Comments on: Nerds as Bad Connivers http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/post.html Overcoming Bias is economist Robin Hanson’s blog, on honesty, signaling, disagreement, forecasting, and the far future. Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:23:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Overcoming Bias : Why Laugh At Nerds http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/post.html#comment-467495 Overcoming Bias : Why Laugh At Nerds Thu, 03 Mar 2011 14:04:43 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/08/nerds-as-bad-connivers.html#comment-467495 [...] 3.5 years ago I wrote: [...] [...] 3.5 years ago I wrote: [...]

]]> By: The Social Network, the End of Intimacy, and the Birth of Hacker Sensibility | Reviews In Depth http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/post.html#comment-460183 The Social Network, the End of Intimacy, and the Birth of Hacker Sensibility | Reviews In Depth Fri, 19 Nov 2010 10:49:00 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/08/nerds-as-bad-connivers.html#comment-460183 [...] to read social situations, and also the heroes we admire, villains we dislike, etc. Since nerds are, in essence, folks with low natural social skills (relative to their other skills), you might [...] [...] to read social situations, and also the heroes we admire, villains we dislike, etc. Since nerds are, in essence, folks with low natural social skills (relative to their other skills), you might [...]

]]> By: Miguel http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/post.html#comment-444460 Miguel Sat, 20 Mar 2010 02:55:20 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/08/nerds-as-bad-connivers.html#comment-444460 I want to propose an alternative theory – that nerds, instead of having «”Autism light,” i.e., high intelligence and low social skills», have “Schizoid Personality Disorder – high intelligence and low social desire“. This could explain more the things – a person with low social desire (even he could prefer work alone) usually don’t have problems in working with others, if he likes the work; he will be cold and unaffectionate, but at a functional level the relation with co-workers will be OK; but they will have a problem in making alliances, etc, because these kind of things requires some emotional bonding. [correcting typo] Then this explain the pattern. I want to propose an alternative theory – that nerds, instead of having «”Autism light,” i.e., high intelligence and low social skills», have “Schizoid Personality Disorder – high intelligence and low social desire“.

This could explain more the things – a person with low social desire (even he could prefer work alone) usually don’t have problems in working with others, if he likes the work; he will be cold and unaffectionate, but at a functional level the relation with co-workers will be OK; but they will have a problem in making alliances, etc, because these kind of things requires some emotional bonding.

[correcting typo]
Then this explain the pattern.

]]> By: trentlaceysunxxp http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/post.html#comment-431753 trentlaceysunxxp Thu, 20 Aug 2009 18:27:28 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/08/nerds-as-bad-connivers.html#comment-431753 I really liked it. But not bad, it would be to add a few important sections. I really liked it. But not bad, it would be to add a few important sections.

