The Weird Nerd comes with trade-offs(writingruxandrabio.com)
writingruxandrabio.com
The Weird Nerd comes with trade-offs
https://www.writingruxandrabio.com/p/the-weird-nerd-comes-with-trade-offs
504 comments
This bizarre romanticization of autism is frustrating for those who are or have loved ones who are nonverbal, stim all day, etc..
I almost wonder if nerfing autism to the point where it's a fun thing to talk about having on tiktok is a way to demonize effective interventions so insurance companies won't have to pay for them.
I almost wonder if nerfing autism to the point where it's a fun thing to talk about having on tiktok is a way to demonize effective interventions so insurance companies won't have to pay for them.
It's been a similar pattern with ADHD, it feels like its almost been turned into a trend. Although that being said we've had a number of people at our place been diagnosed with ADHD, Autism and in some cases both, all developers, all within the last 3-5 years, and you know what, they're absolutely correct diagnosis.
It's a mix of romanticization and a change in acceptance and understanding of the two, and they do often go hand in hand as we've seen.
But things like the tiktoks mentioning "My Ausistic brain" or "My ADHD brain" are a bit over the top and are making it feel like it's being treated as a 'cool thing' to have.
For me personally I knew I had some sort of autism or ADHD decades ago. It was only when I started having massive issues focusing on work a couple of years back, combined with stimming and an increase in sensory issues that I decided it was time to investigate and sure enough, diagnosed with both. Out of the ~20 developers at my workplace a good 2/3 of them are either diagnosed with one or the other, or exhibit strong signals that would indicate they've likely got at very least ADHD.
It's a mix of romanticization and a change in acceptance and understanding of the two, and they do often go hand in hand as we've seen.
But things like the tiktoks mentioning "My Ausistic brain" or "My ADHD brain" are a bit over the top and are making it feel like it's being treated as a 'cool thing' to have.
For me personally I knew I had some sort of autism or ADHD decades ago. It was only when I started having massive issues focusing on work a couple of years back, combined with stimming and an increase in sensory issues that I decided it was time to investigate and sure enough, diagnosed with both. Out of the ~20 developers at my workplace a good 2/3 of them are either diagnosed with one or the other, or exhibit strong signals that would indicate they've likely got at very least ADHD.
My sister didn't say her first word until she was almost 5 and would bang her head against the wall. Hearing people say that autism "isn't a disability, it's a differentability lol!" or "oh I must be autistic because I'm awkward", or worst of all "don't try to treat people with autism it's cruel!" (aka don't force insurance companies to cover ABA, which is the only reason my sister can even talk now) is really upsetting.
The biggest problem is that they rolled up the asperger syndrome up with autistic spectrum. So any psychologist is forced classify functional and non-functional together.
Its a disservice to both worlds and I am not sure why was it done.
People with asperger syndrome need guidance to navigate the world, while traditionally autistic people need to be taken care of, why lump both together with a single term
Its a disservice to both worlds and I am not sure why was it done.
People with asperger syndrome need guidance to navigate the world, while traditionally autistic people need to be taken care of, why lump both together with a single term
> People with asperger syndrome need guidance to navigate the world, while traditionally autistic people need to be taken care of, why lump both together with a single term
One of the reasons is that autism was recognized to belong to a spectrum. It is not a boolean (you have aspergers or you have not, you have autism or not). It is, to keep with the metaphor, a bunch of stats expressed in floats. To what degree are you unable to filter external stimuli? How can you handle social situations? What about social cues? And so on.
The binary classification came with lots of issues.
Another issue was that Hans Asperger was funded by the Nazi regime, and protected intelligent children, while allowing other children to be "euthanized". So there was pressure to remove the actual name too.
If you still need a binary classification, I believe "high functioning" and "low functioning" are still in use.
One of the reasons is that autism was recognized to belong to a spectrum. It is not a boolean (you have aspergers or you have not, you have autism or not). It is, to keep with the metaphor, a bunch of stats expressed in floats. To what degree are you unable to filter external stimuli? How can you handle social situations? What about social cues? And so on.
The binary classification came with lots of issues.
Another issue was that Hans Asperger was funded by the Nazi regime, and protected intelligent children, while allowing other children to be "euthanized". So there was pressure to remove the actual name too.
If you still need a binary classification, I believe "high functioning" and "low functioning" are still in use.
I am fully aware that is a spectrum.
But I believe that if you make criminal umbrella term for anyone who jaywalks to hitler and everything in-between then its quite useless term.
Because using it doesn't tell you much and you have to make multiple qualifiers.
You can have a spectrum of autism with rough labels that give you an idea of state of the person.
Like in the example, umbrella term criminal has all sub category as theft, murderer, teenager :)
But I believe that if you make criminal umbrella term for anyone who jaywalks to hitler and everything in-between then its quite useless term.
Because using it doesn't tell you much and you have to make multiple qualifiers.
You can have a spectrum of autism with rough labels that give you an idea of state of the person.
Like in the example, umbrella term criminal has all sub category as theft, murderer, teenager :)
With autism but really any neurological variation in humans, it's often said but seldom fully grasped that most variations exist as spectra. This is hard for people to reason about because thinking in hard-line categories seems like it's more intuitive to most people. Still, I think it's useful to remember that whether you think of it as difference or disorder, there are always degrees
There are two competing pressures in psychopathology that are essentially incompatible with each other. On the one hand, healthcare administration and especially the nightmare that is the privatized and insurance-driven US healthcare system puts pressure on justifying needs. Since insurance really tries its absolute best to never help you if it can get away with it, people with extreme divergences are incentivized to insist that only the most extreme manifestation of something is real, everyone else is faking it, and that makes them bad. If something starts to be "not a disorder" in the public perception, insurance companies will use this to try to weasel out of providing necessary support.
Basically every point on a given spectrum exists in some living person though. I'm close to someone who probably couldn't get diagnosed with autism as he can speak fluently and mostly take care of himself, as well as socialize among some circles of people, but certain kinds of social pressure just completely break his brain, and on top of that he has pretty extreme and disabling reactions to certain kinds of overstimulation, including reverting to hitting his head on walls, a behavior he had to pretty meticulously train himself not to do. I would definitely describe him as autistic. I think he's a less extreme case than people who are nonverbal. People like him might not need or want or benefit from medical intervention or navigating the other insane bureaucratic nightmare of disability benefits, but also might not be able to function in society. Specifically, I think he'd have been screwed if not for finding circles where people are aware of these traits, structure their social norms to not function as a minefield for people who are like that, and treat him with compassion. This comes from recognition that autistic people exist and may not be completely categorically obvious, and people like him have to push back against gatekeeping "real" disorder because doing that means people bicker about that and accuse you of stealing valor and then conclude it's too much effort to try to understand the nuances and who's allowed to call themselves what, and in this situation, most people will just throw up their hands on understanding and do what comes naturally to them: Exclude and ridicule people they find weird
I think we could solve both of these problems if we provided more paths to success for people without strong social skills, didn't exert so many conformity pressures on people in every context, didn't put amoral paperclip maximizing bean counters in charge of crucial services like healthcare, and didn't have the neoliberal dogma that most people who say they need help are faking it and thus we need to torture people with hoops to jump through if they want any hope of getting it
Mental disorders are real. They're also made up. We choose what differences are salient and how to cluster them. We set a threshold of difference that's adequately disabling because the rules say we need one. We try to see what we have in common with people different from us, and try to describe them and empathize with them. When it's apparent someone is "sort of weird in the vague direction of spaciness" it makes sense to both assume this might be what we call ADHD but milder, and even if you don't think that's literally neurologically true or whatever, we often describe things in directions or by analogy.
I think it's impossible to get this right. I still want to make private insurance illegal. I still think we should do less harm to people for not learning to politic well. I still think that the internet made everyone so obsessed with words that they have holy wars about the true meaning of several of them. Rather than get drawn into them, I think we should solve the problems that make them feel like important battles, because words are at the end of the day mostly just attempts to communicate. Besides, we're many of us programmers here. We all know most names are fungible
There are two competing pressures in psychopathology that are essentially incompatible with each other. On the one hand, healthcare administration and especially the nightmare that is the privatized and insurance-driven US healthcare system puts pressure on justifying needs. Since insurance really tries its absolute best to never help you if it can get away with it, people with extreme divergences are incentivized to insist that only the most extreme manifestation of something is real, everyone else is faking it, and that makes them bad. If something starts to be "not a disorder" in the public perception, insurance companies will use this to try to weasel out of providing necessary support.
Basically every point on a given spectrum exists in some living person though. I'm close to someone who probably couldn't get diagnosed with autism as he can speak fluently and mostly take care of himself, as well as socialize among some circles of people, but certain kinds of social pressure just completely break his brain, and on top of that he has pretty extreme and disabling reactions to certain kinds of overstimulation, including reverting to hitting his head on walls, a behavior he had to pretty meticulously train himself not to do. I would definitely describe him as autistic. I think he's a less extreme case than people who are nonverbal. People like him might not need or want or benefit from medical intervention or navigating the other insane bureaucratic nightmare of disability benefits, but also might not be able to function in society. Specifically, I think he'd have been screwed if not for finding circles where people are aware of these traits, structure their social norms to not function as a minefield for people who are like that, and treat him with compassion. This comes from recognition that autistic people exist and may not be completely categorically obvious, and people like him have to push back against gatekeeping "real" disorder because doing that means people bicker about that and accuse you of stealing valor and then conclude it's too much effort to try to understand the nuances and who's allowed to call themselves what, and in this situation, most people will just throw up their hands on understanding and do what comes naturally to them: Exclude and ridicule people they find weird
I think we could solve both of these problems if we provided more paths to success for people without strong social skills, didn't exert so many conformity pressures on people in every context, didn't put amoral paperclip maximizing bean counters in charge of crucial services like healthcare, and didn't have the neoliberal dogma that most people who say they need help are faking it and thus we need to torture people with hoops to jump through if they want any hope of getting it
Mental disorders are real. They're also made up. We choose what differences are salient and how to cluster them. We set a threshold of difference that's adequately disabling because the rules say we need one. We try to see what we have in common with people different from us, and try to describe them and empathize with them. When it's apparent someone is "sort of weird in the vague direction of spaciness" it makes sense to both assume this might be what we call ADHD but milder, and even if you don't think that's literally neurologically true or whatever, we often describe things in directions or by analogy.
I think it's impossible to get this right. I still want to make private insurance illegal. I still think we should do less harm to people for not learning to politic well. I still think that the internet made everyone so obsessed with words that they have holy wars about the true meaning of several of them. Rather than get drawn into them, I think we should solve the problems that make them feel like important battles, because words are at the end of the day mostly just attempts to communicate. Besides, we're many of us programmers here. We all know most names are fungible
Great take, fully agree. My wife falls into a similar camp as the person you're close to, although she did end up eventually getting diagnosed with autism. It was only because the topic had become so casual on platforms like TikTok and Instagram that she even considered the possibility - she was only exposed to autistic people who would register between Level 2 and 3, which completely blinded her to the possibility that she could also be autistic.
I fully sympathize with people who worry about this delegitimizing their condition, but I am at the same time endlessly grateful that it allowed my wife some peace and closure in better understanding herself.
I fully sympathize with people who worry about this delegitimizing their condition, but I am at the same time endlessly grateful that it allowed my wife some peace and closure in better understanding herself.
Thank you for taking the time to write this.
It just seems to be the way of things. There's an inherent value in being yourself without feeling the need to hide, and via the process of de-stigmatization, more people are comfortable coming out and expressing that they are what they are, and because of the de-stigmatization effort, those people are uplifted. And in turn, other people who want to feel special and want more social capital will either imitate it or try to get diagnosed themselves.
The "my ADHD brain" stuff isn't my thing, though I am pretty sure I have an ADHD thing that's so mild it doesn't quite qualify for the second D, but I have a heavily ADHD spouse, and she likes them. I think it makes her feel less crazy/dumb for doing the admittedly sometimes amusingly boneheaded things she does, like bashing her arms and legs into things or making tea and forgetting it a moment later. But also she has grappled with how that content flattens ADHD into, her words, "quirky ditz syndrome" and much rarely goes into the darker aspects she struggles with, like being completely unable to accomplish a basic task for hours on end and getting increasingly frustrated with herself, or her "zombie hours" when she gets absolutely stuck in her phone (I eventually helped her setup parental controls on iOS to boot her off after awhile, but even that being couched in things called "parental controls" is humiliating for her).
The "my ADHD brain" stuff isn't my thing, though I am pretty sure I have an ADHD thing that's so mild it doesn't quite qualify for the second D, but I have a heavily ADHD spouse, and she likes them. I think it makes her feel less crazy/dumb for doing the admittedly sometimes amusingly boneheaded things she does, like bashing her arms and legs into things or making tea and forgetting it a moment later. But also she has grappled with how that content flattens ADHD into, her words, "quirky ditz syndrome" and much rarely goes into the darker aspects she struggles with, like being completely unable to accomplish a basic task for hours on end and getting increasingly frustrated with herself, or her "zombie hours" when she gets absolutely stuck in her phone (I eventually helped her setup parental controls on iOS to boot her off after awhile, but even that being couched in things called "parental controls" is humiliating for her).
I had a very similar experience to yourself.
Didn't investigate and get treatment until it imploded my career...
The people that think it's trendy are young, they often live at home with parents so I think it's a case of their ADHD / austism not yet having serious repercussion's.
Didn't investigate and get treatment until it imploded my career...
The people that think it's trendy are young, they often live at home with parents so I think it's a case of their ADHD / austism not yet having serious repercussion's.
Also - ADHD and Autism both appear to be very inheritable, so if someone is at home with their parents chances are they spend all their time around at least one person who is also ADHD/Autistic, and anyone else who is there or coming around is very used to being around ADHD/Autistic people.
So they’re ’normal’ in that environment.
So they’re ’normal’ in that environment.
as someone who spent a few years really addicted to stims but eventually got clean, when I started having problems at work with focus and attention, I decided that I didn't want to get diagnosed because - at some fundamental level - stims honestly feel like everyone should be on them. Like everything is better: studying, talking, moving...
I've spent a lot of time trying to avoid things that challenge my attention span, mediating and journally, and trying really hard to use organizational tools/apps. With some pretty decent success.
I really struggle with knowing when disorder is just code for anti-human (or anti-your personality) work.
I've spent a lot of time trying to avoid things that challenge my attention span, mediating and journally, and trying really hard to use organizational tools/apps. With some pretty decent success.
I really struggle with knowing when disorder is just code for anti-human (or anti-your personality) work.
In this case stimming refers to repetitive movements used as self-soothing, not stimulants
Almost? I constantly see (at least couple weeks back) videos about how they behave a certain way because they have ADHD, or what ADHD people prefer to do in certain situations. Most of them are populistic and factually complete bullshit. They do people with ADHD a disserviceall Uhr Maisinformation they spread. And why? Because somehow it's hip zo say zo have ADHD.
It is a complicated topic. But I rather see people relaxed with the topic, than freaking out. There was a case of a australian immigrant doctor, who was denied immigration, because his child had autism.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/23/outcr...
(after the outcry, the decision was reversed)
But yes, it is a serious condition and feeling awkward is not in the same basket.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/23/outcr...
