A common complaint about nerds is that they should “get a life.” For example, parents, teachers, etc. feel quite justifying in tsk-tsking hackers who spend most of their hours in front of a computer screen. Interestingly, we don’t feel much inclined to complain about athletes who are similarly focused. Alex
LOL, A common sense person wouldn't take to the point where he/she would get paranoid. Obviously the person who is saying gaf has no sense, and shouldn't be worried about another person, and what's he or she is doing. Sex is Universal, A Strong-Minded Person shouldn't be worried about some pathetic loser telling them to get a life when that person has a life of their own. Try Again.
Didn't click the link, but I've been thinking a lot about the concept of trance states recently. I think nerds can fail to enter the trance state that builds social cohesion, and can fail to cover (Goffman term) that they aren't in that trance state. It's a failure to have either a brain that kluges in the direction of the central tendency, or a brain that can model that central tendency so as to avoid being socially unaesthetic towards it.
There are different angles that people come from when saying “get a life”, and the comments here reinforce that. But there is one universal here that connects all of them, at least for adults: if someone is getting laid (and it’s public knowledge), nobody would tell him/her toget a life.
At it’s core, “get a life” means “get laid”, or do the sorts of things that would lead to you getting laid. For athletes (or even sports fans), this is generally not a problem. For the typical nerd, it is. Most people simply can’t imagine how a nerd could possibly have sex. Especially with a beautiful person.
Nothing signals high status as potently as having sexual partners. Even rich nerds are often considered losers of sorts. They could be told to “get a life” if they are celibate, while poor athletes, or artists, or whatever, who have sexual partners would immune to criticism in the vast majority of cases.
If nerds want to take the quick route to social acceptance, getting laid is the surest way. And the more beautiful the people involved, the better.
It amuses that most of the people who replied to this post still believe the old 70s - 80s stereotype of nerds and jocks. Really, that's so out of funk and old fashioned. I know plenty of hot nerdy guys who "have a life", and plenty of hot jock guys who also "have a life". If by life you mean partying, then sure. If you mean life by some other definition, then that's up to you to decide who does and who does not "have a life".
nerds can and should develop their social skills just like any other skill. You learn how to read, ride a bike, and piss by yourself all by doing, not by sitting around wondering why you cant do something. If you want to get good, it takes practice, and the right role-models to help you along. If you want something, you have to take it. dont be lazy, even nerds look "cool" if they're good at picking up women. Practice practice practice. end of story
Yes. In fact the seduction community (PUA material) has a strong nerdy element, so it appears that nerds are now starting to find the way to hack the entire 'status allocation' system. This is the revenge of the nerds.
The PUA stuff is very powerful and has much broader applicability than just picking up chicks. In fact Tyler Durden and others are starting to generalize the ideas into the whole sphere of social intelligence. See Durden's 'The Blueprint Decoded' (Durden has been called 'a social intelligence bot' - he's a genius who's done nothing his whole life but examine social intelligence in exhaustive detail):
The Blueprint Decoded
I encourage all transhumanists to ruthlessly exploit and generalize the PUA materials in order to start hijacking the entire human 'status allocation' system. Have no qualms about doing so, because many aspects of human nature are just based on mindless evolution and are quite unpleasant, the system is defintely rigged against us. Remember Goertzel's analogy of life as a video game - 'Reality - Worst Game Ever' - we've found a big 'exploit' (the PUA materials), time to start hacking the game.
However, I strongly suspect that such success comes later in life when being a nerd starts to pay off in money and prestige.
If you're in HS then either accept that you won't have much pulling power until you get older and concentrate on building skills which will bring money and prestige or become a PUA.
Personally, I certainly noticed that being good at science/math was pretty unpopular with the girls in HS but by my mid twenties it was suddenly very desirable. Often the qualities that go with it weren't so desired, e.g., making them seem dumb because you tended to win arguments, but that's a different issue I have (eventually found someone who likes to argue almost as much as I and is smart enough to hold their own)
Well almost. It's really more "Your obsessive concern/interest/behaviors annoy me and I wish to denigrate them as not being valuable to the group."
This can be an honest signal as in, "Stop collecting snot statues it's a waste of resources that could be put to better use." However, more frequently it's issued to stop someone more skilled in those areas gaining more status than you.
A big reason non-nerds tell nerds to get a life is that they realize ability at science/math/etc may translate into future status/resources and feel threatened by their lack of ability. Telling the nerd to get a life is an attempt to block the nerd from using his expected future earnings potential to pick up chicks by rendering their activities low status.
