= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vladimir_M comments on Love and Rationality: Less Wrongers on OKCupid - LessWrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (329)
SarahC:
That is true, for the most part. Where I come from, the electrical engineering students' club at the local university is a popular location for nightlife and rock concerts that attracts masses of people as a party hangout. Something like that is practically unimaginable in North America, but it's not at all unusual in Europe.
That's a mighty strong assertion to make about an entire contient that contains countries as different as, say, Canada and Nicaragua, or Alabama and San Francisco.
OK, that was an imprecise statement -- by "North America," I meant the U.S. and Canada, not the standard usage of the term.
When it comes to the U.S. and Canada, however, I stand behind my assertion. There are indeed significant cultural differences between, say, Alabama and Northern California, but not when it comes to this question.
Whoa.
I've also heard that in China, self-effacing and conscientious students can be the most popular. For the US, that's unimaginable.
These pieces of data suggest that the polarization of men towards "geek / nice guy" and "masculine bad boy" in the US is at least partly cultural, and it could be fought by other cultural forces.
That is the argument that David Anderegg makes in Nerds. While I disagree with Anderegg in some cases (e.g. dismissing the notion of Asperger's Syndrome), he has some excellent literary analysis of some of the tropes in American literature that influence how we think about masculinity.
Anderegg argues that in the 19th century, a dichotomy developed between "men of action" and "men of reflection" in American thought. This dualism presented the man of action as positive and masculine, while the "man of reflection" was the "effete intellectual" or clergyman, associated with femininity and homosexuality. He argues that our modern concept of "nerd" is the descendant of the "man of reflection" and "effete intellectual" stereotypes. Read that entire chapter I linked to. Here are some of Anderegg's examples:
Ichabod Crane in Washington Irving's story was a classic example of "nerd vs jock," where the nerd is portrayed in many negative and stereotypical ways
Superman becoming incognito and undatable to Lois merely by being mild-mannered and wearing glasses
He argues that ancient Greeks didn't have such a dichotomy between brain vs. brawn/looks: heroes were typically intelligent, good-looking, and capable, while villains tended to be both ugly and stupid.
Ralph Waldo Emerson's notion of the American scholar
Emerson's speech is fascinating and complex, but it definitely sets up the dichotomy between men of action and men of reflection. Here are some troubling excerpts (emphases mine):
[...]
[...]
[...]
Emerson makes a lot of good points, such as about avoiding past orthodoxies. But as Anderegg points out, his attitude is very close to "throw away books from the past, and write your own," which is anti-intellectual and fails to reflect how thinkers can stand on the shoulders of giants. There is no dichotomy between studying works of the past, and original thinking.
He displays a great ambivalence towards scholars of his time. He romanticizes "Man Thinking," but links scholars to Europe, femininity, homosexuality (via the word "mincing"), religion, unoriginality, laziness, timidity, and disease (e.g. "infected with Hamlet's unhappiness"). No doubt there were and are many scholars who deserve those labels, but his dichotomy is much too stark:
That's a very interesting reference, I'll try to check it out when I find some time. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with Emerson's work, so I can't tell if Anderegg is representing his views fairly. But in any case, I've always found the American phenomenon of equating intellectual interests with "nerdiness" alien and weird, and its exact historical origins are still a mystery to me, so I'll be interested in checking out the book and seeing if it sheds some light on it.
Another funny example of the nerd stereotype: Georges St. Pierre (aka GSP), the current UFC Welterweight Champion and one of the greatest mixed martial artists in the world, thinks of himself as a nerd because he is into paleontology.
If GSP is a nerd, does the term make any sense?
Yes, it still means that people with intellectual interests aren't quite socially acceptable.
Admittedly, there's a paradox-- he's saying something that he "doesn't tell people very much" in an ESPN interview-- we've not talking about a gigantic stigma. Still, I don't think he'd talk about a fondness for NASCAR racing in the same way.
