difficult and nuanced. We all agree that we may interrupt anyone at any time if we notice a fire in the building. But, it gets more difficult from there.
- mattm 17y ago
  This is cultural and not universal. In some cultures if you wait for the pauses, you will never be able to speak. I found this to be the case while living in Eastern Europe. The people there generally keep speaking until you interrupt. It's not considered rude though. They just assume you'll interrupt when you have something to say. If you don't interrupt, they'll keep talking.
  - ShabbyDoo 17y ago
    You are right -- that's also likely a more efficient convention.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  The byline for Backtrack Linux puts it best: the quieter you are the more you are able to hear
notaddicted 17y ago
... in my opinion wink 1. Society does make sense. 2. People ought to tell you when you do something rude. At that time they can offer the reason (there is a reason). 3. The people in the example are poorly socialized. 4. The socially skilled are just as rare as the mathematically skilled. The average person is just as atrocious socially as mathematically.
- dschobel 17y ago
  That may all be true but in the absence of a compelling antagonistic narrative it makes for a poor online rant. Your position is way too nuanced. Try to reframe it as nerds vs the world or even better, nerds vs the normals and then maybe we can talk.
  - idlewords 17y ago
    Throw in some sweeping generalizations based on your high school experience, find a way to tie it in to Lisp, and you might even make a career out of it.
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
    - Semiapies 17y ago
      That works for either the "nerds vs. the world" or the "stop being such NERDS, NERDS" lines I've seen, lately.
  - lucifer 17y ago
    "Try to reframe it as nerds vs the world or even better, nerds vs the normals and then maybe we can talk." 'I suggest' you consider Geek vs Nerd (or even more generally avant-garde vs outlier) to recognize that the antagonism is internal.
- philwelch 17y ago
  There's "socially skilled" (i.e. able to use social cues and interpersonal contact to accomplish goals) and "socially functional" (i.e. able to function in society with a minimum of problem). By definition, most people are socially functional. Throw a bunch of people together and they negotiate a social protocol. (Even people who fail at negotiating with social protocols can successfully negotiate a different social protocol in different circumstances--science fiction conventions, for instance.) Socially skilled people make good businessmen and politicians. They can engage in "powertalk" (http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/11/11/the-gervais-principle-ii-posturetalk-powertalk-babytalk-and-gametalk/ http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/11/11/the-gervais-principle-i...). They have charisma. They parlay a lucky strike running for the Senate into a successful Presidential run four years later. They radiate reality distortion fields. This is rather different than simply being able to speak the protocol.
swombat 17y ago
And some, frustrated by the lack of coherency, will default to the "do unto others" rule - and be a royal pain in the ass, because many nerds actually like being interrupted in mid-sentence when they're wrong. What, you mean other people don't? They prefer to continue on a lengthy and fundamentally incorrect statement when they could be saved the embarrassment quickly and painlessly after just a few words?
- dmoney 17y ago
  "Fundamentally incorrect" sounds like a pretty nerdy piece of metadata to attach to a statement.
olalonde 17y ago
Because you have a hard time rationalizing social norms doesn't mean they don't make sense at all. Nerds do have their social norms too (for instance, not caring about their physical appearance) and I would actually consider myself a nerd if it was not for the social part / lifestyle that goes with it. I'm probably going to get down voted for this :/
Maven911 17y ago
I notice the people who don't use the word "I think" often will get ahead in the workplace. It shows strength and exudes confidence.
- tvon 17y ago
  So long as you're correct and being asked to make a decision.
- jrockway 17y ago
  Correlation, meet causation. The people who are confident enough to omit "I think" are the ones that have ideas that other people like. If you come up with bad ideas but never use "I think", you will not get ahead. Conversely, if you always come up with great ideas, nobody will care that you said "I think"; they care that you solved the problem. People are not as dumb and idiosyncratic as bloggers think they are.
RevRal 17y ago
When talking about something meaningful, I speak to people in a way that humans should be spoken to. It's their fault for getting offended. That is, I speak to people with the dignity of humans in mind, which is our power of inference. Speaking in a lesser way is disrespectful, like talking to people as if they were dogs. Yet, that is where most people are comfortable. That is the level of sanity which is promoted through most human society. And this level of sanity is, frankly, animalistic and insane. No, even if people don't like it, I won't grant them the indignity of being spoken to like an animal. With that said, I've learned some leniency with this rule. Now, I'm basically sociopathically socially skilled in places where people can't communicate at my level -- pretty much the article's last two paragraphs. I understand wit and charm logically, and I can apply it quite consciously. I am, however, always disquieted that I have to entertain myself like this -- and as a byproduct, entertain others -- and yet, people don't realize that they're being tricked. Bah. As long as I'm not talking to the layperson about something meaningful, I'm fine. I just really wish it didn't have to be this way.
- mcantor 17y ago
  Where is it written that people should be spoken to a certain way? I feel like you are exhibiting some signs of the very hubris that this article cautions against. Beware the conviction you feel so strongly that there is no possibility you could be wrong, and anyone who takes offense at your stance is simply getting what they deserve. That way lies anger and estrangement. Everyone has different expectations about how they will be communicated with. It depends largely on how they were brought up, and what their brains learned to expect from certain verbal cues. If you really care about whether someone else understands what you are saying, it makes sense to meet in the middle. I doubt it is your intention to offend people when you communicate honestly with them. Perhaps it would be constructive to respond to someone taking umbrage at your words by gently mentioning what you wrote in your second paragraph: "I'm sorry I offended you... it is not my intention to suggest that your opinions are worth less than mine. I know that I might be wrong, but it is far more efficient and honest to simply state my beliefs and opinions without cluttering my sentences with lots of extra fluff." At that point, the ball is in their court: they can choose to do the work and remind themselves that you are not trying to clobber their opinions, or they can decide that it isn't worth the effort. At that point, it is your turn to decide whether it's worth the effort to change your speech patterns, or if you do not care about communicating with them enough to bother.
ndl 17y ago