]]> By: Dan http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/post.html#comment-424585 Dan Tue, 26 May 2009 12:32:08 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/08/nerds-as-bad-connivers.html#comment-424585 I think JF is right, about the fact that you may have the Asperger Self-Diagnosis Syndrome. I believe that each individual person is entirely different from one another, but as humans we feel a need to categorize and so we create stereotypes to better organize information in our brains. It's just how our memory works, so it's not surprising. It is true that at a very young age, most people get along (in most cases), and that when we hit late elementary school, so about age 9-11 we begin to form social cliques in an effort to understand ourselves better and part of that is social dominance. We cannot help the fact that we are animals no matter how human we may think we are. There simply needs to be social order, and thus, nerds being children who are exceptional in some way (smart, strange, funny looking) get cast down and are really treated like crap and over time develop the body language of a submissive dog (hunched shoulders, downward gaze, purposeful but ungraceful gait) and a severe lack of social skills. HOWEVER. There are many people out there who do not fit into this stereotype. I have asked people to classify me over the years and no one seems to be able. They start to say, you're an art kid, but then they say no...you're an art kid who isnt at all feminine, and your friends are all nerds, and you are too, but you're not...shit i dunno you're just a dude! It probably comes from the fact that, I am an artist, who is bad at math, but particularly intelligent, with great social skills, and I happen to be built like a football player, and look like an inmate with a shaved head and a goatee. I think this article is really damn funny, and true when dealing with stereotypes, but lacking. I think JF is right, about the fact that you may have the Asperger Self-Diagnosis Syndrome. I believe that each individual person is entirely different from one another, but as humans we feel a need to categorize and so we create stereotypes to better organize information in our brains. It’s just how our memory works, so it’s not surprising. It is true that at a very young age, most people get along (in most cases), and that when we hit late elementary school, so about age 9-11 we begin to form social cliques in an effort to understand ourselves better and part of that is social dominance. We cannot help the fact that we are animals no matter how human we may think we are. There simply needs to be social order, and thus, nerds being children who are exceptional in some way (smart, strange, funny looking) get cast down and are really treated like crap and over time develop the body language of a submissive dog (hunched shoulders, downward gaze, purposeful but ungraceful gait) and a severe lack of social skills. HOWEVER. There are many people out there who do not fit into this stereotype. I have asked people to classify me over the years and no one seems to be able. They start to say, you’re an art kid, but then they say no…you’re an art kid who isnt at all feminine, and your friends are all nerds, and you are too, but you’re not…shit i dunno you’re just a dude! It probably comes from the fact that, I am an artist, who is bad at math, but particularly intelligent, with great social skills, and I happen to be built like a football player, and look like an inmate with a shaved head and a goatee. I think this article is really damn funny, and true when dealing with stereotypes, but lacking.

]]> By: michael vassar http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/post.html#comment-416560 michael vassar Mon, 27 Aug 2007 21:29:40 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/08/nerds-as-bad-connivers.html#comment-416560 Being smart pays off, but I think controlling for IQ being nerdy detracts from income substantially. For what it's worth, drinking in high school correlates positively with later income. I work in finance and I can definitively say that in general clear thought and numeric skills are not valued and the people who make the decisions are not nerds who see right through fakes. Being smart pays off, but I think controlling for IQ being nerdy detracts from income substantially. For what it’s worth, drinking in high school correlates positively with later income. I work in finance and I can definitively say that in general clear thought and numeric skills are not valued and the people who make the decisions are not nerds who see right through fakes.

]]> By: Hopefully Anonymous http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/post.html#comment-416559 Hopefully Anonymous Mon, 27 Aug 2007 19:23:06 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/08/nerds-as-bad-connivers.html#comment-416559 I think there's an egoist element to becoming an archetype (an example of unusual transparency about this is the narrative of how Watson and Crick connived to solve the structure of DNA first) so I doubt any popular nerd archetype was actually a bad-conniving nerd. Just like extreme altruist archetypes were probably not themselves extreme altruists (Mother Teresa). I'd put Einstein and Gates in the category of people that were probably excellent connivers. Examples of possibly imperfect conniving (working in the patent office, using rich and well-connected parents as a crutch) don't mean they were among the best connivers in their competition set, or in the general population. I think there’s an egoist element to becoming an archetype (an example of unusual transparency about this is the narrative of how Watson and Crick connived to solve the structure of DNA first) so I doubt any popular nerd archetype was actually a bad-conniving nerd. Just like extreme altruist archetypes were probably not themselves extreme altruists (Mother Teresa). I’d put Einstein and Gates in the category of people that were probably excellent connivers. Examples of possibly imperfect conniving (working in the patent office, using rich and well-connected parents as a crutch) don’t mean they were among the best connivers in their competition set, or in the general population.