The funny thing is that car racing is also a technical subject. As Anderegg points out in the "Nerds" book, it's strange that some intellectual and technical pursuits get a "pass" on being "nerdy" because they are associated with masculinity, such as playing fantasy football or being a car mechanic.
I wonder how much anti-intellectualism is separate motivation, and how much it's an effort to enforce gender roles.
"I'm a nerd" is a pet peeve of mine.
I also recall Michelle Bachmann describing herself as a "nerd" because she watches science programs on TV. Look -- occasionally going to museums or reading books or watching educational TV shows should be normal. It's not a distinguishing characteristic.
I don't describe myself as a "nerd" on OkCupid because it just seems like a meaningless term by now. If you're looking for someone who's interested in ideas, well, I'm in academia, so that should tell you all you need to know. If you're looking for someone a little shy and silly, that'll come across too.
It is not normal for humans to occasionally go to musea or watch education TV shows, so it is indeed non-trivially informative to learn this about a human. It also clusters with other dispositional characteristics and therefore is useful for low-cost classifiers.
Because humans don't know much about the natural sciences, and certainly not in terms of predictive models, I have difficulty communicating with most of them about paperclip engineering topics. For example, when I start talking about endurance limits, I lose over 99% of the audience. It would be understandable if they could grasp the concept but weren't familiar with that particular term (it just means the stress -- load per unit area -- that a mechanical component could endure in tension for an arbitrary long period when applied cyclically i.e. on/off).
But that's not the situtation here. Their only knowledge of metallurgy and materials science is brief regurgitation of text that doesn't even map to a prediction as far as they're aware. So stuff is made out of atoms? Great, what predictions can you make with that? (That's on the better end of the human clippiness spectrum!!!)
If we simply recognize that it has two meanings which are often assumed to overlap but in fact do not always overlap, the puzzle is resolved. One meaning concerns a person's interests. The other meaning concerns a person's social skills. GSP calls himself a nerd because of his interests. After calling himself a nerd, he makes a half-baked attempt at presenting himself as socially inept ("I have a hard time finding a girlfriend"), but we don't have to believe him.
As you imply by your rhetorical question, GSP in fact is not socially inept. And he applied the word "nerd" to himself. What this means, assuming he was speaking current American English and assuming he is not deluded, is that the two meanings of the word "nerd" have in fact started to separate in English.
If "nerd" once meant something like: a socially inept person with a keen interest in an unusual topic, now it evidently can mean either "socially inept person" or "person with a keen interest in an unusual topic", without necessarily meaning both. Want proof? Here's proof: GSP is a nerd. He is keenly interested in an unusual topic, and he is not socially inept. QED (at least for one half of the claim).
If all this is correct, then the word "nerd" is in fact evolving away from the concept that rolled the two ideas into one, i.e., the idea of keen interest in an unusual topic and the idea of social ineptness.
Constant:
The real puzzle is not about the current meaning of the term, but why the former is normally taken to imply the latter. The existence of a widely used term that covers both meanings is just evidence that this connection is widely made, not an explanation of why it exists.
[Edit: the rest of this comment is based on an incorrect reading. See the replies below.]
I think your analysis is wrong. GSP (or at least the public persona he's presenting) is clearly an example that defies the stereotype. Yet because he fulfills one element of the stereotype, GSP seems unable to conceive of the possibility that he might be an exception to the other ones (or, alternatively, believes that claiming to be such would be absurd), and feels obliged to present himself as someone who indeed conforms to it wholly.
This is evidence of the tremendous strength of the stereotype: since GSP displays "nerdy" intellectual interests, then despite the extreme appearance to the contrary, somehow he still must have a nerdy essence that makes him unattractive to women and ostracized by the cool and popular social circles.
(I should add that the word "stereotype" is nowadays often used with strong moralistic meaning, but I'm using it as a neutral technical term for heuristics for categorizing people based on statistical discrimination.)