I read an article in the Harvard Business Review relating to this some time ago. The author basically argued that social interaction comes from the limbic brain, so trying to learn it the way one would mathematics is awkward and misguided. The complex, inconsistent world of social cues simply has too many variables for logical processing, but each human is equipped with an older, instinctual understanding of this world that sometimes goes ignored or even repressed. Maybe the key to success here really is learning to stop thinking too hard and trusting one's instincts. A good example is how we tell people they're being rude. Many nerds want an explicit, clear answer, maybe even a right/wrong mark or a grade. In reality, we respond to body language with body language. If everyone's avoiding your eyes or shooting you dirty looks, you've probably said a bad word. Sometimes it's more subtle, such as with the many meanings of crossed arms and angled stances. I dealt with these challenges by studying acting. The practice of theater collects and refines centuries of study in body language, emotion and personal interaction. Even more importantly, it is a practice rather than a knowledge base, which matters if one believes that one physically cannot learn certain things from a book.
- zackattack 17y ago
  i hear there are some books though. for example, _Impro_ by Keith Johnstone.
- billswift 17y ago
  >social interaction comes from the limbic brain, so trying to learn it the way one would mathematics is awkward and misguided Not just awkward and misguided, nearly impossible. I am an Aspie with an IQ of 156 and can barely maintain more than short, shallow conversations (unless I start monologuing which isn't a "conversation" but at least I'm doing some talking then).
xenophanes 17y ago
> many nerds actually like being interrupted in mid-sentence when they're wrong Not being interrupted in any kind of debate is TERRIBLE. It means the other guy will forget exactly what you said that he disagreed with. so then he'll argue with some vague memory of what you said. plus everything you said after the part where he disagreed is a waste of time. i got into a big argument once because i wouldn't let someone finish their point b/c i knew they were going to forget what they said in the first half that was wrong and i didn't want to waste my time listening to the rest which was irrelevant. > If nerds can master such arbitrarily complex things as the Linux operating and the complete rules of D&D, why can't they learn the rules of social norms? Social norms actually are more complicated than D&D. There's more to know. If you actively play D&D for a year you could learn and remember all the rules. Learning all the social norms takes far longer -- even after your whole childhood including 4 years of high school very few people know all the norms, just most.
evanrmurphy 17y ago
I basically enjoyed the article, but not this message which I felt was underlying: nerds are too smart to "get" society, because social customs make no sense and only ordinary dumb people can tolerate their absurdity. Society does have a logic to it - there are just a ton of axioms, and much empiricism is required to catch the nuances. But clearly empiricism is at least as important as theory when dealing with real-world phenomena: you have to stop and observe closely how gravity works, otherwise you may deduce very wrong conclusions from seemingly sound premises. (@aristotle i still luv u)
mcantor 17y ago
I enjoyed the point about prepending sentences with "I think." I have found that, during emotional discussions with friends or loved ones, it also behooves us to prepend many phrases with "I feel like." The common nerd defense to this approach is to cry, "But I'm saying it... of course it's just my opinion!" or, "Of course it's just my feelings!" However, prepending a sentence with "I think/I feel like..." indicates that you are not one of those frustrating people who refuses to consider other people's emotions and opinions. Additionally, "You don't consider my emotions enough" and "It feels like you don't consider my emotions enough" are two wildly different phrases, no matter which way you slice it. By prepending that sentence with "it feels like," we profoundly alter its meaning. The first sentence indicates an objective truth for which the listener can be blamed. The latter sentence indicates nothing except the speaker's internal feelings, which--for the most part--cannot be consciously controlled. No one is to blame for feelings: they simply are, and denoting a sentiment as "a feeling" rather than "a fact, which may be your fault," is a vital tactic for communicating constructively on a deep emotional level. Many nerds approach debates and communication with a feeling of entitlement to being understood. "I have spent a lot of time learning what I know, and if someone else can't understand it when I explain it to them, it is their problem, not mine." Unfortunately, this leads to severe communication issues with everyone, including other nerds. If you want someone else to understand something, and they don't get it, it is your problem as much as it is theirs. Maybe if you never have to deal with that person ever again, nor anyone else who they have to deal with, and so on, it is not your problem. But if they are a friend, colleague or loved one, it inarguably behooves you to go out of your way to make them understand what's going on in your head. Only mutual understanding of needs and desires will provide us with the opportunity to reach constructive conclusions to our problems.
- uriel 17y ago
  > However, prepending a sentence with "I think/I feel like..." indicates that you are not one of those frustrating people who refuses to consider other people's emotions and opinions. The only way to show that you are not one of those persons is by what you actually say and by displaying in your ideas an understanding of other people's emotions and options (or making explicit that you do not understand them but would like to). Prepending "I think/I feel like..." is meaningless boilerplate that can be easily interpreted as condescending or hypocritical if your concern for other people's feelings and opinions is not actually reflected in what follows.
orblivion 17y ago
I think a lot of it was explained away for me when I took it as a logical datum that people have illogical preferences and form illogical habits. I still hold my fork in my right hand when my parents aren't looking, though, dammit.
planettrash 17y ago
I read the article with the word 'nerd' replaced by the word 'men'.
Calamitous 17y ago
Because you're not using vim
dwwoelfel 17y ago
Read Judith Martin's "Miss Manners" books and newspaper columns if you want to learn how to determine what is right and what is wrong in social situations. She has a witty writing style, and she treats manners like a science. You can read her columns at the Washington post here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/03/25/LI2005032501837.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/03... If you're going to buy one of her books I recommend her Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior (http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0393058743 http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0393058743)
iuguy 17y ago
When you can compile not interrupting people and fork it to the background, nerds will get a handle on it.
daniel-cussen 17y ago
I've learned not to interrupt people, but it took finding out I had AADD and treating it chemically.
- rbanffy 17y ago
  Sadly, this came to my mind: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/26/AR2010022603369.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02... "Another danger is that childhood eccentricities, sometimes inextricable from creativity, might be labeled "disorders" to be "cured." If 7-year-old Mozart tried composing his concertos today, he might be diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and medicated into barren normality." I sincerely hope it's not your case. We need more Mozarts.