(after the outcry, the decision was reversed)
But yes, it is a serious condition and feeling awkward is not in the same basket.
I think that there's a big difference between high functioning and low functioning autism. It's not surprising that people with high functioning autism want it romanticized in order to help protect themselves against discrimination or being thrown away for not being useful.
For sure there is a significant difference between what is referred to as "high functioning autism" and traditional ("low functioning" autism). But I feel that if those folks want to differentiate then it would be much smarter to come up with a different term and romanticize that.
The only reason to appropriate the term "autism" and associate with that condition is to medicalize one's psychology and obtain funding and services that previously were reserved to "low functioning" autistics (before that term was even necessary).
(edited to clarify)
The only reason to appropriate the term "autism" and associate with that condition is to medicalize one's psychology and obtain funding and services that previously were reserved to "low functioning" autistics (before that term was even necessary).
(edited to clarify)
My relative has an autistic daughter.
At 7 years old, she has mental capacity of 2 year old.
With the right help, she can be somehow functioning, but surely won't get into STEM. Being "weird nerd" is pretty orthogonal to being actually autistic.
At 7 years old, she has mental capacity of 2 year old.
With the right help, she can be somehow functioning, but surely won't get into STEM. Being "weird nerd" is pretty orthogonal to being actually autistic.
I've never understood this.
Even assuming that someone is a high-functioning autistic person - now what? As far as I know, there is no course of treatment that can cure it.
Is it just about wanting a label for one of many reasons (to find a tribe, evade responsibility, get accommodations of one form or another, etc)
Don't know anything about the topic and am kind of curious.
Even assuming that someone is a high-functioning autistic person - now what? As far as I know, there is no course of treatment that can cure it.
Is it just about wanting a label for one of many reasons (to find a tribe, evade responsibility, get accommodations of one form or another, etc)
Don't know anything about the topic and am kind of curious.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Actual Obsessive Compulsive Disorder is a crippling pathology
Well then let us undo the work of Hans Asperger.
For many autistic people, they prefer it this way. Eg avoiding person-first language and being out on social media and also part of this "romanticization", right?
>This bizarre romanticization of autism is frustrating for those who are or have loved ones who are nonverbal, stim all day, etc..
Look at every thread about the subject on these boards: it's filled with people claiming to be "on the spectrum" (aren't we all?).
>nerfing autism...is a way to demonize effective interventions so insurance companies won't have to pay for them
What a bizarre conspiracy. Are treatments even expensive?
Look at every thread about the subject on these boards: it's filled with people claiming to be "on the spectrum" (aren't we all?).
>nerfing autism...is a way to demonize effective interventions so insurance companies won't have to pay for them
What a bizarre conspiracy. Are treatments even expensive?
In some cases yes, they are expensive - years of person on person specialized therapy, and specialized environment/education. Depending on how much difficulty they have functioning.
It’s much easier to pretend it’s all a scam and not do anything, or penalize/force people to ‘act normal’. At least for insurance companies, teachers, employers, and often parents.
Which is why a lot of folks with ‘actual’ ADHD/Autism have a lot of PTSD from their childhoods. (And no, not a joke.) Severe, triggering, legit PTSD. Objective, causes the same physiological symptoms as those in war zones type PTSD. Except for it being around ‘weird’ things like school, childcare, interactions with their parents, teachers, peers, instead of when their buddy got blown up by an IED.
To make things even more complicated, persistent and repeated traumatic events that a person is powerless to prevent (usually in childhood, but not required) tends to cause Complex PTSD - which has a lot of overlap with ADHD and Autistic symptoms. Like 80-90% depending on which set of definitions one uses.
A really good way (in my experience) to get Complex PTSD is to be around someone like a parent/caregiver/partner with Antisocial Personality Disorder/NPD/BPD and suffer repeated adverse events because of it that they can’t escape. Something that if it’s a Mother doing it, Society will actively prevent someone from escaping.
Fun times, eh?
As to how to stop or get out of this? Who knows. A big underlying problem (and why society defers to the Mother in most cases here) is that there is no chance there will ever be enough resources to actually figure out the underlying truth for most of these situations.
That is because the real problem cases fundamentally work via manipulation and hiding abuses, so good luck. It would require an objective, unbiased expert (if such a thing is even possible) to follow the kid around 24/7 to see what is actually occurring. For months, or even years. And frankly, in my experience a large portion of scientists, engineers, medical doctors, nurses, police, special forces, and firefighters have backgrounds like this. So maybe this kind of thing is actually essential for society to function.
And regardless, solving this may be like solving the obesity crisis by getting everyone to run on treadmills and get fit or the like. That just ain’t happening.
It’s much easier to pretend it’s all a scam and not do anything, or penalize/force people to ‘act normal’. At least for insurance companies, teachers, employers, and often parents.
Which is why a lot of folks with ‘actual’ ADHD/Autism have a lot of PTSD from their childhoods. (And no, not a joke.) Severe, triggering, legit PTSD. Objective, causes the same physiological symptoms as those in war zones type PTSD. Except for it being around ‘weird’ things like school, childcare, interactions with their parents, teachers, peers, instead of when their buddy got blown up by an IED.
To make things even more complicated, persistent and repeated traumatic events that a person is powerless to prevent (usually in childhood, but not required) tends to cause Complex PTSD - which has a lot of overlap with ADHD and Autistic symptoms. Like 80-90% depending on which set of definitions one uses.
A really good way (in my experience) to get Complex PTSD is to be around someone like a parent/caregiver/partner with Antisocial Personality Disorder/NPD/BPD and suffer repeated adverse events because of it that they can’t escape. Something that if it’s a Mother doing it, Society will actively prevent someone from escaping.
Fun times, eh?
As to how to stop or get out of this? Who knows. A big underlying problem (and why society defers to the Mother in most cases here) is that there is no chance there will ever be enough resources to actually figure out the underlying truth for most of these situations.
That is because the real problem cases fundamentally work via manipulation and hiding abuses, so good luck. It would require an objective, unbiased expert (if such a thing is even possible) to follow the kid around 24/7 to see what is actually occurring. For months, or even years. And frankly, in my experience a large portion of scientists, engineers, medical doctors, nurses, police, special forces, and firefighters have backgrounds like this. So maybe this kind of thing is actually essential for society to function.
And regardless, solving this may be like solving the obesity crisis by getting everyone to run on treadmills and get fit or the like. That just ain’t happening.
>So much of talent is just really caring about something specific. Caring about it above other things
This is a really nice statement. Definitely agree with it. I've often seen so many fast-starters in many fields who just taper away, because the subject just isn't interesting to them, and it was the peeps who stayed in the field that ended up becoming really good at it. Definitely holds up the old "Average intelligence and persistence has accomplished much more than genius" quote
This is a really nice statement. Definitely agree with it. I've often seen so many fast-starters in many fields who just taper away, because the subject just isn't interesting to them, and it was the peeps who stayed in the field that ended up becoming really good at it. Definitely holds up the old "Average intelligence and persistence has accomplished much more than genius" quote
You have to be good, and also care, which is like effort. a lot of young people care or put effort into playing sports but most do not have the talent to make a living at it.
"Average intelligence and persistence has accomplished much more than genius"
For hard problems, high IQ is necessary but still insufficient. You are not going to solve a hard math problem with average IQ no matter how much persistence you throw at it.
"Average intelligence and persistence has accomplished much more than genius"
For hard problems, high IQ is necessary but still insufficient. You are not going to solve a hard math problem with average IQ no matter how much persistence you throw at it.
> You are not going to solve a hard math problem with average IQ no matter how much persistence you throw at it.
I'm inclined to disagree, but there's an important piece here that I've found when solving problems that were at least hard for me: sometimes I can get hung up on making a particular approach work when it's not going to and what I need to do is back up and find a different angle of attack.
For example if you're solving a hard math problem with little math knowledge and average IQ, if you're really passionate and persistent about it, then you'd realize you first need to learn more math to build your understanding of the domain. IQ/persistence in this case is not really about the problem itself, but more about the problem-solving process itself.
I'm inclined to disagree, but there's an important piece here that I've found when solving problems that were at least hard for me: sometimes I can get hung up on making a particular approach work when it's not going to and what I need to do is back up and find a different angle of attack.
For example if you're solving a hard math problem with little math knowledge and average IQ, if you're really passionate and persistent about it, then you'd realize you first need to learn more math to build your understanding of the domain. IQ/persistence in this case is not really about the problem itself, but more about the problem-solving process itself.
I duno on some of that. Until I was about 39 I was a "weird nerd" and then my wife (Dr of special education) finally convinced me to talk to a Dr and get get tested for autism. Turns out I'm ASD 1, would have been Asperger's in the past. Autism has a very wide range of ways it shows itself.
Well, to me your comment also speaks to the increasing degree to which we medicalize personality traits.
I'm sure your diagnosis is legitimate, but also I'm inferring from your comment that you are married and gainfully employed; so it sounds like you're able to build and maintain relationships, as well hold conversations with strangers or non-close acquaintances when necessary.
In years past would any professional have bothered to test someone like you for a disorder?
I'm sure your diagnosis is legitimate, but also I'm inferring from your comment that you are married and gainfully employed; so it sounds like you're able to build and maintain relationships, as well hold conversations with strangers or non-close acquaintances when necessary.
In years past would any professional have bothered to test someone like you for a disorder?
Being married and gainfully employed and able to build and maintain relationships as well as hold conversations with strangers when necessary can come at an exceptionally high cost for neurodivergent people in the form of masking (like a kind of mental tech debt). Instead of overt social difficulty, this might present itself as anxiety, depression, and suicidality—those conditions are worthy of medicalization IMO.
I agree with what you're saying, but also - everyone has problems. Is anyone truly normal or neurotypical?
Why do some people's problems get the validation of the medical system and others don't?
(These are non-rhetorical questions, I'm really not sure about the answers to them myself)
(These are non-rhetorical questions, I'm really not sure about the answers to them myself)
Why do some people's problems get the validation of the medical system and others don't?
Very roughly, because some people can't function without intervention (for loose definitions of "function"). And some treatment (therapy, drugs, whatever) can help them function.
Autism 1/Aspergers is sometimes kind of borderline - some people can function with it, but it can exact a heavy tool on them as a sibling comment noted. Depress and suicide are relatively more common. Why go through life miserable if it's not necessary?
People without autism or other diagnosable issues are generally more resilient. a bad week, one-off negative occurrence, etc won't send them into a tailspin. That's a very real concern with some neurodivergent individuals.
And you do have to remember, it's all a spectrum. And as observers, we don't know what a person is feeling/thinking internally and not expressing.
Very roughly, because some people can't function without intervention (for loose definitions of "function"). And some treatment (therapy, drugs, whatever) can help them function.
Autism 1/Aspergers is sometimes kind of borderline - some people can function with it, but it can exact a heavy tool on them as a sibling comment noted. Depress and suicide are relatively more common. Why go through life miserable if it's not necessary?
People without autism or other diagnosable issues are generally more resilient. a bad week, one-off negative occurrence, etc won't send them into a tailspin. That's a very real concern with some neurodivergent individuals.
And you do have to remember, it's all a spectrum. And as observers, we don't know what a person is feeling/thinking internally and not expressing.
I asked this elsewhere but will ask this here - does calling people autistic and medicalising actually prevent misery, depression, and suicide?
This whole thought that autistic people who appear to have no problems are all secretly on the verge of not just burnout, but AUTISTIC burnout and will tailspin into the nether at any moment is a recent idea I have yet to see any actual evidence of other than self-report. The entire idea smacks of non-falsifiability to me.
This whole thought that autistic people who appear to have no problems are all secretly on the verge of not just burnout, but AUTISTIC burnout and will tailspin into the nether at any moment is a recent idea I have yet to see any actual evidence of other than self-report. The entire idea smacks of non-falsifiability to me.
Non-falsifiability on account of self-report is a pervasive problem in mental health. But just because something isn't falsifiable doesn't mean it isn't true.
If I told you I had to consciously monitor my tone of voice, and mannerisms, and level of eye contact to pass for normal, and had to silently drill these things in my mind before starting or joining a conversation, that I basically had to be like a method actor and get into character before speaking, what would you propose as a way to falsify or verify my claim?
You're right: it's non-falsifiable. And you'd be right to raise an eyebrow about the idea that keeping it up would lead to clinical depression. Doesn't mean it isn't true.
If I told you I had to consciously monitor my tone of voice, and mannerisms, and level of eye contact to pass for normal, and had to silently drill these things in my mind before starting or joining a conversation, that I basically had to be like a method actor and get into character before speaking, what would you propose as a way to falsify or verify my claim?
You're right: it's non-falsifiable. And you'd be right to raise an eyebrow about the idea that keeping it up would lead to clinical depression. Doesn't mean it isn't true.
I don’t think anybody has said AUTISTIC burnout is a thing. Certainly, I never did.
And having raised a “high functioning” autistic son, I definitely saw when interventions helped. And I also saw the struggles my son had that his coworkers would have just written off as “quirky”. Sadly, he stopped treatment, was overcome by those struggles, and took his own life, so at least for this sample of one, yes, the interventions help. Right up until they don’t any more.
And having raised a “high functioning” autistic son, I definitely saw when interventions helped. And I also saw the struggles my son had that his coworkers would have just written off as “quirky”. Sadly, he stopped treatment, was overcome by those struggles, and took his own life, so at least for this sample of one, yes, the interventions help. Right up until they don’t any more.
There is survivorship bias at play as well.
Theres people who go in and DONT get diagnosed with ASD, but get found out to be having other issues, ranging from endocrine to trauma.
The evidence for treatment is the improvement in quality of life for people who do manage to get help.
The control would be people whose challenges make their lives, and the lives of those around them, harder.
Theres people who go in and DONT get diagnosed with ASD, but get found out to be having other issues, ranging from endocrine to trauma.
The evidence for treatment is the improvement in quality of life for people who do manage to get help.
The control would be people whose challenges make their lives, and the lives of those around them, harder.
The literal survivorship bias is from those who've managed to not commit suicide.
> Is anyone truly normal or neurotypical
Yes. I get that your questions appear to be sincere and genuine, but, yes. Relative to the actual, demonstrable, neurological differences in connectivity and so forth in the “neurodivergent” brain, the overwhelming majority of people are “normal”. Relative to the actual lived experience of “neurodivergents”, the overwhelming majority of people are “normal”.
These kinds of questions are asked by people who simply don’t understand the enormity of the difference.
Much like people who don’t have aphantasia speaking to people who do. And so forth.
Yes. I get that your questions appear to be sincere and genuine, but, yes. Relative to the actual, demonstrable, neurological differences in connectivity and so forth in the “neurodivergent” brain, the overwhelming majority of people are “normal”. Relative to the actual lived experience of “neurodivergents”, the overwhelming majority of people are “normal”.
These kinds of questions are asked by people who simply don’t understand the enormity of the difference.
Much like people who don’t have aphantasia speaking to people who do. And so forth.
I'm pretty sure the majority of people on the internet who claim to be "neurodivergent" and/or have a diagnosis for some sort of ASD or ADHD do not show "actual, neurological differences in connectivity" though. For my little brothers it seemed like half the school suddenly had ADHD, mostly the kids who would in the past have been described as lazy, which I find hard to believe to be based on actual neurological differences.