Actually, he doesn't believe that being a nerd means his social skills are so poor he can't attract a woman. He believes (perhaps accurately) that he's only interested in the relatively rare women who share his nerd interests.
What's interesting is that he associates being a nerd with having difficulty finding partners, even though the connection isn't by way of poor social skills.
Interesting. So it looks more like it's a new meaning all the way down the line, as he uses the term. He has even supplied a new explanation (pickiness) for the old phenomenon (having a limited set of friends), which was previously explained by ineptness. It was easy to be confused because he is describing the familiar outward pattern of the nerd, even though he has a new explanation for it. Genuine linguistic evolution here?
You're right. On a more careful reading, my interpretation was incorrect.
You may be right but let me add to my argument.
The evidence I see is of two competing meanings, an old one and a new one. The new one (obscure interest only) motivated the initial labeling, and the old one (obscure interest plus social ineptitude) motivated the subsequent rationalization.
People have limited self knowledge and are constantly rationalizing what they just did or just said. Their self explanations are not definitive.
I believe your argument requires that he has in fact mislabeled himself on the basis of an imperfect match between himself and the word. "nerd", and that he followed up by confabulating to make himself a better fit for the definition.
In contrast, I argue that the word is in flux (as is the related stereotype), that he is correctly applying a new meaning, but that he misunderstands his own statement. I think self-misunderstanding is commonplace, so I find thus to be a natural, unforced possibility, rather than a contrivance. I think that the meaning of the word "nerd" has in fact changed due to the mind-boggling success of the likes of Bill Gates among others.
Added: I propose ostensive definition as the key mechanism of change.
Step 1: "a nerd is a socially inept person with special interests...".
Step 2: ..."like Bill Gates."
Step 3: "a nerd is a person like Bill Gates..."
Step 4: "...who is famous for becoming fantastically wealthy through his special interests."
From Step 1 to step 2, examples are generated. From step 3 to step 4, the examples yield a changed definition because what was most conspicuous about the examples has changed.
Constant:
I agree that my comment was incorrect, and based on an inaccurate reading of what GSP said. Taking that into account, you're probably right that he is applying only the "obscure interests" meaning to himself.
That said, I don't think the general use of the word has lost much, if any of its negative connotations, nor that the underlying stereotypes are becoming any weaker. You say:
But notice that the public perception of Bill Gates is still in accordance with the full "nerd" stereotype. Watch the joke video that he made when he retired. What it clearly shows is that within the ranks of the rich, powerful, and famous, his position is very much like the position of a nerd kid among his more popular school peers: he is proud just because they're giving him some attention, and views this as a boost to his status. (Consider how unimaginable the opposite would be!) Certainly, despite all the money, power, and fame, nobody ever considered Gates as someone to admire and emulate in terms of style or social behavior, and not to even mention his complete lack of sex-symbol status.
Moreover, even if the nerd stereotype acquired some positive connotations in terms of good career prospects during the eighties and nineties, this trend could only have been downward for the last decade or so, considering that both the economic and general social status of tech professions has been going down ever since the dot-com crash. The ongoing deindustrialization is increasingly catching up even with white-collar technical work.
I think language changes from generation to generation. Each generation retains its own language, its own meanings. Bill Gates was born in 1955. GSP was born in 1981.
The year 1984 saw Revenge of the Nerds, the movie. The nerds in that movie were intellectually accomplished and social lepers. What intellectually accomplished fictional characters have we seen portrayed more recently, and let us see whether they were social lepers. Hermione Granger stood out for her intellectual accomplishments, but was not a social leper. UK of course, but an important character to her American fans. Americans have had cyberpunk heroes since Neuromancer, with Keanu Reeves playing two, William Gibson's own Johnny Mnemonic, and much more successfully, Neo of The Matrix, the superhacker. Not a social leper. A lot of other association of computer wizardry with more punk/goth outcast-ness than nerd outcast-ness, such as Kate Libby/Acid Burn/Angelina Jolie in Hackers (Jolie is genetically incapable of being a social leper) and the girl with the dragon tattoo, Lisbeth Salander, aka "Wasp", the last Swedish to be sure but very much embraced by American readers, and anyway I think she's obviously inspired by earlier incarnations of the similar type such as Kate Libby of the American movie Hackers. Granted, Lisbeth Salander is socially disconnected, but it's a very different kind of disconnect from the "nerd" disconnect.