107 points by AndrewDucker 17y ago

Because society is basically one enormous, opaque device driver blob? It specifies an arbitrary input/output format so ugly that seeing the underlying reasoning would be an embarrassment.

madair 17y ago

Great article! I love this: "I'm continually amazed by how much better people react if I remember to arbitrarily throw "I think" before I state an opinion. I mean, it's coming out of my mouth, and it's not like there's some external arbiter of which sitcom is funniest, so of course it's an "I think." That's assumed. But, apparently, if I go out of my way to remind people that it's my opinion with a marker that makes little sense to me, they relax. So I do it." A lesson I have only recently learned in my 30s, it really does help!

waterlesscloud 17y ago
Yes, it does. I always feel silly adding it in, because of course what I'm saying is my opinion. What else would it be? But I say it when I'm talking to people who need it. I've always thought that the main reason for it is that most people are very easily threatened in their opinions, so without the "I Think", they can feel like they are being attacked. But it could be that most people simply haven't been trained to differentiate fact and opinion on their own, so they need clear markers. At least, I think that's possible.
- hubb 17y ago
  it's rather that many nerds easily assume an authoritative tone when voicing their opinion. i think
  - kilian 17y ago
    That is true.
  - xenophanes 17y ago
    cause they thought about their opinion and have good reasons to believe it's correct. and they are open to debate. they aren't being closed minded. what they don't want or like is for you to say/think "that's just your opinion" and both not give a counter argument and also not accept they are right.
    - gizmo 17y ago
      I find that most people find disagreement of any kind uncomfortable. So whether you're open to discussion or whether you've considered your opinions carefully is immaterial.
      - xenophanes 17y ago
        Yes. I'm just saying why people do that. Some people don't irrationally hate disagreement and instead see it as a learning opportunity.
  - Quarrelsome 17y ago
    I think it is more that a lot of people believe that everyone speaks in truths. It's the reason why some people can listen to Fox News with a straight face. Fair and balanced yo.
- Periodic 17y ago
  "I think" implies that it is just your opinion and that others may think differently. Omitting it implies certanty and fact. You may think that those two words have no meaning, but to many people they say a lot. Most people are not literal. Their words are loaded with additional layers of meaning. For example, "I think the world was created 6k years ago," is a very non-threatening statement. It's just an opinion and by stating that it's just your thought, you imply that it's okay that others think differently. If you had said, "The world was created 6k years ago," you are stating a fact and inviting disagreement. It is not about differentiating fact from opinion, but rather not understanding what implications you words have. "Sometimes what wasn't said is more important than what was said." The stereotypical geek might not understand that, preferring a literal interpretation of everything. Note: I caught myself using, "I think," three times when writing this comment.
  - waterlesscloud 17y ago
    But isn't that an indication that most people are in fact very literal? Isn't it far more indicative of layers of meaning when someone distinguishes between fact and opinion without literal markers?
  - gizmo 17y ago
    The thing is, though, that people expect the inclusion of "I think" even when what you're stating is _obviously_ an opinion. The statement "The world was created 6k years ago" could be a scientific/objective truth. So by adding "I think" people won't feel like a fool by disagreeing with you (otherwise they might be unknowingly disagreeing with a fact). On the other hand a statement like "Redheads are hot" is obviously an opinion. Prefacing that with "I think redheads are hot" sounds unnecessarily insecure to me, but I suspect most people would add the "I think" qualifier anyway. I don't think it makes sense that a statement like "tomatoes are gross" is more threatening than "I think tomatoes are gross", but it might very well be the case. On a tangent, I find that when people say something that I know to be (objectively) wrong, I tend to correct them by prefacing my opinion with "I think...", or "I heard that...", or "I read somewhere that...", and I always end my disagreement with a (tonal) question mark. Even when I make a statement or correct somebody, ending with a higher pitch (question mark style) works wonders to avoid offense.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  It's probably because it is possible to pass on a statement of fact by speaking it too. To me personally not putting I think before my statements of opinion, as opposed to fact, seems weird. I think Firefly is the best Sci Fi show ever and Firefly is the best Sci Fi show ever Are 2 completely different statements :)
  - ryanpetrich 17y ago
    I find the second statement to be nonsensical because it is written like a fact, but can't be proven or disproven. Why do people speak like this?
    - jrockway 17y ago
      The word "ever" works like "I think" in that sentence. That's why the "I think" version sounds weird.
- brettnak 17y ago
  Leaving out "I think" tends to make people think that you are stating a fact that you learned somewhere or somehow, and that it's a step above a "normal opinion"; if that makes any sense. The offense comes in the future as well when they discover you told them something wrong with out the "I think" prefix. Stating opinion as fact is a sure fire way to loose the trust of colleagues.
- mattm 17y ago
  Taking Toastmasters, one thing tip they give about giving feedback to speakers is to preface your feedback with "I". There's a big difference between: "Your voice was too soft." and "I found your voice to be too soft." In the first statement you are speaking for everybody. But just because you had that insight, doesn't mean everyone thought that way. In fact you might be the only person who thought that and by stating it as universal, you could cause the speaker to think it was a major problem. This is what the article is addressing. When nerds give an opinion, they will say it as if it is a fact that everybody knows. It really turns me off wanting to discuss anymore with someone who does this as he believes his opinions are the opinions of everyone.
  - rbanffy 17y ago
    It's not logical to believe the given nerd's opinion is universal. Why would anyone, however nerdy, think so? When someone tells me my voice was too soft I immediately recognize it as a perception of that person and assign it a value based on that.
- dkarl 17y ago
  Like so many other things, "I think" usually doesn't have the literal meaning "I think." It indicates a low-to-moderate level of conviction. Stating something without saying "I think" (or doing something else to soften your statement) indicates a high level of conviction. It implies that people without a similar level of conviction should defer to your opinion. That's what people find objectionable.