> For my little brothers it seemed like half the school suddenly had ADHD
ADHD is simultaneously overdiagnosed and underdiagnosed; the case of your brothers' school could be the former, or correction of the latter (or both).
> mostly the kids who would in the past have been described as lazy, which I find hard to believe to be based on actual neurological differences
ADHD manifests as laziness to observers making snap judgements, so this actually tracks - turns out, some of the specific symptoms that, in the past, would make someone branded as lazy, are actually a disorder.
The problem with calling people lazy is that it's a moral judgement, which sometimes may be helpful as a form of corrective social pressure, but absolutely does not help when "laziness" is a result of a disorder like ADHD; it only makes them suffer that much more.
ADHD is simultaneously overdiagnosed and underdiagnosed; the case of your brothers' school could be the former, or correction of the latter (or both).
> mostly the kids who would in the past have been described as lazy, which I find hard to believe to be based on actual neurological differences
ADHD manifests as laziness to observers making snap judgements, so this actually tracks - turns out, some of the specific symptoms that, in the past, would make someone branded as lazy, are actually a disorder.
The problem with calling people lazy is that it's a moral judgement, which sometimes may be helpful as a form of corrective social pressure, but absolutely does not help when "laziness" is a result of a disorder like ADHD; it only makes them suffer that much more.
Much like people who don’t have aphantasia speaking to people who do. And so forth.
Aphantasia is one that I find extremely hard to wrap my head around. The notion that somebody who’s otherwise normal can’t visualize things is really interesting. I have a friend who has it. The only outward symptom is his dislike of fiction and most TV/movies (and you’d only notice that if you knew him fairly well).
Aphantasia is one that I find extremely hard to wrap my head around. The notion that somebody who’s otherwise normal can’t visualize things is really interesting. I have a friend who has it. The only outward symptom is his dislike of fiction and most TV/movies (and you’d only notice that if you knew him fairly well).
Reading about aphantasia was a trip. I couldn't even understand it at first, so curious if this condition fit me I looked up the test for diagnosing aphantasia which started describe scenes of a beach, now with a sunset, and so on, to which I was hopelessly lost because the responses seemed to suggest I should be "seeing" something. I could "imagine" a beach, and think about how wet sand feels and what waves sound like; but of course I couldn't "see" it, it was just imaginary. I had to read an essay from someone else with this condition discovering that other people do "see" things before I had my little spit-take moment.
I think I _used_ to be able to visualize things. I remember feeling frustrated when I was younger and did a more art because I could never imagine the same thing twice when I wanted to draw it. Every time I tried to think about about it, it would have a different pose or texture or orientation. But even then I think I just had a different "level" of aphantasia. I could never figure out how to use color. I kept to pens and lead pencils for art and couldn't get into painting. Even now, staring at a wall and thinking about repainting it, I cannot visualize it with any other color, much less two or three colors for trim and accents.
One of the advantages, perhaps, is that I don't need to close my eyes to imagine things. There's no point, there's nothing there. I may let my focus drift so I don't get distracted by shiny or moving things. But I can stare at a wall, or go for a hike or a run and just let my mind go wild.
That said, I do enjoy fiction, though I never really get "into" anything in particular. In light of this discovery, perhaps it is because I'm not really able to "visualize" scenes to recreate memorable moments, I can only really enjoy it in the moment and maybe recall a few quotes and descriptions, which are harder to get excited about.
I think I _used_ to be able to visualize things. I remember feeling frustrated when I was younger and did a more art because I could never imagine the same thing twice when I wanted to draw it. Every time I tried to think about about it, it would have a different pose or texture or orientation. But even then I think I just had a different "level" of aphantasia. I could never figure out how to use color. I kept to pens and lead pencils for art and couldn't get into painting. Even now, staring at a wall and thinking about repainting it, I cannot visualize it with any other color, much less two or three colors for trim and accents.
One of the advantages, perhaps, is that I don't need to close my eyes to imagine things. There's no point, there's nothing there. I may let my focus drift so I don't get distracted by shiny or moving things. But I can stare at a wall, or go for a hike or a run and just let my mind go wild.
That said, I do enjoy fiction, though I never really get "into" anything in particular. In light of this discovery, perhaps it is because I'm not really able to "visualize" scenes to recreate memorable moments, I can only really enjoy it in the moment and maybe recall a few quotes and descriptions, which are harder to get excited about.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> Why do some people's problems get the validation of the medical system and others don't?
Because there are effective forms of treatment available, but are gated by diagnosis because of $reasons. Validation of the medical system enables one to access those treatments, perhaps most important of which is being able to tell yourself, as well as others, that you're having an actual problem and are not "just lazy" or need to "just get yourself together", etc.
Because there are effective forms of treatment available, but are gated by diagnosis because of $reasons. Validation of the medical system enables one to access those treatments, perhaps most important of which is being able to tell yourself, as well as others, that you're having an actual problem and are not "just lazy" or need to "just get yourself together", etc.
I want a diagnosis of ADHD so I get free speed :)
I'm pretty sure that I would get a diagnosis of ADHD, because of my experience (in my youth) with amphetamines. Everyone else would be off their heads and I felt really focused and together (and could sleep!).
I don't think it's ever free anywhere in the world?
What forms of treatment are there for autism?
> Why do some people's problems get the validation of the medical system and others don't?
I'm going to give a pretty out-there answer for this: because they piss us off.
A problem is medicalized when the people who have that problem can no longer be ignored, either because the effects are so severe that their demands for treatment become loud on a societal level, or because the effects naturally bother other people.
We started treating HIV/AIDS only after years of the affected communities refusing to shut up about it.
We medicalize mental health issues because the people with them cause problems for the people without them. It is notable that many mental health conditions have names describing the experience of being around them rather than the experience of having them. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder feels like neither, but people around someone with ADHD get annoyed that they don't pay attention and move around a lot.
For another example, we still diagnose some children with "Oppositional Defiant Disorder".
I'm going to give a pretty out-there answer for this: because they piss us off.
A problem is medicalized when the people who have that problem can no longer be ignored, either because the effects are so severe that their demands for treatment become loud on a societal level, or because the effects naturally bother other people.
We started treating HIV/AIDS only after years of the affected communities refusing to shut up about it.
We medicalize mental health issues because the people with them cause problems for the people without them. It is notable that many mental health conditions have names describing the experience of being around them rather than the experience of having them. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder feels like neither, but people around someone with ADHD get annoyed that they don't pay attention and move around a lot.
For another example, we still diagnose some children with "Oppositional Defiant Disorder".
> [...] everyone has problems
They certainly do. And I don't think we can make meaningful comparisons between individuals in terms of their problems, how they struggle or suffer, etc. For me personally, I don't assume to have it any worse than anyone else, and I always assume that others have deep challenges that I won't ever know about.
> Is anyone truly normal or neurotypical?
Again, these concepts become strained when applied to individuals. It's like the family who has 1.5 children: they don't exist. These are ever-changing labels that we make use of within an extremely nebulous social process. I try to apply them only in well-defined contexts and then throw up my hands in the general case.
> Why do some people's problems get the validation of the medical system and others don't?
I have no idea; in my mind this question is trying to peer closely into the nebula.
They certainly do. And I don't think we can make meaningful comparisons between individuals in terms of their problems, how they struggle or suffer, etc. For me personally, I don't assume to have it any worse than anyone else, and I always assume that others have deep challenges that I won't ever know about.
> Is anyone truly normal or neurotypical?
Again, these concepts become strained when applied to individuals. It's like the family who has 1.5 children: they don't exist. These are ever-changing labels that we make use of within an extremely nebulous social process. I try to apply them only in well-defined contexts and then throw up my hands in the general case.
> Why do some people's problems get the validation of the medical system and others don't?
I have no idea; in my mind this question is trying to peer closely into the nebula.
Good thing I see no to negative evidence that autistic men actually mask. Autistic women I see more evidence for.
Also, saying "this deserves medicalisation" and throwing a label on people doesn't mean you're actually helping. Lets say somebody was masking - how would medicine help them?
Also, saying "this deserves medicalisation" and throwing a label on people doesn't mean you're actually helping. Lets say somebody was masking - how would medicine help them?
Did you ask autistic men or how did you come to that weird conclusion? They likely mask just as much as women, even if you may not notice from the outside (which is the point of masking).
I agree about medicine not really being the solution, though. If an environment requires masking all meds can do is suppress symptoms, at best.
I agree about medicine not really being the solution, though. If an environment requires masking all meds can do is suppress symptoms, at best.
CAT-Q survey results mostly, a screening tool designed to detect masking, and autistic men report masking a statistically insignificant less than neurotypical men. Autistic women report masking a statistically insignificant more than neurotypical women. But the women did report masking a significant amount more than the men.
Not strong evidence but what exactly is the evidence that autistics are going around masking far more than the average bear? Low social motivation is an old theory for the cause of autistic social behaviours which is a theory which would indicate less masking. I’ve heard all this mask mask mask talk over the last few years, but I haven’t seen any persuasive science.
I should also be clear - I’m not saying autistic men don’t mask, or don’t struggle with masking, I’m saying I can find no convincing evidence that autistic men as a group mask an unusual amount. The diagnostic criteria does not indicate masking as a symptom, just as a potential risk that may confuse diagnosis especially in women by making actual social deficits which actually get you diagnosed harder to detect but not impossible.
Not strong evidence but what exactly is the evidence that autistics are going around masking far more than the average bear? Low social motivation is an old theory for the cause of autistic social behaviours which is a theory which would indicate less masking. I’ve heard all this mask mask mask talk over the last few years, but I haven’t seen any persuasive science.
I should also be clear - I’m not saying autistic men don’t mask, or don’t struggle with masking, I’m saying I can find no convincing evidence that autistic men as a group mask an unusual amount. The diagnostic criteria does not indicate masking as a symptom, just as a potential risk that may confuse diagnosis especially in women by making actual social deficits which actually get you diagnosed harder to detect but not impossible.
A lot of the stuff I hear people describing as masking is stuff that a few decades ago would have been called professionalism, or manners, or charm, or empathy.
When I'm meeting with representatives of a client, and one of them makes a suggestion that I know won't work, and I refrain from instantly and publicly shooting down their idea and instead I make a show of considering it, then ask them a probing question or two that let them realise the problem with the idea themselves - am I masking? Or am I merely being professional?
When I see something worthy of a compliment and I rehearse it in my mind to make sure it isn't objectifying or creepy, and that it's personalised to them and shows I paid attention to and understood the thing I'm complimenting - am I masking? Or just being charming?
When I'm socialising with people who are talking about their struggles to lose weight, and I in many years going to the gym have struggled to gain weight or visible muscle, but I keep my mouth shut rather than trying to build rapport about our shared inability to reach our target weight because I've tried it and I know it doesn't work - am I masking? Or just showing a normal level of social skills and empathy?
When I'm meeting with representatives of a client, and one of them makes a suggestion that I know won't work, and I refrain from instantly and publicly shooting down their idea and instead I make a show of considering it, then ask them a probing question or two that let them realise the problem with the idea themselves - am I masking? Or am I merely being professional?
When I see something worthy of a compliment and I rehearse it in my mind to make sure it isn't objectifying or creepy, and that it's personalised to them and shows I paid attention to and understood the thing I'm complimenting - am I masking? Or just being charming?
When I'm socialising with people who are talking about their struggles to lose weight, and I in many years going to the gym have struggled to gain weight or visible muscle, but I keep my mouth shut rather than trying to build rapport about our shared inability to reach our target weight because I've tried it and I know it doesn't work - am I masking? Or just showing a normal level of social skills and empathy?
I think maybe you're misunderstanding what masking is. Masking isn't just not being an asshole. I'll give you some examples.
My face is usually flat, and my tone is usually monotone. Most people modulate their face and their tone naturally and don't have to think about it. When I socialize, I have to think about my face and my tone constantly. Yes everyone is doing this at some level, but for autistic people it takes as much effort as the thing the socializing is meant to accomplish, so that part cannot be enjoyed or suffers as a result of the intentional masking.
Another example is I have echolalia, which means sometimes I have an involuntary urge to repeat things that I heard earlier. I also have various tics where I move my body in wild ways that tend to make people uncomfortable or look at me in strange ways if I do them in public. When I'm socializing, I suppress (mask) all of these urges. I'm sure that most people suppress urges to move their body and make noises in public, but not in a way that autistic people suppress these urges -- again it comes down to it being a conscious effort that causes discomfort. I would compare it to having to sneeze for an entire meeting; all you are going to think about is having to sneeze, and the disruption you will cause if you sneeze and everyone will look at you. But it's not a simple sneeze, it's an action that everyone will talk about and gossip about later, something that will ostracize you.
Another thing I do when masking is more like mirroring. I'm constantly monitoring the situation to figure out how to respond, since I can't use the content of people's words I have to use contextual cues to figure out the appropriate way to respond. For instance I can know a joke is being told by the way someone is telling it, but I might not be able to tell you why it's funny based on the content. Still, I can laugh at the joke but I'm not laughing because I found it humorous, I'm laughing because I discerned the appropriate social place to laugh. And yes people laugh at jokes they don't understand all the time, but for me this extends to everything. I don't know when people are being mean to me, or flirting with me, or scamming me in real time. It takes days, sometimes years of reflection for me to figure out the actual social context of a situation I've been in.
I'm sure all this is true for many people, as I can't imagine socializing is easy for anyone. I do see people who can effortlessly talk with anyone and everyone, and I wonder how they do it, and if they face the same kinds of struggles as me when they go home and decompress. Do they stay awake all night replaying every social interaction from the night before? Do they have to spend days recharging before they can go socialize again? I don't know. But for me it's true to a degree where it makes me never want to go outside again. And that's what makes it a disorder instead of just a quirk or something everyone does.
My face is usually flat, and my tone is usually monotone. Most people modulate their face and their tone naturally and don't have to think about it. When I socialize, I have to think about my face and my tone constantly. Yes everyone is doing this at some level, but for autistic people it takes as much effort as the thing the socializing is meant to accomplish, so that part cannot be enjoyed or suffers as a result of the intentional masking.
Another example is I have echolalia, which means sometimes I have an involuntary urge to repeat things that I heard earlier. I also have various tics where I move my body in wild ways that tend to make people uncomfortable or look at me in strange ways if I do them in public. When I'm socializing, I suppress (mask) all of these urges. I'm sure that most people suppress urges to move their body and make noises in public, but not in a way that autistic people suppress these urges -- again it comes down to it being a conscious effort that causes discomfort. I would compare it to having to sneeze for an entire meeting; all you are going to think about is having to sneeze, and the disruption you will cause if you sneeze and everyone will look at you. But it's not a simple sneeze, it's an action that everyone will talk about and gossip about later, something that will ostracize you.
Another thing I do when masking is more like mirroring. I'm constantly monitoring the situation to figure out how to respond, since I can't use the content of people's words I have to use contextual cues to figure out the appropriate way to respond. For instance I can know a joke is being told by the way someone is telling it, but I might not be able to tell you why it's funny based on the content. Still, I can laugh at the joke but I'm not laughing because I found it humorous, I'm laughing because I discerned the appropriate social place to laugh. And yes people laugh at jokes they don't understand all the time, but for me this extends to everything. I don't know when people are being mean to me, or flirting with me, or scamming me in real time. It takes days, sometimes years of reflection for me to figure out the actual social context of a situation I've been in.