There are different angles that people come from when saying "get a life", and the comments here reinforce that. But there is one universal here that connects all of them, at least for adults: if someone is getting laid (and it's public knowledge), nobody would tell him/her to get a life.
At it's core, "get a life" means "get laid", or do the sorts of things that would lead to you getting laid. For athletes (or even sports fans), this is generally not a problem. For the typical nerd, it is. Most people simply can't imagine how a nerd could possibly have sex. Especially with a beautiful person.
Nothing signals high status as potently as having sexual partners. Even rich nerds are often considered losers of sorts. They could be told to "get a life" if they are celibate, while poor athletes, or artists, or whatever, who have sexual partners would immune to criticism in the vast majority of cases.
If nerds want to take the quick route to social acceptance, getting laid is the surest way. And the more beautiful the people involved, the better.
IMO athletics is a poor choice for an example because so often natural talent overwhelms works by so much that many of the best athletes are quite lazy and thus have plenty of time for other things.
I always understood the phrase to refer to the case where the exception was notable primarily for being an exception.
Before one thinks of any exceptions, there remains the doubt that one has overlooked something grossly obvious. But when one thinks of a high-profile exception, and realizes that the mere fact alone of being an exception to this particular rule made the exception noteworthy, one becomes much more confident in the general applicability of the rule.
A good example would be the moon landings; because the fact of walking on the moon is highly newsworthy, we may infer that people generally do not walk on the moon.
A rule without exception may be similarly 'proved' by prominent failed attempts or near-misses; for example, in order to establish that human cloning has not yet been achieved, one may cite high-profile clones of other animal species, and failed attempts and fraudulent claims at human cloning.
You guys have too much time on your hands. lololol.
'Get a life' would translate for me into 'the activities you spend time on are unlikely to help me in any expected difficulty I might have in the future to which you might assist, and so I am less inclined to build allegiances with you'. It's a pretty useful and honest signal.
I wonder: If your principle interaction with someone is via activity X, such that activity X is the only way they can help you personally, do you ever tell that person to stop practicing activity X, in order to improve their overall social positioning? This seems relevant to the narrowness of most internet-only friendships.
LOL, A common sense person wouldn't take to the point where he/she would get paranoid. Obviously the person who is saying gaf has no sense, and shouldn't be worried about another person, and what's he or she is doing. Sex is Universal, A Strong-Minded Person shouldn't be worried about some pathetic loser telling them to get a life when that person has a life of their own. Try Again.
Didn't click the link, but I've been thinking a lot about the concept of trance states recently. I think nerds can fail to enter the trance state that builds social cohesion, and can fail to cover (Goffman term) that they aren't in that trance state. It's a failure to have either a brain that kluges in the direction of the central tendency, or a brain that can model that central tendency so as to avoid being socially unaesthetic towards it.
really? You're a transhumanist? I don't recall getting that vibe before.
There are different angles that people come from when saying “get a life”, and the comments here reinforce that. But there is one universal here that connects all of them, at least for adults: if someone is getting laid (and it’s public knowledge), nobody would tell him/her toget a life.
At it’s core, “get a life” means “get laid”, or do the sorts of things that would lead to you getting laid. For athletes (or even sports fans), this is generally not a problem. For the typical nerd, it is. Most people simply can’t imagine how a nerd could possibly have sex. Especially with a beautiful person.
Nothing signals high status as potently as having sexual partners. Even rich nerds are often considered losers of sorts. They could be told to “get a life” if they are celibate, while poor athletes, or artists, or whatever, who have sexual partners would immune to criticism in the vast majority of cases.
If nerds want to take the quick route to social acceptance, getting laid is the surest way. And the more beautiful the people involved, the better.
It amuses that most of the people who replied to this post still believe the old 70s - 80s stereotype of nerds and jocks. Really, that's so out of funk and old fashioned. I know plenty of hot nerdy guys who "have a life", and plenty of hot jock guys who also "have a life". If by life you mean partying, then sure. If you mean life by some other definition, then that's up to you to decide who does and who does not "have a life".
nerds can and should develop their social skills just like any other skill. You learn how to read, ride a bike, and piss by yourself all by doing, not by sitting around wondering why you cant do something. If you want to get good, it takes practice, and the right role-models to help you along. If you want something, you have to take it. dont be lazy, even nerds look "cool" if they're good at picking up women. Practice practice practice. end of story
http://www.makesmalltalksex...
ANd btw, many of the "cool kids" do a lot of the same things, but are better at covering it up because they have reputations to uphold. Stupid
Penn Jillette has some interesting thoughts on the phrase.