  - jamesbritt 17y ago
    " It implies that people without a similar level of conviction should defer to your opinion." Really? How so? I understand that an opinion expressed without qualifiers may indicate a strong belief, but I don't get the implied "defer your opinion" part. Perhaps this is something that some people infer, whether intended by the speaker or not? There are some people for whom every strongly voiced opinion is taken as a personal challenge, rather than being just one person's thoughts, typically offered without any supporting evidence. Hence flame wars and such. Maybe people need to be encouraged to assume every expression has an implied "In my opinion ... " unless there is something offered to back it up.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    I beg to differ; obviously no hard proof to back this up but I expect that "I think" is used to express an opinion as much as it is to express uncertainty. Also uncertainty is presented in delivery and tone too; so distinguishing the two is relatively easy. When uncertain main emphasis is on the word "think". In an opinion (where you have conviction) the emphasis is on "I"
- stonemetal 17y ago
  What else would it be? Fact, conjecture, a hypothetical that you don't currently believe, someone else's opinion, something you read on a bill board, demon possession, a marketing message, something you read in a book, something you learned via a diving method such as reading tea leaves... The list is actually quite long. I say "I believe" if I don't have any facts to back it up, I don't say "I believe" If I do.
- uriel 17y ago
  > I've always thought that the main reason for it is that most people are very easily threatened in their opinions, so without the "I Think", they can feel like they are being attacked. Probably because they have not thought much about why they hold the opinions they have, and are afraid of any external input that might force them to question their world view.
ShabbyDoo 17y ago
Prefixing a statement with "I think" signals that you are open to alternate theories. Without this prefix, social rules like "silence implies agreement" kick in.
TravisLS 17y ago
I find this interesting because it's something that I've worked really hard to un-learn. I used to say "I think" before nearly every opinion, but I found it hard to have any of my opinions taken seriously. After all, why should anyone care what I think? These days, I'm much more inclined to say "What if..." or "We should also consider..." to preface an opinion, such that consideration is required before dismissing what I've said.
- pavel_lishin 17y ago
  My stepfather told me to never preface a counter-argument with "yeah, but". He told me that other people hear it as "I didn't listen to what you said, but am talking anyway."
  - TravisLS 17y ago
    Probably the most useful piece of advice I've ever heard regarding this kind of discourse: A mediator friend of mine once told me to always attempt to briefly recap the other person's point before beginning a counter-argument. That way they know you heard what they said, and they have the opportunity to correct any inaccuracies before you get going.
    - mcantor 17y ago
      This simple exercise is more than just a trapping of mutualistic discourse. It actually forces you to think about their point, and leads to a greater understanding of what they are trying to say... which, in turn, allows you to waste less time by explaining a counterpoint to an argument that they didn't make. I try to make myself do this even when I'm not arguing with someone. If a task comes to me from my boss, I will do my best to rephrase it in my own words (not verbatim, unless it's something really simple) to make sure we're on the same page.
      - count 17y ago
        People who do this in every conversation annoy the everliving hell out of me. In a philosophical or rhetorical debate, it's an excellent strategy, but in day to day office conversations, ugh.
evanrmurphy 17y ago
It's funny to me that the article frames it this way. I understand the comment = opinion perspective now, but I grew up saying "I think" a lot for a different nerdy rationale: I considered my statements to be like logical propositions, and there's almost nothing you can be totally sure about, so why wouldn't you qualify? Otherwise you risk making false claims unnecessarily, which undermines the system we're building.
- dkarl 17y ago
  I think the coding theorists here feel that it's an inefficient encoding if the most common case requires more syllables than an uncommon case ;-)
xcombinator 17y ago
In my experience people prefer the "I think" when you are unsure of what you say, and to be clear when you know what you are talking about. Odds are that a person that never ever say "I think" believes that his opinions are 100% right, witch nobody else will like(Mr Perfect) and a person that always says "I think" is insecure, weak, always depending of what other people think about me mentality. As the romans said: The true is in the middle.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
EdwardCoffin 17y ago
This reminds me of something Seymour Papert talked about when he was interviewed in "The Media Lab" by Stewart Brand, talking about an African conference on The New Math: "... At a certain point the Nigerian delegation stood up and walked out. It was quite dramatic -- they were dressed in beautiful African robes. Then the meeting broke up and I had this conversation with one of the people from the Nigerian delegation who went by. 'Why did you walk out, what's going on?' 'I can't talk to these Americans.' (Nobody thought of me as an American.) 'Why not?' 'Because they say what they mean.' "We're so brought up with the idea that communication fails when people don't say what they mean. The man explained, 'When two Americans have a conversation, each says what he thinks, and then there's a confrontation -- one's going to be right and the other one's going to be wrong. We don't do it like that. We sit around under the tree, and somebody says something, and somebody else does, and we talk and nobody has a position. It goes on for a long time, and maybe tomorrow, or eventually, everybody agrees on a position. Then everyone is right and there isn't anybody's point of view left out.'
- billswift 17y ago
  And nothing ever gets done.
uriel 17y ago
For years I have been trying to learn not to say "I think" before every opinion I express. As Strunk&White point out: it is redundant verbiage, if you say something it is because it represents what you think, only when you are saying something you don't think (eg., what somebody else thinks) does it make sense to clarify. You would never say "I think that he thinks ...", which is the logical conclusion of the advice the article gives. Being humble and recognizing that you could be wrong is important, but there are better ways to express this than by preceding all you say with "I think". Sadly my eloquence is still lacking so I keep automatically resorting to adding "I think" and similar filler, but I try to catch myself and instead think (pun not intended ;) about what I'm actually saying and how can express it more clearly.