I'm sure all this is true for many people, as I can't imagine socializing is easy for anyone. I do see people who can effortlessly talk with anyone and everyone, and I wonder how they do it, and if they face the same kinds of struggles as me when they go home and decompress. Do they stay awake all night replaying every social interaction from the night before? Do they have to spend days recharging before they can go socialize again? I don't know. But for me it's true to a degree where it makes me never want to go outside again. And that's what makes it a disorder instead of just a quirk or something everyone does.
Thanks for sharing. A lot of this resonated with me.
It seems like a no-brainer to me. Women are more expected than men to exhibit emotional intelligence. To be understanding and supportive toward others and so on. A woman exhibiting autistic traits will be judged more negatively than a man, and so may feel more pressure to conceal them.
For instance, a woman who doesn't react in certain ways to someone's cute baby is some kind of child-hating alien monster.
The man who doesn't react in those ways is assumed to be wanting to do that, but actually masking in the other direction so as not to appear effeminate.
For instance, a woman who doesn't react in certain ways to someone's cute baby is some kind of child-hating alien monster.
The man who doesn't react in those ways is assumed to be wanting to do that, but actually masking in the other direction so as not to appear effeminate.
This reads kind of like “my parents hit me when I was younger and I turned out fine” though o highly doubt it’s your intention.
Just because things seemingly turned out OK doesn’t mean the treatment was appropriate. In the same way, just because someone manages to “get by” doesn’t mean they don’t need to be diagnosed. It’s just making their life needlessly more difficult whereas they could yave more resources that reduce the burden they have to live with every day.
Just knowing you have a diagnosis, regardless of whether or not you are treated, can be incredibly empowering and helpful. It isn’t a mystery why other people could sit down and study for three hours when I was in college and I couldn’t. I was diagnosed with ADHD, I knew where my blockers were and what they looked like (and continue to!) It gives me a lot more control and ability to manage myself day to day vs. assuming something is wrong with me. The latter feeling can be incredibly demoralizing and even lead to self-destructive tendencies such as a self-medicating with alcohol and drugs. After all: Why bother trying if you’re convinced you’re truly broken? It’s not something that has a name but that other people share this problem with you and manage is, again, incredibly empowering.
Just because things seemingly turned out OK doesn’t mean the treatment was appropriate. In the same way, just because someone manages to “get by” doesn’t mean they don’t need to be diagnosed. It’s just making their life needlessly more difficult whereas they could yave more resources that reduce the burden they have to live with every day.
Just knowing you have a diagnosis, regardless of whether or not you are treated, can be incredibly empowering and helpful. It isn’t a mystery why other people could sit down and study for three hours when I was in college and I couldn’t. I was diagnosed with ADHD, I knew where my blockers were and what they looked like (and continue to!) It gives me a lot more control and ability to manage myself day to day vs. assuming something is wrong with me. The latter feeling can be incredibly demoralizing and even lead to self-destructive tendencies such as a self-medicating with alcohol and drugs. After all: Why bother trying if you’re convinced you’re truly broken? It’s not something that has a name but that other people share this problem with you and manage is, again, incredibly empowering.
The anti-diagnosis attitude is surprising on a site like this. Everyone could do better with a better understanding of their own mind, whether it meets the criteria of a disorder or not. And with any kind of better understanding we need more and better categorizations.
A lot of people who post here meet the diagnostic criteria, and maybe they aren't ready to confront something new and scary about themselves. That's fine, it's something one needs to do when ready. Easier to say "That doesn't apply to me" if you're not ready to do the work; confronting an ASD diagnosis late in life is not an easy task.
What is "the work"?
Reframing your entire life.
It’s like a book where the main character who thought he was a doctor in the asylum finds out he was actually a patient the whole time. A mental health diagnosis forces you to go back and relive every moment with a different perspective.
Many people go through a prolonged period of skill loss/regression. I lost the ability to code for over a year. Took a long time to get to a mental place where that was possible again.
It’s like a book where the main character who thought he was a doctor in the asylum finds out he was actually a patient the whole time. A mental health diagnosis forces you to go back and relive every moment with a different perspective.
Many people go through a prolonged period of skill loss/regression. I lost the ability to code for over a year. Took a long time to get to a mental place where that was possible again.
Wow, this is fascinating! What stopped you coding? My assumption is that the reframing would mostly be positive. I can see how it would help to reframe some bad experiences with more understanding for both yourself and the other parties.
My ability to code is predicated on my ability to feel safe mentally and physically. What finding out I'm autistic did was kick out my legs from under me. Every time I sat down to code I couldn't. Like, I felt it was in me, but I couldn't get it out.
I used to code and commit to Github almost every day. My commit log is almost all green since 2018 when I started using Github, but if you look at the last year or so you can see where I just stopped and it goes dark.
Thankfully within the last 4 weeks or so I'm back to my normal self, so it was temporary, but I don't know what I would have done if my job had depended on my ability to code.
I used to code and commit to Github almost every day. My commit log is almost all green since 2018 when I started using Github, but if you look at the last year or so you can see where I just stopped and it goes dark.
Thankfully within the last 4 weeks or so I'm back to my normal self, so it was temporary, but I don't know what I would have done if my job had depended on my ability to code.
Carl Jung would suggest "shadow work" to integrate the parts of yourself that you have ignored / suppressed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_(psychology)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_(psychology)
> The anti-diagnosis attitude is surprising on a site like this.
Did you know, up until the 1970s, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder [1] by the psychiatric profession?
Can you understand why many homosexuals felt that they were just being themselves, and that them being themselves didn't warrant inclusion in a diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders?
With that thought in your mind, can you see how a happy and successful person who wasn't struggling in any way might feel similarly?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_DSM
Did you know, up until the 1970s, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder [1] by the psychiatric profession?
Can you understand why many homosexuals felt that they were just being themselves, and that them being themselves didn't warrant inclusion in a diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders?
With that thought in your mind, can you see how a happy and successful person who wasn't struggling in any way might feel similarly?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_DSM
The good news is that we eventually decided (mostly) that the solution to that "disorder" was not to try to fix the individual, but to fix the society around them.
Many autistic advocates are, in fact, advocating for improving society such that autism is no longer a major barrier to success. Until we have that, autistic people often require medical care.
It is perhaps important to also note the recent pushback against autism's equivalence of conversion therapy (ABA).
Many autistic advocates are, in fact, advocating for improving society such that autism is no longer a major barrier to success. Until we have that, autistic people often require medical care.
It is perhaps important to also note the recent pushback against autism's equivalence of conversion therapy (ABA).
I honestly do not think that’s a fair comparison to someone with something like depression.
LGBT people had been persecuted from so many angles for a long time, the tools used against them are incredibly varied. Just because mental health diagnoses were (and still are) used as a cudgel against them doesn’t mean the entire exercise of diagnosing should be called into question any more than somebody using a knife to stab somebody should call into question all of us keeping cutlery in our home.
LGBT people had been persecuted from so many angles for a long time, the tools used against them are incredibly varied. Just because mental health diagnoses were (and still are) used as a cudgel against them doesn’t mean the entire exercise of diagnosing should be called into question any more than somebody using a knife to stab somebody should call into question all of us keeping cutlery in our home.
I don't really accept the validity of people who are generally more functional and conventionally successful than average being called "disordered" in the first place. It seems like a weird arbitrary insistence of the medical system to simply pathologize anybody who fits into a certain box.
What about someone who needs a wheelchair but is conveniently successful?
If they seemingly successfully have walked around their entire lives - sure. But this seems like a off analogy
Being in a wheelchair is rarely going to be caused by a disorder, also autism is different insofar that the negatives and positives seem to be linked to eachother and are not merely a matter of random circumstance.
But practically, the disorder definition above basically would lump the above poster in with somebody who was struggling to hold down a part time job or any social relationships as having the same level of disability. All therapies, treatments, accomidations, etc will end up calibrated for the more profoundly disabled person while being offered to the above poster. Generally, peoples first impression of the person will understandably be based on that of the average person with autism spectrum disorder if they're told they're autistic which will cause them to be pretty profoundly misunderstood.
That's just my take on this.
But practically, the disorder definition above basically would lump the above poster in with somebody who was struggling to hold down a part time job or any social relationships as having the same level of disability. All therapies, treatments, accomidations, etc will end up calibrated for the more profoundly disabled person while being offered to the above poster. Generally, peoples first impression of the person will understandably be based on that of the average person with autism spectrum disorder if they're told they're autistic which will cause them to be pretty profoundly misunderstood.
That's just my take on this.
Your lack of knowledge about the range of treatment options and support available for autism/asperges does not make it true that all therapies, treatments, etc are the same. Your "take" seems to be very strongly held based on what appears to be a very limited set of anecdotal data points.
The disorder is how they affect their social surroundings. Everyone is on the spectrum and the disordered are having social problems.
Out of curiosity, given it is a spectrum, what's at the other end of "really" autisitc (if that's even the right word) or does that just go from 0 being "normal" to 1 being that "really"?
It sounds like what you are thinking of is a spectrum more in the sense of a range, where one end is "least" and the other "most". There was an interesting article[0] making the rounds a few years ago arguing that it's more like the color spectrum. While there is an underlying linear value to the color spectrum in the wavelength, you don't really talk about red being "more" of a color than blue just because it has longer wavelength. Instead, we talk about combining, and sometimes mixing, colors. The article author argue that the autism spectrum is like that; it's made up of individual traits that make a whole. As I understand it, diagnosis is in part looking at the number of those traits that a person exhibit. Severity would then be a perpendicular axis to the spectrum of traits.
[0] https://neuroclastic.com/its-a-spectrum-doesnt-mean-what-you...
[0] https://neuroclastic.com/its-a-spectrum-doesnt-mean-what-you...
[deleted]
[deleted]
The problem with this line of labeling is there are multiple possible “spectrums”. I’m not sure what the best visualization would be… Like a starburst, with the center being normal, and all possible disorders going away (except they can be combined, so this isn’t perfect either).
But, if you’re asking about the typical autistic inability to communicate with others, then yeah, 0-1 works as well as any. Just don’t take it as literal or as the only possible set of traits.
But, if you’re asking about the typical autistic inability to communicate with others, then yeah, 0-1 works as well as any. Just don’t take it as literal or as the only possible set of traits.
Light is a spectrum generated by emitting three colors at varying intensities. Autism might similarly be a spectrum generated by emitting some number of traits at varying intensities.
simply imagine a person as a unitary data cube (all dimensions between (0,1)) with all personality traits and disorders expressed as dimensions
… the question is, do you have the right embeddings? ;)
(/s, mostly)
… the question is, do you have the right embeddings? ;)
(/s, mostly)
It’s a spectrum because someone can be incredibly able to understand and relate to people, but completely unable to verbalize and communicate effectively. Conversely someone else can communicate just fine, but has major challenges in ‘modeling’, empathizing, or understanding the behaviors of others.
I think another comment said the opposite was schizophrenia.
I have no idea what that comment is talking about, the "opposite" of autism is not schizophrenia -- there's no "opposite" of autism and if there were it wouldn't be schizophrenia, I don't see how that possibly follows.
The were describing connections to the nervous system. Autism was at one end of the quantity of connections and schizophrenia was at the other end. I think it was this thread somewhere.
Yeah but we don't call people disordered for lacking the talents of these gainfully employed autistics, so it seems sort of arbitrary to me.
But would it be worse for the world if we could actually understand and identify things - and find treatments for - executive function failures like extreme laziness or trouble with timekeeping?
Or are the people who fail to hold down a job really just morally bad and of low character?
Was it better for people to just be "weird" or "creepy" or "freaks" instead of somewhere on the autism-spectrum?
The judgement of the behavior predated the diagnostic labels.
Or are the people who fail to hold down a job really just morally bad and of low character?
Was it better for people to just be "weird" or "creepy" or "freaks" instead of somewhere on the autism-spectrum?
The judgement of the behavior predated the diagnostic labels.
>Was it better for people to just be "weird" or "creepy" or "freaks" instead of somewhere on the autism-spectrum?
How has autism diagnosis stopped any of this from happening? People are absolutely unapologetic about calling autistic men creepy in particular.
How has autism diagnosis stopped any of this from happening? People are absolutely unapologetic about calling autistic men creepy in particular.
> How has autism diagnosis stopped any of this from happening? People are absolutely unapologetic about calling autistic men creepy in particular.
It hasn't stopped it completely but now you've got a LOT more resources available to use to do something about it. And there are many more who will say something like "hey, you should look into this stuff" instead of just simply shunning and shaming than there were 40 years ago. Especially when spotted in early childhood.
There are no magic bullets. The solution to not being called creepy is, in the end, not acting creepy, same as it ever was. But the diagnostic/psych world can help people find a path to get there. Many of us have been following it for a while now. Do I wish my parents and teachers had known what we know today? Abso-fucking-lutely. Could've started to learn to manage a lot earlier.
Recall the context here of the comparison to those "lacking the talents of these gainfully employed autistics". No shortage of bad names to call them either. Many fewer structured and well-studied support systems.
It hasn't stopped it completely but now you've got a LOT more resources available to use to do something about it. And there are many more who will say something like "hey, you should look into this stuff" instead of just simply shunning and shaming than there were 40 years ago. Especially when spotted in early childhood.
There are no magic bullets. The solution to not being called creepy is, in the end, not acting creepy, same as it ever was. But the diagnostic/psych world can help people find a path to get there. Many of us have been following it for a while now. Do I wish my parents and teachers had known what we know today? Abso-fucking-lutely. Could've started to learn to manage a lot earlier.
Recall the context here of the comparison to those "lacking the talents of these gainfully employed autistics". No shortage of bad names to call them either. Many fewer structured and well-studied support systems.
When I talk to autistic men there's often a huffy entitlement that being called creepy is a form of discrimination, since autism itself is seen as "Creepy" independent of any objectively or intentionally creepy behaviour, and spend their time self-victimising instead of thinking about how they could change to avoid creeping out others.
I see them get despondent that they have a disorder which means they can definitionally are socially impaired and always will be.
As for the parents and teachers causing kids to not be creepy, that mostly consists of them saying stuff like "mastrubrate in your room" and "don't tell strangers you want to have sex with them". There's not actually a competent make autistic people not creepy treatment that's in any way mainstream or widespread (Although if one existed I'd be all ears). If I had to suggest anything, it would be intensive immersion in social situations with neurologically typical people, which doesn't really take a diagnosis.
Like I just keep hearing these theories about how we need to diagnose people with autism to get them resources and treatment but I don't know what these things are. Honestly I see men getting into stuff like looksmaxxing stuff because they're convinced of stuff like their perceived "creepiness" being a result of them being ugly (evidence would support that ugly people are seen as more creepy), and at least something like plastic surgery offers them an evidence-based method to reduce perceived creepiness - which is something the medical system DOES NOT COMPETENTLY OFFER despite the medical system also telling them that they have social deficits. I think the neurosis's being caused by labelling and reification are already doing damage.