]]> By: bbroadside http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/post.html#comment-416558 bbroadside Mon, 27 Aug 2007 19:14:42 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/08/nerds-as-bad-connivers.html#comment-416558 michael vassar wrote: "I don't think we disagree about the ethical issue, but I don't equate Kantian reasons with "enlightened self-interest". Kantian behavior is a mix of overly inhibited and actively self-destructive much of the time; not enlightened at all. It's not as if being nerdy pays off in the long term." That's less optimistic than my opinion. It seems like being nerdy does pay off in terms of things like income. Earning money nowadays increasingly means winning the trust of people who value clear thought and numeric skills. Obviously there are plenty of jobs for people who project confidence about skills they don't have, but the nerds see right through them. I guess what I'm trying to say is that a nerdish respect for rules pays off in a narrow group of people, and that acceptance in that group pays off in the usual way for its members. "Enlightened self-interest" may suggest the wrong things for the point I'm making. Obviously in plenty of situations nerdiness is punished, more or less. Wouldn't Dilbert's company be worse off without him? And isn't he better off if the company is better off? He may be better off if he abandoned nerdiness and emulated his boss more, but that would be unenlightened. So I suppose I agree with your contention that the Kantian reasons are self-destructive a lot of the time; it's just the nerds have such an eccentric incentive structure that they don't change. michael vassar wrote: “I don’t think we disagree about the ethical issue, but I don’t equate Kantian reasons with “enlightened self-interest”. Kantian behavior is a mix of overly inhibited and actively self-destructive much of the time; not enlightened at all. It’s not as if being nerdy pays off in the long term.”

That’s less optimistic than my opinion. It seems like being nerdy does pay off in terms of things like income. Earning money nowadays increasingly means winning the trust of people who value clear thought and numeric skills. Obviously there are plenty of jobs for people who project confidence about skills they don’t have, but the nerds see right through them.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that a nerdish respect for rules pays off in a narrow group of people, and that acceptance in that group pays off in the usual way for its members. “Enlightened self-interest” may suggest the wrong things for the point I’m making. Obviously in plenty of situations nerdiness is punished, more or less. Wouldn’t Dilbert’s company be worse off without him? And isn’t he better off if the company is better off? He may be better off if he abandoned nerdiness and emulated his boss more, but that would be unenlightened.

So I suppose I agree with your contention that the Kantian reasons are self-destructive a lot of the time; it’s just the nerds have such an eccentric incentive structure that they don’t change.

]]> By: michael vassar http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/post.html#comment-416557 michael vassar Sun, 26 Aug 2007 14:16:13 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/08/nerds-as-bad-connivers.html#comment-416557 Furthering that thought, nerds are bad at one-on-one self promotion and at playing the system, but they are shameless and funny, which makes them very good at public speaking on average, although this isn't part of the stereotype. Furthering that thought, nerds are bad at one-on-one self promotion and at playing the system, but they are shameless and funny, which makes them very good at public speaking on average, although this isn’t part of the stereotype.

]]> By: michael vassar http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/post.html#comment-416556 michael vassar Sun, 26 Aug 2007 14:12:32 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/08/nerds-as-bad-connivers.html#comment-416556 bbroadside: I don't think we disagree about the ethical issue, but I don't equate Kantian reasons with "enlightened self-interest". Kantian behavior is a mix of overly inhibited and actively self-destructive much of the time; not enlightened at all. It's not as if being nerdy pays off in the long term. Hmm: Einstein was too much of a womanizer to be a plausible nerd, but if he was a good self promoter he wouldn't have been working in the patent office. We agree though that generally in the modern world (I'm not sure about pre 1960 or so) you need good self-promotion skills to become a professor. Gates might be a nerd. His rich and well connected parents substituted for the self-promotion skills CEOs normally need and he wasn't much of a CEO. Also, it's rare, but you can be a nerd and a good self-promoter. There are a few such people on this blog, though most of the professors are not very nerdy. bbroadside: I don’t think we disagree about the ethical issue, but I don’t equate Kantian reasons with “enlightened self-interest”. Kantian behavior is a mix of overly inhibited and actively self-destructive much of the time; not enlightened at all. It’s not as if being nerdy pays off in the long term.

Hmm: Einstein was too much of a womanizer to be a plausible nerd, but if he was a good self promoter he wouldn’t have been working in the patent office. We agree though that generally in the modern world (I’m not sure about pre 1960 or so) you need good self-promotion skills to become a professor.
Gates might be a nerd. His rich and well connected parents substituted for the self-promotion skills CEOs normally need and he wasn’t much of a CEO. Also, it’s rare, but you can be a nerd and a good self-promoter. There are a few such people on this blog, though most of the professors are not very nerdy.

]]>