andywood 17y ago

Spot on. I'm one of those who eventually adapted to the way people are. Mostly. I even came to see all these customs as "true", in a perverse sense, just because people do in fact hold them in their minds. But internally, I still distinguish between things that are true independently of human social wiring, and things that are only "so" because a lot of people think so. And my loyalty is still mostly to the former, and this probably does still limit me socially, and perhaps even career-wise. But I'm not sure I would feel better about giving in than I feel about being a little limited in those ways.

dschobel 17y ago

In what way does this analysis of a caricature (based on sitcom character!) resemble reality? Is this really the most sophisticated thing we can say? that "nerds" don't like society because it's illogical? Color me underwhelmed.

ErrantX 17y ago
Very little. Also, in my experience (including personal experience in the past and observing friends handling the same difficulties now), most of the inability to fit meet social norms is driven by fear more than any other factor.
xenophanes 17y ago
I identified with the article. (And I don't identify with most nerds on TV.) Just because you don't get it doesn't make it a caricature.
orblivion 17y ago
I take this attitude, but for things like arbitrary table manners. I have a friend who doesn't understand the idea of wearing a suit to interviews. Or to some degree, button down shirts ("the buttonless kind covers me just fine"). So it varies.

kevinp 17y ago

Context? I have a natural tendency to start sentences with "I think" and the like, and I have to fight myself to NOT to use such phrasing on the job. Every "perhaps," "maybe," "why don't we ... ?" opens a door through which the other party can force his own agenda, I've found. This advice doesn't work in business.

pook 17y ago

At the risk of sounding an ass-kisser, this is good, but not as good as PG's Why Nerds are Unpopular ( http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html ) I tend to think of sociability more in terms of the opportunity cost of Chinese-Walling blackboxed components. The cost of the time it takes to learn the muddled API of mores is the time that could be spent learning those muddled API's we actually find fascinating. It is recursively self-reinforcing as well. An hour spent in hacking Smalltalk will get you more immediate and interesting (to us) results than an hour rehearsing small talk. Which choice will look more appealing the next time? Almost inevitably you will focus on those things that you're already good at, that provide tangible rewards.