I think the thing that bothers me most about autism spectrum disorder is it's seen as a sort of life sentence which involves impairments which by definition are lifetime and you can never overcome, and if you fit these boxes, even if you have no significant problems, you're some successful married computer programmer, you are just fucked for life! Yet when I look at the actual research, I see children going from being clinically diagnosable with a disorder to sub-clinical all the time in followup studies. Yet all we really care about is getting MORE people diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, as in, it should be our goal to have MORE people labelled as being impaired instead of LESS people because we did such a good job resolving their impairments and making them independent that they no longer had any significant difficulties or need for support or a "disorder" label anymore. Being disordered has become a fucking identity where the more people who have the identity the more we are saving people.
I see them get despondent that they have a disorder which means they can definitionally are socially impaired and always will be.
As for the parents and teachers causing kids to not be creepy, that mostly consists of them saying stuff like "mastrubrate in your room" and "don't tell strangers you want to have sex with them". There's not actually a competent make autistic people not creepy treatment that's in any way mainstream or widespread (Although if one existed I'd be all ears). If I had to suggest anything, it would be intensive immersion in social situations with neurologically typical people, which doesn't really take a diagnosis.
Like I just keep hearing these theories about how we need to diagnose people with autism to get them resources and treatment but I don't know what these things are. Honestly I see men getting into stuff like looksmaxxing stuff because they're convinced of stuff like their perceived "creepiness" being a result of them being ugly (evidence would support that ugly people are seen as more creepy), and at least something like plastic surgery offers them an evidence-based method to reduce perceived creepiness - which is something the medical system DOES NOT COMPETENTLY OFFER despite the medical system also telling them that they have social deficits. I think the neurosis's being caused by labelling and reification are already doing damage.
I think the thing that bothers me most about autism spectrum disorder is it's seen as a sort of life sentence which involves impairments which by definition are lifetime and you can never overcome, and if you fit these boxes, even if you have no significant problems, you're some successful married computer programmer, you are just fucked for life! Yet when I look at the actual research, I see children going from being clinically diagnosable with a disorder to sub-clinical all the time in followup studies. Yet all we really care about is getting MORE people diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, as in, it should be our goal to have MORE people labelled as being impaired instead of LESS people because we did such a good job resolving their impairments and making them independent that they no longer had any significant difficulties or need for support or a "disorder" label anymore. Being disordered has become a fucking identity where the more people who have the identity the more we are saving people.
[deleted]
I think the behavior is called disordered not the person exhibiting them. Many of the disordered behaviors can be transient.
I'm glad you aren't a, diagnostician with that bias!
Human brains are complicated. Many psychological disorders we have little hard science to understand them with. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist, and much more importantly, that a diagnosis is useful in improving someone’s situation.
>That doesn’t mean they don’t exist, and much more importantly, that a diagnosis is useful in improving someone’s situation.
Show me the actual proof of this. For something so at the core of modern clinical practice, the utility of diagnosis itself is taken for granted rather than actually proven.
Show me the actual proof of this. For something so at the core of modern clinical practice, the utility of diagnosis itself is taken for granted rather than actually proven.
I don't think you actually understand modern clinical practice. We are surely better than where we were at in the middle ages with leaches and stuff, but there is still a lot of practice and experimentation to see what works and what doesn't, just evidence without hard proof.
> the utility of diagnosis itself is taken for granted rather than actually proven.
Given the topic of autism, I'm not sure if you are trying to be sarcastic or not.
> the utility of diagnosis itself is taken for granted rather than actually proven.
Given the topic of autism, I'm not sure if you are trying to be sarcastic or not.
>We are surely better than where we were at in the middle ages with leaches and stuff, but there is still a lot of practice and experimentation to see what works and what doesn't, just evidence without hard proof.
Here's a question for you. When is the last time mental health outcomes improved in a way which could not simply be the result of reporting differences?
I would say the last time was around the year 2000, when suicide and drug addiction were at all time lows. Every single chance since then, on aggregate, has been useless and the entire field of mental health has completely failed to produce any evidence it has advance an inch this millennium which is absolutely fucking scandalous. I don't know how much oncology improved in the same period of time. Also if you include reported mental health data, people report WORSE mental health now than they did in the past.
Given that, I see pretty much zero reason why the status quo today does a lick to improve people mental health better than the status quo back then. I am just dead stupidly sceptical of diagnosis (at least beyond 2000/DSM-IV levels) as being a source of mental health because not only is it not proven people don't even attempt to prove this.
When the DSM-V was released, the director of the NIMH started the RDOC for research which was nominally supposed to do studies based less on categories like "autism" and more on underlying biological phenomenon, trashed the idea of symptom based diagnosis pointing out it has largely been depreciated elsewhere in medicine, and suggested we might have to get rid of the words schizophrenia and depression because they were confusing things. I think about such things occasionally and wonder if the entire diagnostic nosology we have is basically a fatally flawed system.
So my essential objection is, why medicalise people's identities if there's no evidence it's improving people's outcomes?
Here's a question for you. When is the last time mental health outcomes improved in a way which could not simply be the result of reporting differences?
I would say the last time was around the year 2000, when suicide and drug addiction were at all time lows. Every single chance since then, on aggregate, has been useless and the entire field of mental health has completely failed to produce any evidence it has advance an inch this millennium which is absolutely fucking scandalous. I don't know how much oncology improved in the same period of time. Also if you include reported mental health data, people report WORSE mental health now than they did in the past.
Given that, I see pretty much zero reason why the status quo today does a lick to improve people mental health better than the status quo back then. I am just dead stupidly sceptical of diagnosis (at least beyond 2000/DSM-IV levels) as being a source of mental health because not only is it not proven people don't even attempt to prove this.
When the DSM-V was released, the director of the NIMH started the RDOC for research which was nominally supposed to do studies based less on categories like "autism" and more on underlying biological phenomenon, trashed the idea of symptom based diagnosis pointing out it has largely been depreciated elsewhere in medicine, and suggested we might have to get rid of the words schizophrenia and depression because they were confusing things. I think about such things occasionally and wonder if the entire diagnostic nosology we have is basically a fatally flawed system.
So my essential objection is, why medicalise people's identities if there's no evidence it's improving people's outcomes?
> So my essential objection is, why medicalise people's identities if there's no evidence it's improving people's outcomes?
20 years in a time of massive social changes? Would it really happen all so quickly? There are million things that could be making things worse. Heck, it could be case that without these treatments it'd be even worse. I don't know if that's true or not, but I'm saying consider the wider environment in which this is all happening.
It's impossible to really be sure either way. Maybe it's all garbage, maybe not. but make sure you're at least trying to look at the whole picture.
20 years in a time of massive social changes? Would it really happen all so quickly? There are million things that could be making things worse. Heck, it could be case that without these treatments it'd be even worse. I don't know if that's true or not, but I'm saying consider the wider environment in which this is all happening.
It's impossible to really be sure either way. Maybe it's all garbage, maybe not. but make sure you're at least trying to look at the whole picture.
brains are complicated but so is behavior. maybe the second is more complicated due to unpredictability.
> you're able to build and maintain relationships, as well hold conversations with strangers or non-close acquaintances when necessary
The traits you are describing here and autism don’t exclude each other. Many autists live well. Some Fortune 500 founders and/or CEOs are autistic. I’m tempted to conclude you are projecting a stereotype, but I might be reading too much into your post.
The traits you are describing here and autism don’t exclude each other. Many autists live well. Some Fortune 500 founders and/or CEOs are autistic. I’m tempted to conclude you are projecting a stereotype, but I might be reading too much into your post.
This is like saying that you can't have a physical ailment unless you're bedridden.
Are you aware that ASD isn't purely psychosocial?
Yes I'm aware that it's understood to be neurological condition.
But it's diagnosed based on behavioral observations, it's not like people get diagnosed with ASD based on brain scans like you would for MS or parkinsons.
But it's diagnosed based on behavioral observations, it's not like people get diagnosed with ASD based on brain scans like you would for MS or parkinsons.
Somewhat off topic - I'm curious if the diagnosis has helped in any way. I'm early 40s and have gone so far as taking an online test for autism where I scored very high.
I've thought of being tested by a doctor but always think "What's the point? How is it going to help knowing?" so I'm curious as someone also well into adulthood if you've had any impact from knowing.
I'm also married and am able to keep a job and function relatively well even though I'm not the most sociable person.
I've thought of being tested by a doctor but always think "What's the point? How is it going to help knowing?" so I'm curious as someone also well into adulthood if you've had any impact from knowing.
I'm also married and am able to keep a job and function relatively well even though I'm not the most sociable person.
I was never under any presupposition the problem was mine. Even when I act as normal as possible I still get rejection. It was always others. Fortunately I occupy a financial situation where that does not matter anymore. Embracing the weird nerd is better than trying to conform and not succeeding or being inauthentic.
> my wife (Dr of special education) finally convinced me to talk to a Dr and get get tested for autism. Turns out I'm ASD 1, would have been Asperger's in the past.
Can I ask candidly, what did you gain from knowing this? Presumably this didn't have much effect on you, since you seem to be fairly successful - finding a partner and getting married and presumably also having a decent job.
Seems kind of like a vanity validation for your wife rather than a benefit to you.
Can I ask candidly, what did you gain from knowing this? Presumably this didn't have much effect on you, since you seem to be fairly successful - finding a partner and getting married and presumably also having a decent job.
Seems kind of like a vanity validation for your wife rather than a benefit to you.
For me it helped change some of the approaches I take with my therapist. I also have sever clinical depression. It's also helped me relate to other people and understand why people have an easier time with seemingly basic things, like speaking to a group of people or just being at a table where multiple people are having conversations and I get overwhelmed and can't follow what's going on.
For instance, I spend a lot of time scripting conversations and I've found if I don't do this it will have a meaningful negative impact on my ability to communicate with people. Almost like if I don't practice setting up the path between a concept and the words, then when I need to talk to other people that connection doesn't exist and I just can't put things to words.
For instance, I spend a lot of time scripting conversations and I've found if I don't do this it will have a meaningful negative impact on my ability to communicate with people. Almost like if I don't practice setting up the path between a concept and the words, then when I need to talk to other people that connection doesn't exist and I just can't put things to words.
It can help reframe personal experiences and past struggles for one, but it can also help gain access to support that isn't available if you're just a "weird nerd". It can also serve to legitimize your struggles to people who think you just need to "stop being so lazy" at whatever you genuinely struggle with by being able to point at a diagnosis.
Yeah, the benefits are a mixed bag and subjective but that's why we should normalize self-dx rather than insisting people have to get a medical opinion to be "validated".
Yeah, the benefits are a mixed bag and subjective but that's why we should normalize self-dx rather than insisting people have to get a medical opinion to be "validated".
As of recently[1], in Australia, an ASD diagnosis is a reportable condition that may affect your driving ability and therefore comes with an AU$9000 fine if you don't disclose it to the authorities. Though I suspect I might be ASD 1, there is now no way I would seek a diagnosis.
[1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-26/national-fitness-to-d...
[1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-26/national-fitness-to-d...
That is fair and personally I would argue that you should not comply with an unjust law like that (how's that for a "strong sense of justice" in autistic people?) but of course it's safer to avoid the legal risk of non-compliance by simply avoiding the diagnosis if it doesn't benefit you.
Frankly, the law doesn't make sense given that ASD is not a "medical condition" in the sense of being temporary or avoidable and the act of passing driver's ed and attaining a driver's license demonstrates your driving ability. If you were undiagnosed prior to attaining a driver's license, it clearly did not impact your ability. If you were diagnosed and attained a driver's license without disclosing your "condition" it clearly did not impact you either. It feels more like ASD is being used as a proxy for some other condition (learning disability?) that is not usually diagnosed directly.
IMO anyone fined for non-disclosure should try to take the case to whatever the Australian equivalent of the Supreme Court is. Surely some NGO must be willing to foot the bill.
Frankly, the law doesn't make sense given that ASD is not a "medical condition" in the sense of being temporary or avoidable and the act of passing driver's ed and attaining a driver's license demonstrates your driving ability. If you were undiagnosed prior to attaining a driver's license, it clearly did not impact your ability. If you were diagnosed and attained a driver's license without disclosing your "condition" it clearly did not impact you either. It feels more like ASD is being used as a proxy for some other condition (learning disability?) that is not usually diagnosed directly.
IMO anyone fined for non-disclosure should try to take the case to whatever the Australian equivalent of the Supreme Court is. Surely some NGO must be willing to foot the bill.
Not quite - as of more than a decade ago in Queensland, but nobody noticed until recently, when it became a reportable condition in some other states with a possible $500 fine.
The article literally reads:
> I recently argued that many Weird Nerds (I called them autistics, but people really hated that)
These are the same thing. The author recognizes that. Everyone recognizes that.
> I recently argued that many Weird Nerds (I called them autistics, but people really hated that)
These are the same thing. The author recognizes that. Everyone recognizes that.
They are not the same thing. Not all weird nerds have autism, and not all people with autism are weird nerds.
Do you think that receiving this diagnosis increased or decreased your happiness?
[deleted]
I'm very weird, but whatever I am is rare (or harmless) enough to not be commonly discussed or have a well known group identity the way autism does — I've done online tests for a bunch of psychological conditions, including autism, and all of them rate me as absolutely normal.
But I draw my ingroup/outgroup boundary broadly enough to include all non-sociopathic humans and several other species; I have zero motivation towards spectator sport; music only holds my interest for a few plays and then bores me; I can "visualise" my sense of balance strongly enough to completely override my actual sense of which way is down; my body self-image is almost entirely under conscious control (as in: I can't be body-dysmorphic because I don't have a consistent morph to dis).
But I draw my ingroup/outgroup boundary broadly enough to include all non-sociopathic humans and several other species; I have zero motivation towards spectator sport; music only holds my interest for a few plays and then bores me; I can "visualise" my sense of balance strongly enough to completely override my actual sense of which way is down; my body self-image is almost entirely under conscious control (as in: I can't be body-dysmorphic because I don't have a consistent morph to dis).
Mental illness is somewhat linked to creative productivity, sadly. Bipolar disorder is somewhat overrepresented in highly-accomplished musicians, artists, and writers (with the trend going as far back as the 1800s).
It would not surprise me if ASD is overrepresented in scientists and engineers.
However, people also imitate their tribe, and seeing "weird nerds" with mental illness may get other nerds to emulate that behavior without actually being mentally ill.
It would not surprise me if ASD is overrepresented in scientists and engineers.
However, people also imitate their tribe, and seeing "weird nerds" with mental illness may get other nerds to emulate that behavior without actually being mentally ill.
Or plain just getting away with shitty behavior. Uncle Rick's a raging asshole and we still accept him as part of the family, which means so can I.
Usually people with an uncle Rick don’t want to become like him and are actually more self aware.
People suffering uncle Rick, of course.
But when it's some famous "difficult" person like Jobs or Gates, or in fiction like Doctor House, the version of them that we see is idealized.
Actually this is the exact counterpoint of TFA: using the inexistent genius as an excuse for the trade-off. Imitating the genius is more difficult than just being a jerk.
But when it's some famous "difficult" person like Jobs or Gates, or in fiction like Doctor House, the version of them that we see is idealized.
