5 ms·
Geek Social Fallacies (2003)
- paganel 8y agoExcellent article, just wanted to point out that I’ve seen most of the stuff described by it in non-geeky social groups, too.
- wccrawford 8y agoWith the possible exception of GSF1, I'd say all of them are done by some people from all groups.
- FakeComments 8y agoGSF1 appears among artists, hippies, and that sort of crowd in addition to geeks. It’s a common response to social bullying, and not limited to geeks — though it tends to manifest in marginalized social groups, for obvious reasons.
- lamontcg 8y agoGSF1 is also exploited by sociopaths in those crowds. Even if everyone knows that so-and-so is an asshole you're always the bad guy to call them out on it.
- dkarl 8y agoI think all people accept these as factors that can help decide something one way or the other. Social exclusion is a pretty blunt and extreme measure, people are and should be more tolerate of their friends in most ways, et cetera. "Friends should accept me as I am" is an angle a normal person would take when they don't want to submit to their friends' criticism, but they would be ready to accept if their friends don't see it as the right story to tell about the situation. These become fallacies when someone starts taking them for bedrock principles they can rely on without considering other factors. People do this because they are overwhelmed and flailing, or because they can't stand the uncertainty of not knowing how their friends will act in a potential situation. Geeks like taming confusion and uncertainty with knowledge, but instead they should choose the path (which is also appealing to geeks, if they get enough confidence) of developing skills and trusting their skills to see them through unpredictable situations.
- kennyadam 8y agoI remember reading this when it was first posted! Hard to believe it's been more than 15 years! Still a great piece of writing though!
- nominatronic 8y agoIt's a classic, but per rules the title should include "(2003)". I remember this doing the rounds on Livejournal.
- less_penguiny 8y agoGood call, just changed it.
- DiabloD3 8y agoBut it was changed to 2013, not 2003.
- less_penguiny 8y agoDerp. Now it's too late for me to modify it. I'll email the mods to correct it.
- sctb 8y agoDone!
- ionised 8y agoI don't get it. This just seems like an attack on an entire group of people that I'm guessing have annoyed or belittled the author at one time or another. For what purpose? I don't believe he is genuinely trying to advise and help here. The tone isn't right for it.
- peteretep 8y agoWhat group of people do you think he's attacking?
- ionised 8y agoI think he's attacking the stereotype of the 'geek', rather than individual attitudes. If he was attacking attitudes, he wouldn't need to cast aspersions on an entire group (stereotype) in the way that he is, because nothing about the attitudes he is criticising are exclusive to 'geeks'. It's a cheap and hostile article masquerading as socially conscious self-reflection. To put it like a conservative might, it's 'virtue signalling' without any self-awareness. I'm not a fan of stereotyping people this way. It's never helpful and is merely an attempt to elevate oneself by putting another group down. It's hostile and crass.
- cwillu 8y agoI suspect it looks cheap simply because culture has changed in the 16 years since this was published. Remember that in 2003, the only way you're going to be reading an essay online is if you're devoting the time to sit down at a desktop to do so. Do you feel your criticism would still apply with the same force if it was clear that the author was considered to be a geek by himself and others? *Edited to add a quote from http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/fifteen.html http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/fifteen.html regarding this point: > First up is the issue of what "geek" means. It's an ill- > defined subculture at the best of times, but I generally > see two loose and overlapping superfamilies. On the one > hand, those geeks whose common denominator is a passion > for technical pursuits of all sorts -- OS geeks, coding > geeks, sysadmin geeks, etc.; on the other, those whose > common denominator is a passion for media -- comic book > geeks, film geeks, anime geeks, gaming geeks, etc. I'm a > game designer with a degree in performance studies. You > can probably guess where I fall. I wasn't thinking espe- > cially rigorously when I wrote 5GSF (or, for that matter, > Why Geeks Like Anime), so while I defined my terms, I > used the media-geek definition throughout. This caused > problems for some readers coming from the other side of > the tracks -- like, say, Metafilter.
- le-mark 8y agoThis is a shining example of old web content we've lost in the current era of walled gardens and social graphs. People writing honestly about their journey and observations. Sure people still do in some form or another, but I personally don't see, or it's hidden in the flood of memes, tweets, shares and likes.
- less_penguiny 8y agoWhat you say is quite a common complaint. I was looking at a moderator's thread on a self-help subreddit this morning and people there were annoyed that the only items that got heavily upvoted (and therefore ever appeared under "top") were memes and pictures instead of the sort of deep thinking that could help people on this subreddit.
- faceplanted 8y agohave they considered splintering off a selfhelpmemes subreddit or having a meme monday like some other sub do?
- temporary_ 8y agoYep, like kuro5hin (gone), everything2 (still there, but stagnant), even jwz's old blog posts. Maybe if there's a decentralized web that gains enough traction, there can be another 5 years before the greedy stream in. I've heard people say subreddits have taken the place of these things, but whenever I look, they have already converged to the most nanoscopically narrow idea of the respective scope. There used to be more wiggle room for authors, and surprises for readers. Now it's all writing to a well-defined audience, genre, or meme: KPI-driven socializing. In that sense, web 1.0 seemed more fluid and interesting.