Yes. In fact the seduction community (PUA material) has a strong nerdy element, so it appears that nerds are now starting to find the way to hack the entire 'status allocation' system. This is the revenge of the nerds.
The PUA stuff is very powerful and has much broader applicability than just picking up chicks. In fact Tyler Durden and others are starting to generalize the ideas into the whole sphere of social intelligence. See Durden's 'The Blueprint Decoded' (Durden has been called 'a social intelligence bot' - he's a genius who's done nothing his whole life but examine social intelligence in exhaustive detail):
The Blueprint Decoded
I encourage all transhumanists to ruthlessly exploit and generalize the PUA materials in order to start hijacking the entire human 'status allocation' system. Have no qualms about doing so, because many aspects of human nature are just based on mindless evolution and are quite unpleasant, the system is defintely rigged against us. Remember Goertzel's analogy of life as a video game - 'Reality - Worst Game Ever' - we've found a big 'exploit' (the PUA materials), time to start hacking the game.
However, I strongly suspect that such success comes later in life when being a nerd starts to pay off in money and prestige.
If you're in HS then either accept that you won't have much pulling power until you get older and concentrate on building skills which will bring money and prestige or become a PUA.
Personally, I certainly noticed that being good at science/math was pretty unpopular with the girls in HS but by my mid twenties it was suddenly very desirable. Often the qualities that go with it weren't so desired, e.g., making them seem dumb because you tended to win arguments, but that's a different issue I have (eventually found someone who likes to argue almost as much as I and is smart enough to hold their own)
Well almost. It's really more "Your obsessive concern/interest/behaviors annoy me and I wish to denigrate them as not being valuable to the group."
This can be an honest signal as in, "Stop collecting snot statues it's a waste of resources that could be put to better use." However, more frequently it's issued to stop someone more skilled in those areas gaining more status than you.
A big reason non-nerds tell nerds to get a life is that they realize ability at science/math/etc may translate into future status/resources and feel threatened by their lack of ability. Telling the nerd to get a life is an attempt to block the nerd from using his expected future earnings potential to pick up chicks by rendering their activities low status.
I bet he meant the old definition of hacking, i.e. building cool software programs or hardware projects etc.
Are you serious? Hacking is either intrusive or destructive. Compare it to something like tagging or boosting cars. Do you see similar responses then?
There are different angles that people come from when saying "get a life", and the comments here reinforce that. But there is one universal here that connects all of them, at least for adults: if someone is getting laid (and it's public knowledge), nobody would tell him/her to get a life.
At it's core, "get a life" means "get laid", or do the sorts of things that would lead to you getting laid. For athletes (or even sports fans), this is generally not a problem. For the typical nerd, it is. Most people simply can't imagine how a nerd could possibly have sex. Especially with a beautiful person.
Nothing signals high status as potently as having sexual partners. Even rich nerds are often considered losers of sorts. They could be told to "get a life" if they are celibate, while poor athletes, or artists, or whatever, who have sexual partners would immune to criticism in the vast majority of cases.
If nerds want to take the quick route to social acceptance, getting laid is the surest way. And the more beautiful the people involved, the better.
IMO athletics is a poor choice for an example because so often natural talent overwhelms works by so much that many of the best athletes are quite lazy and thus have plenty of time for other things.
I always understood the phrase to refer to the case where the exception was notable primarily for being an exception.
Before one thinks of any exceptions, there remains the doubt that one has overlooked something grossly obvious. But when one thinks of a high-profile exception, and realizes that the mere fact alone of being an exception to this particular rule made the exception noteworthy, one becomes much more confident in the general applicability of the rule.
A good example would be the moon landings; because the fact of walking on the moon is highly newsworthy, we may infer that people generally do not walk on the moon.
A rule without exception may be similarly 'proved' by prominent failed attempts or near-misses; for example, in order to establish that human cloning has not yet been achieved, one may cite high-profile clones of other animal species, and failed attempts and fraudulent claims at human cloning.
You guys have too much time on your hands. lololol.
'Get a life' would translate for me into 'the activities you spend time on are unlikely to help me in any expected difficulty I might have in the future to which you might assist, and so I am less inclined to build allegiances with you'. It's a pretty useful and honest signal.
I wonder: If your principle interaction with someone is via activity X, such that activity X is the only way they can help you personally, do you ever tell that person to stop practicing activity X, in order to improve their overall social positioning? This seems relevant to the narrowness of most internet-only friendships.