Actually this is the exact counterpoint of TFA: using the inexistent genius as an excuse for the trade-off. Imitating the genius is more difficult than just being a jerk.
House is an interesting example. He wasn't an asshole because of his genius. He was like that because of chronic pain. And I actually have experienced that myself due to degenerative disc disorder. It is definitely not something you want to emulate. It is actually pretty terrible feeling like your emotions happen only in extremes due to reasons you can't do anything about, being able to step outside of yourself after the fact and see that you are needlessly hurting people you care about, but even knowing that, you can't stop it from happening in the moment.
Kerr Avon was always more popular than Roj Blake on the BBC show Blake's 7, so I guess there is a point to that.
Except (young?) people are idiots and mistakenly think the bad behavior is the source of the genius rather than just hitching a ride.
Except when it is, which was the actual point here (or maybe stating it more directly). Or maybe it's the other way around (see, e.g. uncle Rick); either way, there seems to be some correlation there.
I imagine that every asshole genius will have plenty of sharp edges in their behavior that they could round off very easily, making it a near-free win for their relationships (and overall success in life). Beyond that, however, it feels likely to me that making them focus - intellectually, emotionally, or both - on being more socially acceptable, eats directly into the focus they have for the things they're genius at, and disproportionally so.
I imagine that every asshole genius will have plenty of sharp edges in their behavior that they could round off very easily, making it a near-free win for their relationships (and overall success in life). Beyond that, however, it feels likely to me that making them focus - intellectually, emotionally, or both - on being more socially acceptable, eats directly into the focus they have for the things they're genius at, and disproportionally so.
Genius and asshole tend to go together because to be noticed as a genius you can’t just be doing what everyone around you is doing. People with a high IQ who just go with the flow do not stand out as genius. The noteworthy part of genius is the things they do that are different. Being different means rejecting what everyone around you is doing. Having a personality where you reject what everyone around you is doing usually earns you the label of… asshole.
Pretty sure the weird nerds the article is talking about are not the type of people that are looking at their “tribe” trying to figure out what to imitate next in order to maintain or increase their social status. They’re Weird because they pay no attention to those fads and eschew social effort in favour of dedicating the largest portion of their time to their passion. They tend to be idiosyncratic in the extreme because they aren’t constantly synchronizing their behaviour with society at large. But maybe you’re right that there are people in science and engineering that put on those trappings as a way of blending in. I think the article is arguing that the balance of poseurs is increasing and that of the genuine article decreasing.
The line you draw between "weirdness" and "neurodivergence" is interesting.
Would neurodivergence have to be native (so, not grown "naturally") and at which point does weirdness fit on the spectrum ?
Recently I think people are more receptive to lower degrees of neurodivergence. I see it the same way people understand that you have a gradation between having difficulties climbing stairs and not being able to walk. We could probably have it more in the open that many are not full blown clinically diagnosed ASD patients, and I wouldn't see it as an issue to have "false positives" of diversity lumped into neurodivergence if it was destigmatized.
Would neurodivergence have to be native (so, not grown "naturally") and at which point does weirdness fit on the spectrum ?
Recently I think people are more receptive to lower degrees of neurodivergence. I see it the same way people understand that you have a gradation between having difficulties climbing stairs and not being able to walk. We could probably have it more in the open that many are not full blown clinically diagnosed ASD patients, and I wouldn't see it as an issue to have "false positives" of diversity lumped into neurodivergence if it was destigmatized.
At some point the question is “why?”. We can keep atomizing human variability into smaller, more graduated buckets of neurodivergence, but what’s the point, esp. for those that don’t really suffer negative impacts, and for which there isn’t really any remedy besides acceptance?
My guess is to try to improve human relationships. Trying to understand why someone has consistent surprising/inappropriate reactions might help. The flip side is someone who consistently seems to be surprised by how people are reacting to them and wants better connections.
I do know that people do not like me. Don't get me wrong, my coworkers all get along with me and I think most enjoy working with me but in general people outside of work don't want to be around me. Hell I couldn't even keep my wife interested enough to stick with me.
So how could we study what makes me turn off other people and have it make a difference in my life? It is unlikely that I would be able to change myself and there is almost zero chance that whatever it is about me that disgusts others will change their natural reaction.
In addition, I am not sure that this isn't how things are supposed to be. This may be part of social evolution that just makes the world tick.
I would prefer we stop classifying people and just let them be who/what they are without pointing fingers at them.
So how could we study what makes me turn off other people and have it make a difference in my life? It is unlikely that I would be able to change myself and there is almost zero chance that whatever it is about me that disgusts others will change their natural reaction.
In addition, I am not sure that this isn't how things are supposed to be. This may be part of social evolution that just makes the world tick.
I would prefer we stop classifying people and just let them be who/what they are without pointing fingers at them.
It’s all about realistic introspection. People with a disorder often prefer the disorder to change. I think it is a personal decision. If one feels the need to be closer/understand an individual or is not satisfied with the quality of their human relationships than understanding personalities including one’s own can help.
> So how could we study what makes me turn off other people and have it make a difference in my life? It is unlikely that I would be able to change myself and there is almost zero chance that whatever it is about me that disgusts others will change their natural reaction.
Highly unlikely, but you didn't rule it out completely. Plus there are others who also might be able to change.
Highly unlikely, but you didn't rule it out completely. Plus there are others who also might be able to change.
Maybe this will be an unpopular opinion, but hear me out: it is the video platforms like YouTube, TikTok, etc. Before these platforms, it was relatively difficult to find videos of "ordinary" people in everyday situations. Sure there was funniest home videos and other carefully curated channels, but now it is easy. And with consumption of these videos comes the desire for a vocabulary to classify and describe them. Like how food is spicy or sweet and has different ethnic styles, or music has a tangled mess of genres and substyles, the teenagers of today are developing a classification of (videos of) human behavior. And part of this is non-neurotypical behavior - I don't know why, I haven't really investigated this, but it is clear that some (a lot?) of people enjoy watching content from autistic people, ADHD people, etc. For them, or at least the ML algorithms that feed them content, it is a genre like any other, and in the incestuous cycle of hunting for views, whether the origin was man or machine, at this point it has become branding.
What I'm not clear on is whether this translates to better real-world interactions. Certainly, it raises awareness of the conditions, but just watching a video does not necessarily lead to smooth conversation. Generally meetings with famous actors are pretty awkward and it is even less clear to me that someone who watches ADHD videos would necessarily enjoy meeting an ADHD person irl, particularly one that doesn't make engaging videos with millions of views.
What I'm not clear on is whether this translates to better real-world interactions. Certainly, it raises awareness of the conditions, but just watching a video does not necessarily lead to smooth conversation. Generally meetings with famous actors are pretty awkward and it is even less clear to me that someone who watches ADHD videos would necessarily enjoy meeting an ADHD person irl, particularly one that doesn't make engaging videos with millions of views.
so that people can identify themselves as being part of a group, and then find others who are also part of that group, just to have a community for support. if I want to find a group of left handed pansexuals who are into Pokemon Go, the Internet facilitates finding your exact flock.
Seems to me like enabling further segregating people would be a negative thing. Eventually groups become so isolated that conflict is inevitable
There is a mean trick to make people stop pushing their own group identity. Refer to them as their group identity instead of by their name.
Just a guess here - but to make diagnosed people feel more included and part of a group, the more people get diagnosed even if it's 0.01%, the more safe the others feel because they're not alone, it stops being a stigma
> but to make diagnosed people feel more included and part of a group, the more people get diagnosed even if it's 0.01%, the more safe the others feel because they're not alone,
I've worked with younger people in tech. I'm seeing a mix of effects, positive and negative, from increased diagnosis rates.
On the plus side, some people are using their diagnoses to find helpful support material, techniques, and advice.
On the negative side, some people get a diagnosis and then try to use it as an excuse for every personality trait they can fit under the umbrella of that diagnosis.
It's really difficult as a mentor to have to explain to someone that their diagnosis of anxiety or ADHD or autism doesn't give them a free pass in society for all of the things they struggle with.
I've had to explain to numerous people that having an ADHD diagnosis doesn't, for example, exempt them from the same performance review standards as their peers at work. This can be difficult to acceptance for someone who was given extra time on tests and possibly more leniency on assignments throughout high school and college due to their diagnosis. The educational institutions meant well, but the students took the wrong message from their accommodations and assumed it was always the world's responsibility to bend to their personal quirks rather than the other way around. Teaching people that their diagnosis is, to be blunt, not other people's problem is a difficult hurdle to clear for some. Many others get it right away, of course, but the internet rhetoric about neurodivergence leads a lot of people in the wrong direction.
I've worked with younger people in tech. I'm seeing a mix of effects, positive and negative, from increased diagnosis rates.
On the plus side, some people are using their diagnoses to find helpful support material, techniques, and advice.
On the negative side, some people get a diagnosis and then try to use it as an excuse for every personality trait they can fit under the umbrella of that diagnosis.
It's really difficult as a mentor to have to explain to someone that their diagnosis of anxiety or ADHD or autism doesn't give them a free pass in society for all of the things they struggle with.
I've had to explain to numerous people that having an ADHD diagnosis doesn't, for example, exempt them from the same performance review standards as their peers at work. This can be difficult to acceptance for someone who was given extra time on tests and possibly more leniency on assignments throughout high school and college due to their diagnosis. The educational institutions meant well, but the students took the wrong message from their accommodations and assumed it was always the world's responsibility to bend to their personal quirks rather than the other way around. Teaching people that their diagnosis is, to be blunt, not other people's problem is a difficult hurdle to clear for some. Many others get it right away, of course, but the internet rhetoric about neurodivergence leads a lot of people in the wrong direction.
> I've had to explain to numerous people that having an ADHD diagnosis doesn't, for example, exempt them from the same performance review standards as their peers at work.
I can’t speak for you, but that isn’t at all accurate as far as I know. I myself would not say these kinds of things to a coworker, and definitely not to a subordinate one or one that reports to me, as I don’t work in HR or legal department, and I’m not intimately familiar with actual existing accommodations for ADHD and other conditions under the FMLA and other disability discrimination laws and regulations in the US or other countries.
This is a legal minefield and accident waiting to happen. Tread lightly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_and_Medical_Leave_Act_o...
I can’t speak for you, but that isn’t at all accurate as far as I know. I myself would not say these kinds of things to a coworker, and definitely not to a subordinate one or one that reports to me, as I don’t work in HR or legal department, and I’m not intimately familiar with actual existing accommodations for ADHD and other conditions under the FMLA and other disability discrimination laws and regulations in the US or other countries.
This is a legal minefield and accident waiting to happen. Tread lightly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_and_Medical_Leave_Act_o...
> I can’t speak for you, but that isn’t at all accurate as far as I know.
> I’m not intimately familiar with actual existing accommodations for ADHD and other conditions under the FMLA and other disability discrimination laws and regulations in the US or other countries.
Why are you saying it's inaccurate if you don't understand the laws and regulations?
The FMLA that you cited and linked is for emergency medical leave, not for ADHD accommodations.
You're also making a mistake that I see a lot: Getting an ADHD diagnosis is not the same as having a disability. It is possible to qualify as having a disability due to an ADHD diagnosis, but it's a substantially more difficult standard to achieve and prove. The average ADHD patient will not and cannot qualify as being disabled due to ADHD.
This is exactly what I was talking about: There has been an explosion of over-confident opinions about how ADHD and other mental health conditions intersect the workplace that have no basis in reality. The amount of incorrect ADHD information circulating on places like Reddit and TikTok is leading people in the wrong direction in large numbers.
> I’m not intimately familiar with actual existing accommodations for ADHD and other conditions under the FMLA and other disability discrimination laws and regulations in the US or other countries.
Why are you saying it's inaccurate if you don't understand the laws and regulations?
The FMLA that you cited and linked is for emergency medical leave, not for ADHD accommodations.
You're also making a mistake that I see a lot: Getting an ADHD diagnosis is not the same as having a disability. It is possible to qualify as having a disability due to an ADHD diagnosis, but it's a substantially more difficult standard to achieve and prove. The average ADHD patient will not and cannot qualify as being disabled due to ADHD.
This is exactly what I was talking about: There has been an explosion of over-confident opinions about how ADHD and other mental health conditions intersect the workplace that have no basis in reality. The amount of incorrect ADHD information circulating on places like Reddit and TikTok is leading people in the wrong direction in large numbers.
> Why are you saying it's inaccurate if you don't understand the laws and regulations?
I didn’t say I wasn’t familiar with them, I said I wasn’t intimately familiar with them.
> The FMLA that you cited and linked is for emergency medical leave, not for ADHD accommodations.
It’s about more than that, but that’s neither here nor there.
Needing to take time off regularly, irregularly, as needed, or working less than full-time at an ostensibly full-time job due to a medical condition that may or may not be a disability are accommodations that would fall under FMLA, and it would be a factor in someone being unable to meet otherwise-reasonable standards or expectations. The FMLA applies even if your medical condition isn’t considered a disability, for that matter.
That’s specifically why I said that I’m not speaking for you, because I don’t know what you know or don’t know, nor do I know what jurisdiction you operate in, but I know enough to not advise others about how to speak about coworkers’ medical issues - I just don’t do it! I don’t speak about coworkers’ medical issues, because it’s none of my business, and it’s a poor use of my time, their time, and the company’s time. It’s also not in my job description to comment on my coworkers’ medical issues.
I’d be happy to discuss this further and read any resources you may have on this subject, though. I don’t claim to be an expert, and I am amenable to reason.
I didn’t say I wasn’t familiar with them, I said I wasn’t intimately familiar with them.
> The FMLA that you cited and linked is for emergency medical leave, not for ADHD accommodations.
It’s about more than that, but that’s neither here nor there.
Needing to take time off regularly, irregularly, as needed, or working less than full-time at an ostensibly full-time job due to a medical condition that may or may not be a disability are accommodations that would fall under FMLA, and it would be a factor in someone being unable to meet otherwise-reasonable standards or expectations. The FMLA applies even if your medical condition isn’t considered a disability, for that matter.
That’s specifically why I said that I’m not speaking for you, because I don’t know what you know or don’t know, nor do I know what jurisdiction you operate in, but I know enough to not advise others about how to speak about coworkers’ medical issues - I just don’t do it! I don’t speak about coworkers’ medical issues, because it’s none of my business, and it’s a poor use of my time, their time, and the company’s time. It’s also not in my job description to comment on my coworkers’ medical issues.
I’d be happy to discuss this further and read any resources you may have on this subject, though. I don’t claim to be an expert, and I am amenable to reason.
> and read any resources you may have on this subject,
If anything, I'd suggest reading up on the details of FMLA.
FMLA is not, for example, a free pass to take time off as needed, or regularly.
The wording of FMLA is more about recovering from an illness. Someone who routinely becomes overwhelmed with work and needs extra time off is going to have a hard time arguing that it's actually FMLA protected leave.. FMLA will specifically exclude things like taking time off for routine medical care, because it's specifically not for those purposes.
If anything, I'd suggest reading up on the details of FMLA.
FMLA is not, for example, a free pass to take time off as needed, or regularly.
The wording of FMLA is more about recovering from an illness. Someone who routinely becomes overwhelmed with work and needs extra time off is going to have a hard time arguing that it's actually FMLA protected leave.. FMLA will specifically exclude things like taking time off for routine medical care, because it's specifically not for those purposes.