groaner 17y ago

> If nerds become the dominant consumer of any given entertainment, it's fucking doomed. I'm not sure I understand this statement. I don't see the gaming industries (card-, board-, and video- varieties) going out of business. I'd even go as far as saying nerds popularized many of these.

sketerpot 17y ago
Doomed to be forever dominated by nerds, perhaps. Can anybody name an example of a field of entertainment that was successfully de-nerdified?
- ricree 17y ago
  Video games, to an extent. Though at least some of that comes from branching out into new genres that appeal outside of what would be considered traditional nerd interests. Sports games come to mind, for example.
- uriel 17y ago
  > Can anybody name an example of a field of entertainment that was successfully de-nerdified? Reddit. (Or great parts of it anyway.)
  - cheald 17y ago
    World of Warcraft. MMORPGs were very squarely the domain of the archtypical basement-dwelling nerd - they were intensely mathematical (which is natural, given its D&D lineage), brutally punishing in the case of mistakes (corpse runs, XP loss), and tuned to the highly-methodical, cause-and-effect nerd mentality ("blind" crafting lists, week-long spawn timers, etc). Then WoW came along, sucked out all the "nerd sauce", and replaced it with an easily-accessible set of rules that made the game approachable and appealing to the mass markets, and it has been wildly successful as a result. The nerd bits are still there, buried deep down, but the average player never has to touch them to fully enjoy the game. Sure, if you play WoW, you're still a "nerd" by social standards, because hey, let's face it, you're playing an online role playing game in your underwear with hundreds of people you've never met, but there are a lot of people who we wouldn't classify as "nerds" that play the game.

tomsaffell 17y ago

Good article, but I found this one line surprising: ..many nerds actually like being interrupted in mid-sentence when they're wrong.. I don't feel that way (semi-nerd). Do you?

AndrewDucker 17y ago
I think that observation stems from this: http://www.fantasymaps.com/stuff/fanspeak.html http://www.fantasymaps.com/stuff/fanspeak.html
epochwolf 17y ago
I prefer to be interrupted if I've made an important error in an explication or my ideas are off base. (Or correcting my pronunciation)
- gizmo 17y ago
  ... provided you're allowed to continue your train of thought after the quick interruption/correction. Getting interrupted just because somebody wants to explore a different tangent can be very annoying.
  - rbanffy 17y ago
    I think the "when they are wrong" is the key. Exploring a different tangent is not being corrected.
ErrantX 17y ago
We have a guy in the office who is very low-social skilled and is definitely a nerd (of the D&D tabletop variety). He's a nice enough guy but if you speak before he is totally finished he will ignore you and continue. He also gets stressed by the interruptions. However he does interrupt others frequently in the same way and will just power on with what he wants to say. This makes having a 2-way discussion really hard. I suspect that from a nerds perspective it's fine to interrupt - and they forget they hate it (he says this is the case when I call him on it)

ShabbyDoo 17y ago

"In a sane world, I think, people would listen to what's coming out of your mouth" Yes. And, that implies that you were not interrupted during that process! A simple social rule that usually works is, "Never interrupt." This implies, of course, that the other social rule of "Provide others with period chances to speak (pauses, questions, etc.)" is also followed. Interruption is more difficult and nuanced. We all agree that we may interrupt anyone at any time if we notice a fire in the building. But, it gets more difficult from there.

mattm 17y ago
This is cultural and not universal. In some cultures if you wait for the pauses, you will never be able to speak. I found this to be the case while living in Eastern Europe. The people there generally keep speaking until you interrupt. It's not considered rude though. They just assume you'll interrupt when you have something to say. If you don't interrupt, they'll keep talking.
- ShabbyDoo 17y ago
  You are right -- that's also likely a more efficient convention.
ErrantX 17y ago
The byline for Backtrack Linux puts it best: the quieter you are the more you are able to hear

notaddicted 17y ago

... in my opinion wink 1. Society does make sense. 2. People ought to tell you when you do something rude. At that time they can offer the reason (there is a reason). 3. The people in the example are poorly socialized. 4. The socially skilled are just as rare as the mathematically skilled. The average person is just as atrocious socially as mathematically.

dschobel 17y ago
That may all be true but in the absence of a compelling antagonistic narrative it makes for a poor online rant. Your position is way too nuanced. Try to reframe it as nerds vs the world or even better, nerds vs the normals and then maybe we can talk.
- idlewords 17y ago
  Throw in some sweeping generalizations based on your high school experience, find a way to tie it in to Lisp, and you might even make a career out of it.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - Semiapies 17y ago
    That works for either the "nerds vs. the world" or the "stop being such NERDS, NERDS" lines I've seen, lately.
- lucifer 17y ago
  "Try to reframe it as nerds vs the world or even better, nerds vs the normals and then maybe we can talk." 'I suggest' you consider Geek vs Nerd (or even more generally avant-garde vs outlier) to recognize that the antagonism is internal.
philwelch 17y ago
There's "socially skilled" (i.e. able to use social cues and interpersonal contact to accomplish goals) and "socially functional" (i.e. able to function in society with a minimum of problem). By definition, most people are socially functional. Throw a bunch of people together and they negotiate a social protocol. (Even people who fail at negotiating with social protocols can successfully negotiate a different social protocol in different circumstances--science fiction conventions, for instance.) Socially skilled people make good businessmen and politicians. They can engage in "powertalk" (http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/11/11/the-gervais-principle-ii-posturetalk-powertalk-babytalk-and-gametalk/ http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/11/11/the-gervais-principle-i...). They have charisma. They parlay a lucky strike running for the Senate into a successful Presidential run four years later. They radiate reality distortion fields. This is rather different than simply being able to speak the protocol.