What else. Sandra Bullock, Keanu's Speed costar, in The Net, portrays the socially disconnected computer expert in 1995, and she's no goth, doesn't go around in black leather, but she's still a much, much softer portrayal of the conservatively-dressed nerd, nothing like the taped-glasses nerd of 1984. And it's Sandra Bullock.
What else? Having trouble thinking of major characters. There's Gene Hackman in Enemy of the State, another super-hacker of sorts, but while completely isolated, is so for perfectly legitimate reasons. Then there's the latest Die Hard movie, hacker played by Justin Long, the Mac guy. Not played by John Hodgman, the PC guy. John Hodgman is typecast as the nerd. Justin Long is typecast as not the nerd - and he was the one picked for the hacker role.
I'm out. Can't think of anything else at the moment.
Edit: The Breakfast Club, 1985, Anthony Michael Hall as the nerd. I'm starting to wonder if 1984/1985 was the high point of the stereotype.
I've only seen a couple of the HP movies-- is Hermione's character presented much differently there than in the books? In the books, she's presented sympathetically, but she also has to navigate being disliked for knowing so much.
Also in the movies, it seemed to me that she was very pretty, while in the books, she seems to have average looks.
Three nerds on one of the later seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer (early 2000s) were socially inept (e.g. completely defenseless against bullying by Spike) and evil though less so than most of the bad guys.
As others have already pointed out, it seems like your set of examples is not representative.
I'm not very familiar with the popular culture from the last decade or so, and what I see of it usually evaporates from my memory quickly. However, one recent major Hollywood movie that I clearly remember promoting extreme negative nerd stereotypes was the 2007 Live Free or Die Hard, which features a "computer genius" character having just about every stereotypical "nerdy" characteristic imaginable. He is even shown as incapable of doing anything productive or profitable with his "nerdy" computer knowledge (he's depicted as living in his parents' basement in his thirties).
Interesting examples. I gotta cite the TVTropes article on Hollywood Nerds:
I think some of your examples are Type 2 Hollywood nerds: hot people with glasses stuck on. That type does defy the general nerd stereotype, but it doesn't do so in a believable way, so I'm not sure how much these portrayals actually dent the "nerd" stereotype.
The "hacker" archetype is a bit different. "Hacker" incorporates rebelliousness and creativity which is attractive and high-status, in addition to being emotionally relatable.
Goth and punk aesthetics also relate nerds to rebelliousness and Romanticism.
Justin Long is an interesting character. Why did he become the hacker for Die Hard, other than having good looks? There actually are a bunch of qualities that both Justin Long's Mac character have, and Hollywood hackers have. Justin Long's character also exemplifies creativity (Macs are associated with media, and his clothes and hairstyle look artsy) and rebelliousness (against the authority of the PC in the workplace).
The end result is that I only find Long semi-believable as a hacker. It's much easier to imagine him working in Final Cut Pro than doing scripting. My suspicions were confirmed when I looked up an interview of Long and found he does not have a technical mind: he says that he isn't good at math and his mind "doesn't work that way." Justin Long's Mac character is a textbook "Hollywood Nerd."
Technical interests are cool to have as long as you mask them in rebelliousness or artsiness.
The nerd stereotype is alive and thriving in the big bang theory.
Yes, it's things like these that I find bizarre.
In the meantime, I read the chapters of Anderegg's book you cited above. I find his thesis very interesting, but as always in the history of ideas, it's hard to estimate the relative significance of particular cultural tropes, especially since I know little about all the other factors that could have influenced the development of this characteristic modern American stereotype. I've put his book on my reading list, so I'll probably have more comments when I get to reading it.