> FMLA will specifically exclude things like taking time off for routine medical care, because it's specifically not for those purposes.
I am going to have to disagree with you there: continuing care and mental health days are covered under the FMLA as I read it.
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/28o-mental-heal...
> LEAVE FOR MENTAL HEALTH CONDITIONS UNDER THE FMLA
> An eligible employee may take FMLA leave for their own serious health condition, or to care for a spouse, child, or parent because of a serious health condition. A serious health condition can include a mental health condition.
> Mental and physical health conditions are considered serious health conditions under the FMLA if they require 1) inpatient care or 2) continuing treatment by a health care provider.
> A serious mental health condition that requires inpatient care includes an overnight stay in a hospital or other medical care facility, such as, for example, a treatment center for addiction or eating disorders.
> A serious mental health condition that requires continuing treatment by a health care provider includes—
> Conditions that incapacitate an individual for more than three consecutive days and require ongoing medical treatment, either multiple appointments with a health care provider, including a psychiatrist, clinical psychologist, or clinical social worker, or a single appointment and follow-up care (e.g., prescription medication, outpatient rehabilitation counseling, or behavioral therapy); and
> Chronic conditions (e.g., anxiety, depression, or dissociative disorders) that cause occasional periods when an individual is incapacitated and require treatment by a health care provider at least twice a year.
> REASONS FOR LEAVE
> Leave for the Employee’s Mental Health Condition
> An eligible employee may take up to 12 workweeks of leave for their own serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform their essential job duties.
> Example:
> Karen is occasionally unable to work due to severe anxiety. She sees a doctor monthly to manage her symptoms. Karen uses FMLA leave to take time off when she is unable to work unexpectedly due to her condition and when she has a regularly scheduled appointment to see her doctor during her work shift.
I am going to have to disagree with you there: continuing care and mental health days are covered under the FMLA as I read it.
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/28o-mental-heal...
> LEAVE FOR MENTAL HEALTH CONDITIONS UNDER THE FMLA
> An eligible employee may take FMLA leave for their own serious health condition, or to care for a spouse, child, or parent because of a serious health condition. A serious health condition can include a mental health condition.
> Mental and physical health conditions are considered serious health conditions under the FMLA if they require 1) inpatient care or 2) continuing treatment by a health care provider.
> A serious mental health condition that requires inpatient care includes an overnight stay in a hospital or other medical care facility, such as, for example, a treatment center for addiction or eating disorders.
> A serious mental health condition that requires continuing treatment by a health care provider includes—
> Conditions that incapacitate an individual for more than three consecutive days and require ongoing medical treatment, either multiple appointments with a health care provider, including a psychiatrist, clinical psychologist, or clinical social worker, or a single appointment and follow-up care (e.g., prescription medication, outpatient rehabilitation counseling, or behavioral therapy); and
> Chronic conditions (e.g., anxiety, depression, or dissociative disorders) that cause occasional periods when an individual is incapacitated and require treatment by a health care provider at least twice a year.
> REASONS FOR LEAVE
> Leave for the Employee’s Mental Health Condition
> An eligible employee may take up to 12 workweeks of leave for their own serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform their essential job duties.
> Example:
> Karen is occasionally unable to work due to severe anxiety. She sees a doctor monthly to manage her symptoms. Karen uses FMLA leave to take time off when she is unable to work unexpectedly due to her condition and when she has a regularly scheduled appointment to see her doctor during her work shift.
How is this stance different from one that says the same thing about your race or being deaf or requiring regular injections? Seems to me this is saying that some forms of bigotry are OK and the victims of it just need to deal with it. That neural disorders aren't as real or important because you can't see them and that makes it easier for some people who have them, but at a functional level, try to make more of it than they should. Because of this everyone with any level of these conditions should just suck it up where it doesn't jive well with our common hierarchical workplace organization.
> How is this stance different from one that says the same thing about your race or being deaf or requiring regular injections? Seems to me this is saying that some forms of bigotry are OK and the victims of it just need to deal with it.
I never suggested discrimination based on mental health conditions is okay or encouraged. I'm just pointing out that you shouldn't put it on your resume and you can't expect it to exempt you from having to do your job. It's simple.
I don't understand your analogy to race because that doesn't make any sense and certainly isn't relevant to what I said.
As for your example of being deaf: The reality is that any disability that prevents someone from doing a job, in a way that that cannot be reasonably accommodated, means that an employer doesn't have to hire that person for the job. This makes people angry in the general sense, but the truth is that there are jobs that require certain abilities to perform. If someone was, for example, confined to a wheelchair then they would not be considered for a job loading trucks. That's "discrimination" in the general sense of the word, but it's certainly not bigotry.
I think you've either misunderstood what I was saying, or you're upset that the world isn't as idealistic as you want. The reality is that if a condition prevents someone from doing a job and it can't be reasonably accommodated, the employer isn't forced to keep paying that person and ignore their inability to do the job.
Having ADHD is a hurdle, but not something that prevents most people from doing jobs. It makes them more difficult, yes, but not impossible. If the condition is so bad that it becomes disabling (legal definition) then that's a different story, but again you're not required to employ people who have disabilities that prevent them from doing the job.
I never suggested discrimination based on mental health conditions is okay or encouraged. I'm just pointing out that you shouldn't put it on your resume and you can't expect it to exempt you from having to do your job. It's simple.
I don't understand your analogy to race because that doesn't make any sense and certainly isn't relevant to what I said.
As for your example of being deaf: The reality is that any disability that prevents someone from doing a job, in a way that that cannot be reasonably accommodated, means that an employer doesn't have to hire that person for the job. This makes people angry in the general sense, but the truth is that there are jobs that require certain abilities to perform. If someone was, for example, confined to a wheelchair then they would not be considered for a job loading trucks. That's "discrimination" in the general sense of the word, but it's certainly not bigotry.
I think you've either misunderstood what I was saying, or you're upset that the world isn't as idealistic as you want. The reality is that if a condition prevents someone from doing a job and it can't be reasonably accommodated, the employer isn't forced to keep paying that person and ignore their inability to do the job.
Having ADHD is a hurdle, but not something that prevents most people from doing jobs. It makes them more difficult, yes, but not impossible. If the condition is so bad that it becomes disabling (legal definition) then that's a different story, but again you're not required to employ people who have disabilities that prevent them from doing the job.
The analogy to race was due to DEI training at work. They equate all things people have biases against as things you should work to overcome. Race is one of these as is sex, handicaps, etc.
The deaf example is actually quite good. People who suffer from neurological disorders have a disability (in the legal sense) that sometimes can't be accommodated in a very similar way. But they aren't considered to be disabled in the same sense and people don't recognize it. They instead just think the people have bad social skills and should try harder (my last employer's DEI training said exactly this). If you had a deaf or wheelchair bound person and people just generally decided that those are excuses for doing things that everyone else can do then it'd be comparable (I mean things that they can do, but can't do as others expect because, say, they can't hear the instructions from their boss).
I'm really not that concerned with a perfect world and I agree with much of what you are saying. I'd best describe my feelings as annoyed and concerned for how much society has doubled down on all DEI biases being unacceptable except for those against people with neurological disorders (both sides of that annoy me, the doubling down and the ignoring).
And I apologize for suggesting, if indirectly, that you were bigoted. I meant that more as a rhetorical statement but don't think I couched it as well as I could have.
The deaf example is actually quite good. People who suffer from neurological disorders have a disability (in the legal sense) that sometimes can't be accommodated in a very similar way. But they aren't considered to be disabled in the same sense and people don't recognize it. They instead just think the people have bad social skills and should try harder (my last employer's DEI training said exactly this). If you had a deaf or wheelchair bound person and people just generally decided that those are excuses for doing things that everyone else can do then it'd be comparable (I mean things that they can do, but can't do as others expect because, say, they can't hear the instructions from their boss).
I'm really not that concerned with a perfect world and I agree with much of what you are saying. I'd best describe my feelings as annoyed and concerned for how much society has doubled down on all DEI biases being unacceptable except for those against people with neurological disorders (both sides of that annoy me, the doubling down and the ignoring).
And I apologize for suggesting, if indirectly, that you were bigoted. I meant that more as a rhetorical statement but don't think I couched it as well as I could have.
> The educational institutions meant well, but the students took the wrong message from their accommodations and assumed it was always the world's responsibility to bend to their personal quirks rather than the other way around.
This is kind of a toxic perspective and could be why you have so many problems with your neurodiverse coworkers. If you believe they should never require accommodations and are always expected to conform to the rest of society, then you don't understand what that experience is like and how further debilitating it can actually be.
This is kind of a toxic perspective and could be why you have so many problems with your neurodiverse coworkers. If you believe they should never require accommodations and are always expected to conform to the rest of society, then you don't understand what that experience is like and how further debilitating it can actually be.
> If you believe they should never require accommodations and are always expected to conform to the rest of society
That's not what I said. The amount of toxic projection happening underneath these comments is wild.
Anyway, I did not say they shouldn't get accommodations. I said those accommodations do not exempt them from having to do the job.
The mistake being made is to confuse accommodations that help people do their job with "accommodations" that exempt the person from having to do the job.
Two different things! You can expect the first in the workplace. You cannot expect the second.
That's not what I said. The amount of toxic projection happening underneath these comments is wild.
Anyway, I did not say they shouldn't get accommodations. I said those accommodations do not exempt them from having to do the job.
The mistake being made is to confuse accommodations that help people do their job with "accommodations" that exempt the person from having to do the job.
Two different things! You can expect the first in the workplace. You cannot expect the second.
I’m sorry, no one is going to bend their whole life to fit whatever accommodation you require. If you have a covered disability and a company legally must provide some minimal accommodation, then sure. If you are a weirdo who needs their emotional support stuffed animals surrounding the office or you break into a panic attack, you will discover life isn’t fair pretty quick.
This is not my experience at all. Being diagnosed directly led to immense stigma over and over. You are literally giving people the language they need to stereotype you and put you into a bucket by getting diagnosed and telling people your diagnosis. Stigma is literally an iatrogenic consequence of diagnosis itself, never mind diagnosis stopping stigma! I hear "Autistic" thrown around as an insult maybe 10x more than I heard the same 20 years ago.
People feeling safe because they're not alone does not end stigma whatsoever either.
People feeling safe because they're not alone does not end stigma whatsoever either.
> by getting diagnosed and telling people your diagnosis
One of the things I try to emphasize with newly diagnosed young people is that they should not make their diagnosis an outward part of their personality.
There's a trend of putting your diagnoses in everything from your LinkedIn profile to your resume lately. I've been helping with resume review in a group and I've been stunned by how many times I've had to tell people that they need to remove their ADHD diagnosis from their resume.
One of the things I try to emphasize with newly diagnosed young people is that they should not make their diagnosis an outward part of their personality.
There's a trend of putting your diagnoses in everything from your LinkedIn profile to your resume lately. I've been helping with resume review in a group and I've been stunned by how many times I've had to tell people that they need to remove their ADHD diagnosis from their resume.
I dont even like it on a personal level. People use these terms to describe themselves in very narrow buckets and stereotypes, and there is no logic to that at all. I saw a post on /r/ADHD for example thst went something like "Does anyone else svoid eye contact during sex" and everyones like "omg thats me too!". I mean...need I say more?
I get how it might be fulfilling to have a label to explain away all your behaviors but it makes no sense to do so and I find it extremely self-limiting
I get how it might be fulfilling to have a label to explain away all your behaviors but it makes no sense to do so and I find it extremely self-limiting
How does sifting people into smaller and smaller buckets work to make people feel more part of a group? Seems more like people who have felt marginalized in the past want others to feel marginalized like they did, and work to place people into smaller and smaller categories to do so.
And for every group there is an anti-group, another set of people for whom the group-included feel justified in feeling resentful towards in some way.
Because the buckets were always there and the main difference is their visibility.
This fails the placebo test. People feel more included and part of groups even if the groups are assigned at random.
Acceptance comes from understanding, on both sides.
We have small and graduated buckets for absolutely anything that impacts how we socially interact with someone. Which town they come from, nationality, ethnicity, educational background, religion down to specific cult group, football team, wealth level, parent's profession, family composition etc.
Any of these has potential for negative discrimination, but we also use them for improving the interaction and mitigate confronting issues. The small and graduated buckets do IMHO help avoiding the negative impacts in the first place.
We have small and graduated buckets for absolutely anything that impacts how we socially interact with someone. Which town they come from, nationality, ethnicity, educational background, religion down to specific cult group, football team, wealth level, parent's profession, family composition etc.
Any of these has potential for negative discrimination, but we also use them for improving the interaction and mitigate confronting issues. The small and graduated buckets do IMHO help avoiding the negative impacts in the first place.
You didn't use this word specifically but this whole conversation has the underlying prior of the "everything is a spectrum" mindset.
In that context, everyone is neurodivergence because, afterall it's a spectrum we're all on and nobody is going to be deadest average. At some point we have to define at what point these spectrums become clinical. The kind of language you see in the DSM for stuff like this is "does it affect daily living/relationships/health in a negative way".
Being neurodivergent isn't a disorder, not showering because you're obsessed with programming probably is.
In that context, everyone is neurodivergence because, afterall it's a spectrum we're all on and nobody is going to be deadest average. At some point we have to define at what point these spectrums become clinical. The kind of language you see in the DSM for stuff like this is "does it affect daily living/relationships/health in a negative way".
Being neurodivergent isn't a disorder, not showering because you're obsessed with programming probably is.
> At some point we have to define at what point these spectrums become clinical
Thing is, I'm not a psychiatrist, the author probably isn't, most of us aren't. The question of whether it becomes clinical is IMHO irrelevant to most of us.
We won't be standing in front of someone pondering whether they can apply for disability, the better question will be how comfortable they are at keeping eye contact for instance.
Thing is, I'm not a psychiatrist, the author probably isn't, most of us aren't. The question of whether it becomes clinical is IMHO irrelevant to most of us.
We won't be standing in front of someone pondering whether they can apply for disability, the better question will be how comfortable they are at keeping eye contact for instance.
It's a philosophical question not a psychological question, so I see no reason to appeal to the authority of psychologists here, who are pretty throughly unqualified to determine this.
The term "clinical" implies qualified medical professional to me.
"We", as a society, are very much concerned with whether or not someone is eligible for various assistance programs.
We're redefining previously binary conditions as spectrums but the programs there to assist still available as a binary.
We're redefining previously binary conditions as spectrums but the programs there to assist still available as a binary.
It's the same for any most conditions leading to assistance programs though.
Whether you're legally blind or not, legally deaf or not is binary, but each person is on a spectrum and when interacting with someone we might want to adjust to their level where it matters. You don't talk the same way to an elderly with only half of their hearing left, even if legally they're not deaf. Or choose your color schemes with color blind people in mind, even if they won't be registered for governement assistance.
That's where I see the distinction between the administrative part of it, which needs binary criteria because of the management nightmare it would be to have gradual scales for everything, and the human/everyday life side of things, where caring about the different shades matters a lot IMHO.