swombat 17y ago

And some, frustrated by the lack of coherency, will default to the "do unto others" rule - and be a royal pain in the ass, because many nerds actually like being interrupted in mid-sentence when they're wrong. What, you mean other people don't? They prefer to continue on a lengthy and fundamentally incorrect statement when they could be saved the embarrassment quickly and painlessly after just a few words?

dmoney 17y ago
"Fundamentally incorrect" sounds like a pretty nerdy piece of metadata to attach to a statement.

olalonde 17y ago

Because you have a hard time rationalizing social norms doesn't mean they don't make sense at all. Nerds do have their social norms too (for instance, not caring about their physical appearance) and I would actually consider myself a nerd if it was not for the social part / lifestyle that goes with it. I'm probably going to get down voted for this :/

Maven911 17y ago

I notice the people who don't use the word "I think" often will get ahead in the workplace. It shows strength and exudes confidence.

tvon 17y ago
So long as you're correct and being asked to make a decision.
jrockway 17y ago
Correlation, meet causation. The people who are confident enough to omit "I think" are the ones that have ideas that other people like. If you come up with bad ideas but never use "I think", you will not get ahead. Conversely, if you always come up with great ideas, nobody will care that you said "I think"; they care that you solved the problem. People are not as dumb and idiosyncratic as bloggers think they are.

RevRal 17y ago

When talking about something meaningful, I speak to people in a way that humans should be spoken to. It's their fault for getting offended. That is, I speak to people with the dignity of humans in mind, which is our power of inference. Speaking in a lesser way is disrespectful, like talking to people as if they were dogs. Yet, that is where most people are comfortable. That is the level of sanity which is promoted through most human society. And this level of sanity is, frankly, animalistic and insane. No, even if people don't like it, I won't grant them the indignity of being spoken to like an animal. With that said, I've learned some leniency with this rule. Now, I'm basically sociopathically socially skilled in places where people can't communicate at my level -- pretty much the article's last two paragraphs. I understand wit and charm logically, and I can apply it quite consciously. I am, however, always disquieted that I have to entertain myself like this -- and as a byproduct, entertain others -- and yet, people don't realize that they're being tricked. Bah. As long as I'm not talking to the layperson about something meaningful, I'm fine. I just really wish it didn't have to be this way.

mcantor 17y ago
Where is it written that people should be spoken to a certain way? I feel like you are exhibiting some signs of the very hubris that this article cautions against. Beware the conviction you feel so strongly that there is no possibility you could be wrong, and anyone who takes offense at your stance is simply getting what they deserve. That way lies anger and estrangement. Everyone has different expectations about how they will be communicated with. It depends largely on how they were brought up, and what their brains learned to expect from certain verbal cues. If you really care about whether someone else understands what you are saying, it makes sense to meet in the middle. I doubt it is your intention to offend people when you communicate honestly with them. Perhaps it would be constructive to respond to someone taking umbrage at your words by gently mentioning what you wrote in your second paragraph: "I'm sorry I offended you... it is not my intention to suggest that your opinions are worth less than mine. I know that I might be wrong, but it is far more efficient and honest to simply state my beliefs and opinions without cluttering my sentences with lots of extra fluff." At that point, the ball is in their court: they can choose to do the work and remind themselves that you are not trying to clobber their opinions, or they can decide that it isn't worth the effort. At that point, it is your turn to decide whether it's worth the effort to change your speech patterns, or if you do not care about communicating with them enough to bother.

ndl 17y ago

I read an article in the Harvard Business Review relating to this some time ago. The author basically argued that social interaction comes from the limbic brain, so trying to learn it the way one would mathematics is awkward and misguided. The complex, inconsistent world of social cues simply has too many variables for logical processing, but each human is equipped with an older, instinctual understanding of this world that sometimes goes ignored or even repressed. Maybe the key to success here really is learning to stop thinking too hard and trusting one's instincts. A good example is how we tell people they're being rude. Many nerds want an explicit, clear answer, maybe even a right/wrong mark or a grade. In reality, we respond to body language with body language. If everyone's avoiding your eyes or shooting you dirty looks, you've probably said a bad word. Sometimes it's more subtle, such as with the many meanings of crossed arms and angled stances. I dealt with these challenges by studying acting. The practice of theater collects and refines centuries of study in body language, emotion and personal interaction. Even more importantly, it is a practice rather than a knowledge base, which matters if one believes that one physically cannot learn certain things from a book.