The link to Emerson's speech is in my post.
You can read the relevant chapter in Google Books. The link I gave should take you to the history chapter starting with Ichabod Crane.
In general it's a good book, but it has some wrong assumptions and moralizing.
This is important, not just for the specifics, but to remember that some pattern of behavior which seems absolutely innate may actually be culturally localized.
So, are there geeky people in Europe? If so, what are they doing instead of science and engineering?
NancyLebovitz:
I don't see why these specific patterns of behavior would seem "absolutely innate" even looking only at the U.S. There are lots of non-nerdy people with high intelligence, and I don't see any reason why they wouldn't excel in "nerdy" professions if they chose to enter them in large numbers. In my opinion, the main reason why non-nerdy smart people go mainly into non-technical professions is that in the American society, technical professions, on the whole, offer relatively low status considering the demands they impose.
Where I lived in Europe (various places in ex-Yugoslavia), we've never really had anything comparable to the American notion of "geeks" and "nerds." It's hard to find even an approximate translation for these words which would have all the connotations of high intelligence combined with social ineptness, lack of masculinity, and obsessive interest in obscure and unpopular things.
We do have words that denote these qualities separately, or for people who put excessive effort into success in school while lacking real-life skills and smarts, or who achieve high grades thanks to cramming rather than smarts and talent, etc., etc., and various terms of this sort are used to translate "nerd/geek" in different contexts. But there is no accurate translation, simply because there is no striking correlation between all these attributes. (That said, in recent years some of the American "geek" culture has been making inroads, but even what exists of it is still not comparable, since there is both less social nerdiness involved and much less correlation with interest, let alone high achievement, in science and engineering.)
Partly this is because technical professions have higher relative status, so they attract plenty of intelligent people who are not at all deficient in social skills. The other reason is a very different youth culture and education system. As far as I see, these different circumstances usually tend to attenuate people's innate lack of sociability, rather than, as happens in the U.S., exacerbate it and force intelligent introverts to seek company and respect in "geeky" social circles and activities, since they can't find them anywhere else.
All that said, this situation still does not mean that success in courting women is more evenly distributed among men. On the contrary: the attention of attractive women, and the overwhelming part of casual sex that takes place, is still restricted to the minority of men who are attractive by pretty much the same criteria as anywhere else. It's just that you'll find many more such men (as well as less attractive, but still far from nerdy men) among people doing technical professions and having various intellectual interests that are stereotyped as "geeky" in the U.S.
Vladimir M asserts that in Europe, "technical professions have higher relative status".
That agrees with my experience. My mom used to say that my engineer father would have higher status if he lived in the old country. Also, when letters from Europe arrived for my dad, his name was sometimes prefaced with the honorific "Ing." which is short for "Ingenieur", which means "Engineer".
How is the educational system different?
As you may know, there's been a lot of interest lately in the US about how to lessen or eliminate bullying in schools-- there've been a number of suicides lately resulting from years of severe bullying.
The only structural cause I've seen suggested (as distinct from recommendations of active anti-bullying programs) is the high emphasis on competitive athletics, and in particular, athletic competitions between schools.
The other question is whether there's a process of bullying/ostracism in European schools which is aimed at other sorts of people.
NancyLebovitz:
I don't have anything resembling a complete theory of these differences. It's certainly not about some clearly identifiable and straightforward organizational aspects that could be reformed in a planned way, and there are definitely deep cultural differences involved.
One organizational difference that seems significant, though, is that I went through a system that had tracking done in such a way that smart kids of all sorts ended up separated from the not so bright ones, but largely mixed together, without being allowed to segregate by electing different coursework. (You had a choice of high schools with different curriculums, but everyone within the same high school had to learn the same, usually eclectic mix of things.) This did seem to create an optimal environment for introverted smart kids to grow up without being exposed to bullying (which was unheard of in the high school I went to), and giving them less inclination and opportunity to self-segregate into "nerdy" cliques.
