In the essay, nerds are identified as socially awkward, not necessarily quiet but out of their element in social situations. And sure, Crick rubbed people the w

In the essay, nerds are identified as socially awkward, not necessarily quiet but out of their element in social situations. And sure, Crick rubbed people the wrong way, because he was loud and overly-sociable. But wasn't he, by Watson's account, absolutely in his element in social situations? Isn't the main complaint about Crick the fact that he was too loud (especially his laugh), too willing to solve other people's problems? And was Watson a nerd at all? I think the magic of The Double Helix is that Watson tells the truth (or "his truth") to a fault. That's necessary for good biography and it's very rare but I don't get the sense that Watson is unaware of what he's doing or what the consequences will be. It seems like a conscious decision to write down everything he thinks and, as they say, publish and be damned. Anyway, I think the essay is making a semantic error here by identifying the usual heroes (odd men out, innovators, people who refuse to go along, people who do their own thing) as nerds. There's no doubt that going against the grain is almost a prerequisite for being an admirable person and also for being someone who changes the world. I just don't see that as nerdiness.