- anjc 8y ago> This is a shining example of old web content we've lost in the current era of walled gardens and social graphs. Five AMAZING geek social fallacies you never learned in school. You wont believe number 4!
- GuB-42 8y ago
- throw2016 8y agoThis kind of subgrouping has little value as it tends to manufacture elaborate myths about the 'ingroup' and alienate and dehumanize the other leading to a fictional narrative of the world. So for instance we get the myth of 'freedom', 'liberty' and 'dissent' by a particular subgroup but in reality what we have seen is complete lack of moral compass, crass opportunism or quietly falling in line. There is only one Snowden. We also get authoritarian and ignorant perspectives like all 'users are stupid' to facilitate opportunistic exploitation, imagine if people in government as a group thought all citizens are stupid or all professionals thought their clients are stupid. This is dehumanization and is the building base of authoritarianism. It would be easier to understand how human groups behave when they have status and power both real and perceived and when they don't. That follows a predictable path. Self appointed 'smart people' are always dangerous as they are quick to assume a monopoly on wisdom and lack empathy for the 'other', and are unable to perceive errors in their ideology and thinking and course correct.
- Kenji 8y ago> Less commonly, people form a sort of counter-fallacy which I call "Your Feelings, Your Problem". YFYP carriers deal with other people's fallacies by ignoring them entirely, in the process acquiring a reputation for being charmingly tactless. Hahaha, I empathise very much with the YFYP guys. I don't think it's a fallacy though. It truly is the case that the blame lies with those who subscribe to fallacious thinking.
- sridca 8y agoI cannot relate to any of these. Is this phenomenon unique to the American culture?
- candiodari 8y agoI have an entirely different result. I certainly felt ostracized as a child. For a VERY long time. For me at one point the desire to belong to a group at all just snapped and let go. I distinctly remember it being there, and being a very strong desire. But it just disappeared, very suddenly, I think when I was 15 or 16 years old and I've been much happier since. Now I simply have zero interest in people. I mean I can see people as a puzzle that needs solving, or a means to an end and this I can find very interesting and can result in a lot of attention from me. This is always misinterpreted. But I just don't care. I work with people for years, I "know" my neighbors and so on, and I do the necessary social events and such, but it's fake. It's a calculated move, so to speak. Like doing groceries, just somewhat more involved. I don't enjoy doing this, and it drains my energy. People generally find this very surprising, especially when suddenly that attention totally disappears. I feel like all my social interaction is mechanical. People's reactions are very predictable, and if you want to get what you want, you have to go through some motions. I may want to learn from someone, figure something out, and they have a wife and kids, they may have a boyfriend/girlfriend, may want to have a drink, etc. Fine. I do that, but it feels like work and drains my energy just like work does. I also don't care and generally don't really remember much of that. There are some exceptions to this. My wife and my kids, and a few, very few people around us. In total, 6 people.
- freedomben 8y agoGreat post, and an opportunity to talk about something that some in our community really need to hear: Don't neglect person hygiene. I have literally stopped attending group events because of extreme B.O. that one or a few people have (and I'm not typically sensitive to odors). I don't expect you to care about me, but I guarantee there are people you care about who feel the same way. Please just do these things. I know sometimes they are a hassle, and issues with depression and such can make them even harder, but please try: 1. Take a shower every day. Preferably in the morning. You may still stink even if you can't smell it yourself. This still applies even if you didn't work out or otherwise don't think you sweat. 2. Wear deodorant. Trust me, you need it, even if you can't smell yourself (others can) 3. Long hair and beards are cool, but they need to be kept clean or they become cess pools of funk. 4. Do your laundry. Taking a daily shower won't matter much if you put on a B.O. riddled shirt from the day before because you don't want to do laundry. 5. Your co-workers are often afraid to tell you when you smell, but they are trapped and helpless when they are forced to share a space with you. Don't do that to them. 6. Cigarette smoke and cologne do not cover B.O. They blend together to create a whole new type of nasty funk. But you should put on cologne after your shower. It smells good and makes other people happy. It will also raise your confidence and put you in a better mood. 7. You are an awesome person, and I love you.
- taurath 8y ago> But you should put on cologne after your shower. I agree with everything else but this. The people that wear cologne I know ALL wear too much of it, and its really offputting. Don't trust that you'll be different, especially if taking advice from this list. Just be clean.
- freedomben 8y agoYes cologne is definitely something to be conservative with. Much better to smell like nothing than to smell like too much cologne.
- Siira 8y agoFallacy is a rather poor word choice here. Fallacy is a logical mistake. I think these attitudes are values which might have some unintended consequences which might be enough to overpower the value’s worth to its holders. Or they might not. It very much depends on what people want.