There is bullying/ostracism however it isn't as formalised.
I would be tempted to blame the sports. Simply it creates an in group of people that are considered higher status. There are pep rallies to them, with beautiful girls cheering them on, that has to create an inflated sense of worth/superiority/difference.
So they persecute the out group, the geeks, to signal their in-group ness and preserve their sense of superiority. I suppose it is similar to the stanford prison experiment. Raise one group above another and that group seems to persecute the other.
It's definitely not the sports that do it. You may be right about all the rest of the stuff that is associated with sport over there. Cheerleaders? That's not just in the teen movies right, you actually have them?
Does being a nerd and a good athlete seem out of place in that culture? Come to think of it there is a separate group for 'band nerds' too if my consumption of low grade entertainment is anything to go by. I wouldn't know where to put myself!
Yeah by sports I meant the importance given to it. In comparison we don't have such things as sports scholarships (irrespective of academic talent, which I think is called an entrance scholarship) for prestigious universities. Does Australia?
I'm a Pom, so my exposure to American culture is mainly fictional in nature as well. I've seen a number of documentaries as well though. The BBC loves analysing the US.
Heck no. University sports here are relatively obscure. They are there for students who enjoy them but they are approximately status neutral.
High school cheerleaders at a game.
This was actually a little harder to find than cheerleading competitions. It's morphed into its own sport.
Athletes don't do all the bullying-- not even most of it, I think.
It's possible that the high emphasis on sports poisons the whole atmosphere.
NancyLebovitz:
That's not a necessary implication of whpearson's theory. Once the athleete/nerd stratification has been established, it may create bullying incentives for those who are physically stronger than the nerds, but not part of the elite athlete circle. Such individuals will want to assert superiority to the nerds to at least confirm their middle-rank status if they can't achieve the top one, and bullying seems like a straightforward strategy.
I didn't go myself through the American school system, though, so I have no idea how well this hypothesis holds water.
I didn't go through the American school system either but your theory seems to match with general observable tendencies. Bullying and crude social aggression isn't an indicator of high status so much as an indicator of 'medium high status that requires effort to maintain'. This is why I make sure I never work for an insecure boss.
Define what you mean by geeky...
If you mean people that don't like to party, then from my experience they are doing science and engineering and probably some humanities as well. They also generally co-exist quite happily with the party-ers, at least at University level.
I've just realised how much we have a cultural one way mirror. I've seen fictional depictions of fraternities, keg standing, hazing etc, however you probably haven't seen what a European rock concert is like. Which is generally non-violent, unless you get in the mosh pit.
I say European, but in some ways I have less idea of what mainland European social life is like than American.
Vladimir_M's "high intelligence combined with social ineptness, lack of masculinity, and obsessive interest in obscure and unpopular things" is good enough except that I'd add lack of femininity to the list.
One horrifying feature of American culture in the 50s was that intelligence was considered not masculine and not feminine, and since everyone was supposed to be one or the other, being visibly intelligent had a social cost. In my opinion, a major (but incomplete) change in this happened when it was clear that people could make money in IT. I'm inclined to think the Flynn effect is also taking hold.
From a science fiction convention: A women mentions that sometimes she feels she's just got to do something different with her hair, and fannish women are apt to look at her as though she's crazy.
Historical note: I think that identifying interest in dressing up with being effeminate is a modern weirdness. The only culture I can think of where men and women who could afford to didn't get about equally elaborate and showy was colonial America, and in that case, the men were dressier.
Afaik, American rock concerts are mostly non-violent, but this is very much second hand. Anyone have more information?
Every mainstream rock concert I've ever been to in the US has been entirely non-violent, modulo the occasional and mostly unrelated edge cases that arise when you get a thousand drunk people together. Even metal and punk concerts aren't violent outside of the mosh pit, and I'm not sure that properly counts as violence, being consensual and generally not aimed at causing injury.
Sounds a lot like the European case, in other words.