zackattack 17y ago
i hear there are some books though. for example, _Impro_ by Keith Johnstone.
billswift 17y ago
>social interaction comes from the limbic brain, so trying to learn it the way one would mathematics is awkward and misguided Not just awkward and misguided, nearly impossible. I am an Aspie with an IQ of 156 and can barely maintain more than short, shallow conversations (unless I start monologuing which isn't a "conversation" but at least I'm doing some talking then).

xenophanes 17y ago

> many nerds actually like being interrupted in mid-sentence when they're wrong Not being interrupted in any kind of debate is TERRIBLE. It means the other guy will forget exactly what you said that he disagreed with. so then he'll argue with some vague memory of what you said. plus everything you said after the part where he disagreed is a waste of time. i got into a big argument once because i wouldn't let someone finish their point b/c i knew they were going to forget what they said in the first half that was wrong and i didn't want to waste my time listening to the rest which was irrelevant. > If nerds can master such arbitrarily complex things as the Linux operating and the complete rules of D&D, why can't they learn the rules of social norms? Social norms actually are more complicated than D&D. There's more to know. If you actively play D&D for a year you could learn and remember all the rules. Learning all the social norms takes far longer -- even after your whole childhood including 4 years of high school very few people know all the norms, just most.

evanrmurphy 17y ago

I basically enjoyed the article, but not this message which I felt was underlying: nerds are too smart to "get" society, because social customs make no sense and only ordinary dumb people can tolerate their absurdity. Society does have a logic to it - there are just a ton of axioms, and much empiricism is required to catch the nuances. But clearly empiricism is at least as important as theory when dealing with real-world phenomena: you have to stop and observe closely how gravity works, otherwise you may deduce very wrong conclusions from seemingly sound premises. (@aristotle i still luv u)

mcantor 17y ago

I enjoyed the point about prepending sentences with "I think." I have found that, during emotional discussions with friends or loved ones, it also behooves us to prepend many phrases with "I feel like." The common nerd defense to this approach is to cry, "But I'm saying it... of course it's just my opinion!" or, "Of course it's just my feelings!" However, prepending a sentence with "I think/I feel like..." indicates that you are not one of those frustrating people who refuses to consider other people's emotions and opinions. Additionally, "You don't consider my emotions enough" and "It feels like you don't consider my emotions enough" are two wildly different phrases, no matter which way you slice it. By prepending that sentence with "it feels like," we profoundly alter its meaning. The first sentence indicates an objective truth for which the listener can be blamed. The latter sentence indicates nothing except the speaker's internal feelings, which--for the most part--cannot be consciously controlled. No one is to blame for feelings: they simply are, and denoting a sentiment as "a feeling" rather than "a fact, which may be your fault," is a vital tactic for communicating constructively on a deep emotional level. Many nerds approach debates and communication with a feeling of entitlement to being understood. "I have spent a lot of time learning what I know, and if someone else can't understand it when I explain it to them, it is their problem, not mine." Unfortunately, this leads to severe communication issues with everyone, including other nerds. If you want someone else to understand something, and they don't get it, it is your problem as much as it is theirs. Maybe if you never have to deal with that person ever again, nor anyone else who they have to deal with, and so on, it is not your problem. But if they are a friend, colleague or loved one, it inarguably behooves you to go out of your way to make them understand what's going on in your head. Only mutual understanding of needs and desires will provide us with the opportunity to reach constructive conclusions to our problems.

uriel 17y ago
> However, prepending a sentence with "I think/I feel like..." indicates that you are not one of those frustrating people who refuses to consider other people's emotions and opinions. The only way to show that you are not one of those persons is by what you actually say and by displaying in your ideas an understanding of other people's emotions and options (or making explicit that you do not understand them but would like to). Prepending "I think/I feel like..." is meaningless boilerplate that can be easily interpreted as condescending or hypocritical if your concern for other people's feelings and opinions is not actually reflected in what follows.

orblivion 17y ago

I think a lot of it was explained away for me when I took it as a logical datum that people have illogical preferences and form illogical habits. I still hold my fork in my right hand when my parents aren't looking, though, dammit.

planettrash 17y ago

I read the article with the word 'nerd' replaced by the word 'men'.

Calamitous 17y ago

Because you're not using vim

dwwoelfel 17y ago

Read Judith Martin's "Miss Manners" books and newspaper columns if you want to learn how to determine what is right and what is wrong in social situations. She has a witty writing style, and she treats manners like a science. You can read her columns at the Washington post here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/03/25/LI2005032501837.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/03... If you're going to buy one of her books I recommend her Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior (http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0393058743 http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0393058743)

iuguy 17y ago

When you can compile not interrupting people and fork it to the background, nerds will get a handle on it.

daniel-cussen 17y ago

I've learned not to interrupt people, but it took finding out I had AADD and treating it chemically.

rbanffy 17y ago
Sadly, this came to my mind: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/26/AR2010022603369.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02... "Another danger is that childhood eccentricities, sometimes inextricable from creativity, might be labeled "disorders" to be "cured." If 7-year-old Mozart tried composing his concertos today, he might be diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and medicated into barren normality." I sincerely hope it's not your case. We need more Mozarts.