Whether you're legally blind or not, legally deaf or not is binary, but each person is on a spectrum and when interacting with someone we might want to adjust to their level where it matters. You don't talk the same way to an elderly with only half of their hearing left, even if legally they're not deaf. Or choose your color schemes with color blind people in mind, even if they won't be registered for governement assistance.
That's where I see the distinction between the administrative part of it, which needs binary criteria because of the management nightmare it would be to have gradual scales for everything, and the human/everyday life side of things, where caring about the different shades matters a lot IMHO.
Autism is a result of neurons failing to "trim" or being over-connected. Being "on the spectrum" refers to the degree of above average physical over-connection of neurons. The opposite, when neurons fail to connect or lose too many connections is called schizophrenia.
People that are between the two, the vast majority of people, are not said to be either autistic or schizophrenic (you can't be both at the same time but can go from autistic to schizophrenic with a degenerative disease). Everyone is not "on the spectrum" for autism, again by definition no one that is schizophrenic is "on the spectrum" for autism at all so your comment is nonsensical.
People that are between the two, the vast majority of people, are not said to be either autistic or schizophrenic (you can't be both at the same time but can go from autistic to schizophrenic with a degenerative disease). Everyone is not "on the spectrum" for autism, again by definition no one that is schizophrenic is "on the spectrum" for autism at all so your comment is nonsensical.
> not said to be either autistic or schizophrenic (you can't be both at the same time
I've never heard this before and a quick search can't find any evidence of it.
The "over-connected" suggestion did pull up studies like this[1], but that's one effect of one set of genes sometimes associated with autism, and, of course, it was in mice.
I'd definitely like to learn more, but at first impression, a spectrum with autism and schizophrenia at opposite ends seems way too simple a model for human brains.
[1] https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/in-autism-too-many-brain-con...
I've never heard this before and a quick search can't find any evidence of it.
The "over-connected" suggestion did pull up studies like this[1], but that's one effect of one set of genes sometimes associated with autism, and, of course, it was in mice.
I'd definitely like to learn more, but at first impression, a spectrum with autism and schizophrenia at opposite ends seems way too simple a model for human brains.
[1] https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/in-autism-too-many-brain-con...
You've really only redefined the spectrum. It's now a single spectrum from Autism to Schizophrenia. You can't be on two spots on the spectrum at once. You've still put everyone on a spectrum and my question still stands.
How far on the spectrum towards schizophrenia have to be before they are clinically schizophrenic?
I don't disagree with the tendency to place things on spectrums but I find that people fail to adress that some people are so far on any spectrum that they become clinical.
How far on the spectrum towards schizophrenia have to be before they are clinically schizophrenic?
I don't disagree with the tendency to place things on spectrums but I find that people fail to adress that some people are so far on any spectrum that they become clinical.
ASD has different levels of diagnosis. I've been told by a therapist specializing in ASD that there are a lot of diagnosed and undiagnosed ASD workers in tech. It's very possible the only reason they are "full blown clinically diagnosed" is because they haven't been tested.
At this point we could diagnose basically everyone on the planet with some flavour of neurodivergence. I’m sure there’s one that makes people good at sales, one that makes people ruthless CEOs, one that makes people programmers, etc.
But I just don’t see the point of diagnosing people with things unless it causes some kind of actual disability and dysfunction.
But I just don’t see the point of diagnosing people with things unless it causes some kind of actual disability and dysfunction.
No, you can't diagnose most people. Yes, the diagnosis generally requires there to be disabilities related to it. Otherwise it doesn't meet the criteria.
That's the current medical way, but the author and this thread like to put up the idea that basically all if not all programmers and "weird nerds" are autistic but it's just massively under diagnosed. To which I disagree, if there are essentially no disorders in your life, you shouldn't be diagnosed.
The ASD spectrum has become incredibly broad to the point where someone who likes just programming too much is being classified in the same group as someone who can hardly speak, let alone look after themselves.
The ASD spectrum has become incredibly broad to the point where someone who likes just programming too much is being classified in the same group as someone who can hardly speak, let alone look after themselves.
"The ASD spectrum has become incredibly broad to the point where someone who likes just programming too much is being classified in the same group as someone who can hardly speak, let alone look after themselves."
This isn't true at all. The ASD grading has different levels based on the level of assistance needed. Unless that programming is significantly impacting your abilities in life, you would be told that you display some ASD like behaviors but that you don't actually have ASD.
I know a therapist that specializes in adult ASD and they believe that many people in technology fields do have undiagnosed mild ASD. The strong logical basis to the work and other characteristics of the job may play a role in attracting people whose minds work a certain way. It also seems the few people I know who have been diagnosed later in life tend to be in technical fields. The observations and the theory behind it seem to make sense. But not everyone has it, and there is criteria that need to be met to diagnosis it (disabilities).
This isn't true at all. The ASD grading has different levels based on the level of assistance needed. Unless that programming is significantly impacting your abilities in life, you would be told that you display some ASD like behaviors but that you don't actually have ASD.
I know a therapist that specializes in adult ASD and they believe that many people in technology fields do have undiagnosed mild ASD. The strong logical basis to the work and other characteristics of the job may play a role in attracting people whose minds work a certain way. It also seems the few people I know who have been diagnosed later in life tend to be in technical fields. The observations and the theory behind it seem to make sense. But not everyone has it, and there is criteria that need to be met to diagnosis it (disabilities).
The issue IMO is we don't have a non medical but accurate word for "some flavour of neurodivergence".
The author tries to come up the "weird nerd" terminology, but it doesn't feel better to me. Extending the medical term to non problematic behaviours feels like a better tradeoff to me.
We already do that in spades: people can have myopism to varying degrees, and we don't avoid putting them somewhere on the scale until they need coke bottle glasses.
The author tries to come up the "weird nerd" terminology, but it doesn't feel better to me. Extending the medical term to non problematic behaviours feels like a better tradeoff to me.
We already do that in spades: people can have myopism to varying degrees, and we don't avoid putting them somewhere on the scale until they need coke bottle glasses.
The phrase has sounded weird to me for some time but here it strikes me as especially so: "the spectrum"
Just one spectrum, 2 dimensions? Is that all we get? It's a linguistic short-cut, I get that, but I wonder how useful it is, how much nuance it conceals.
Just one spectrum, 2 dimensions? Is that all we get? It's a linguistic short-cut, I get that, but I wonder how useful it is, how much nuance it conceals.
Picture a color wheel instead of a continuum.
Here's an image that shows what I mean: https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.4683716510.9542/raf,360x360,...
Here's an image that shows what I mean: https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.4683716510.9542/raf,360x360,...
Yeah, a Kiviat diagram, or radar graph
https://blog.onepatchdown.net/autism/2023/01/13/autism/
https://blog.onepatchdown.net/autism/2023/01/13/autism/
Yes, 2 degrees, because autism is a neural "over-connectedness" in the brain that leads to common physical and mental symptoms like toe walking, double hair whorl, sensitivity to sound, etc.
The spectrum can essentially be thought of has the degree of neural "over-connectedness".
The spectrum can essentially be thought of has the degree of neural "over-connectedness".
Yeah, "the spectrum" feels like squeezing lots of things into one diagnosis. Kind of the opposite of neurodiversity.
It also feels a bit tech-centric... probably tech is someplace autistic attributes are particularly helpful, but other subjects are probably most compatible with other kinds of neurodivergence.
It also feels a bit tech-centric... probably tech is someplace autistic attributes are particularly helpful, but other subjects are probably most compatible with other kinds of neurodivergence.
Passion and ambition are just not neuro-vanilla traits. I think that's what you're picking up on.
Some people these days who are anything but call themselves autistic, ADHD, etc because they don't have a defensible banner anymore under which they can be passionate or ambitious without some reason behind the reason for it.
The only way out is empathy - true empathy, a willingness to accept sometimes (often) people do things for the sheer joy of doing them.
Some people these days who are anything but call themselves autistic, ADHD, etc because they don't have a defensible banner anymore under which they can be passionate or ambitious without some reason behind the reason for it.
The only way out is empathy - true empathy, a willingness to accept sometimes (often) people do things for the sheer joy of doing them.
> Passion and ambition are just not neuro-vanilla traits.
Hard disagree, which I think is your point. I see this as an offshoot of anti-intellectualism: distaste for / absence of passion and ambition is cultural, not biological, and culture becomes self-sustaining.
> The only way out is empathy - true empathy, a willingness to accept sometimes (often) people do things for the sheer joy of doing them.
Strong agree, and it's wild to me that this has indeed become a radical idea.
Hard disagree, which I think is your point. I see this as an offshoot of anti-intellectualism: distaste for / absence of passion and ambition is cultural, not biological, and culture becomes self-sustaining.
> The only way out is empathy - true empathy, a willingness to accept sometimes (often) people do things for the sheer joy of doing them.
Strong agree, and it's wild to me that this has indeed become a radical idea.
MBAs wanna justify less staff so everyone has to be good at and do more things now. :D Be a dev and tech support and business relations and...
I think part of the problem with "autistic" is that, although there is an official diagnostic protocol for it, it's far from clear whether that cleaves reality at the joints, as the philosophers say. It's also still mostly an open question if and how autism in women might present differently from in men.
> I've known a lot of weird nerds, am one myself
I suspect most of us here are... At least in some degree.
I suspect most of us here are... At least in some degree.
> "The author wanting to combine Weird Nerd with autistic is very incorrect IMHO... I've known a lot of weird nerds, am one myself, and there's lots of different flavors, most of them not autistic."
That makes one of us - no consensus required.
Monotrope? AuDHD? Brenner's Lacanian "Way of Being"?
Forensic accounting of which spectrum owns which symptoms is the new ultra-sport - winner take all. The thought that we wind up with yet another control vs. uncontrollable dichotomy of Stoicism worries me, at least in the West.
Walk around an Amazon warehouse unannounced for an afternoon observing its transformation of surveillance capitalism into a set of funhouse mirrors where the observer cannot discern between observer and observed - an infinitely extensible Heisenbug. It's as if you took a page from the 1980's PC design playbook and decided that delightful beige was the architecture of the future - a kind of inorganic revenge of the techno-typicals.
That makes one of us - no consensus required.
Monotrope? AuDHD? Brenner's Lacanian "Way of Being"?
Forensic accounting of which spectrum owns which symptoms is the new ultra-sport - winner take all. The thought that we wind up with yet another control vs. uncontrollable dichotomy of Stoicism worries me, at least in the West.
Walk around an Amazon warehouse unannounced for an afternoon observing its transformation of surveillance capitalism into a set of funhouse mirrors where the observer cannot discern between observer and observed - an infinitely extensible Heisenbug. It's as if you took a page from the 1980's PC design playbook and decided that delightful beige was the architecture of the future - a kind of inorganic revenge of the techno-typicals.
Can I ask you to explain how this is at all relevant to the clear statistical fact that not every weird nerd is autistic?
"Performer who is a diva" is not directly about focusing on one thing at the expense of another. Performers are trained to be divas by having no real friends willing to confront them, and by being infantilized by the people around them who lie about their faults, are excessively accommodating of bullshit, and don't ever make them take responsibility for mistakes or reflect on their impact on other people. The result is often the same for people in positions of authority, such as CEOs. Cf. Elon Musk.
I somewhat agree, but I think there's more to it than that. To be a great performer, you have to care about delivering your own "message" as authentically or at least "in totality" more than anything else. Critique may be useful in understanding how your vision is being received, but actually delivering the vision requires believing in your own vision more than the visions of others. The same could be said of CEOs. It's not just that there are adoring fans / sycophants, it's that to be a great success in these areas you need to be able to disregard the criticisms of others when the criticism doesn't really connect with what you are trying to achieve.
The "diva" stereotype, starting with opera prima donnas, has plenty of real-world examples. These are people who were constantly pampered by support staff who treated them as royalty, and then ended up being huge jerks to anyone who even looked at them the wrong way. Lack of empathy and basic respect is not just about iconoclasm or compartmentalizing criticism or whatever.
I don’t think Klaus Kinski was particularly pampered, he was still a legendary jerk and actor.
[deleted]
Caring about something deeply above external motivations, especially external validation is by itself neurodivergent. At the very least, you have to be highly introverted, which is rare.
I'm understanding your statement to mean that caring about something because of itself, without external motivation (like validation or money), is neurodivergent. So neurotypical would be to only care about something if you profit from you caring about it? Is that reading correct?
If so, I have to disagree vehemently. That is not my experience at all and feels extremely homo economicus and - to be honest - depressing. I want to care about things I like and that bring me joy, even if no-one pays me for that or validates my choice.
If so, I have to disagree vehemently. That is not my experience at all and feels extremely homo economicus and - to be honest - depressing. I want to care about things I like and that bring me joy, even if no-one pays me for that or validates my choice.
It sounds to me like you probably are introverted, but might not be familiar with exactly what that means, or how neurodivergent is really is from much more common extroverted people.
Most extroverts aren't ruthless machivellian self interested people like you are worrying I am claiming, but they are focused primarily on fitting in and being accepted by others- and do choose their activities and behaviors mostly based on that. Their interests are genuine, but the biggest factor in them is usually who it connects them with, and how it makes them appear to others. What do your hobbies, car, clothing, etc. say about you and how will that affect how others see and treat you?
Introverts are, as the name implies, more inwardly focused- and although they enjoy social connection and acceptance also, it can be exhausting and therefore less motivating, and generally takes a back seat to more inwardly generated concerns. It is often wrongly confused with being socially awkward or shy, which isn't the same at all.
Most extroverts aren't ruthless machivellian self interested people like you are worrying I am claiming, but they are focused primarily on fitting in and being accepted by others- and do choose their activities and behaviors mostly based on that. Their interests are genuine, but the biggest factor in them is usually who it connects them with, and how it makes them appear to others. What do your hobbies, car, clothing, etc. say about you and how will that affect how others see and treat you?
Introverts are, as the name implies, more inwardly focused- and although they enjoy social connection and acceptance also, it can be exhausting and therefore less motivating, and generally takes a back seat to more inwardly generated concerns. It is often wrongly confused with being socially awkward or shy, which isn't the same at all.
> or how neurodivergent is really is from much more common extroverted people.
Do you mean to say that neurodivergence is more common among extroverted people? If so, do you have sources for that? I have not yet heard of any relation between extra- (or intraversion) and neurodiversity.
Do you mean to say that neurodivergence is more common among extroverted people? If so, do you have sources for that? I have not yet heard of any relation between extra- (or intraversion) and neurodiversity.
No, there is a typo in there, but my point is that being introverted is a type of neurodiversity.
I feel like people are usually just using the word to mean autistic, but there are many types of neurodivergence.
I feel like people are usually just using the word to mean autistic, but there are many types of neurodivergence.
I hate this extrovert vs introvert thing too. People don't fit simiply into these buckets.
It's not a bucket you fit people into, it is one aspect of a persons personality, out of an almost infinite number, and is also a continuum.
The idea originally comes from Carl Jung, and his point in coming up with it was for people that personally identify themselves as fitting into a particular bucket, to realize this, and be able to consciously explore the part of yourself that doesn't fit into it, that you might have ignored or rejected in the past.
For example, if you see yourself as an introverted person, and dislike extroverted qualities in others, it can be useful, for personal growth, to explore and accept your own extroverted qualities as well. I would argue that is nearly the opposite of "simply fitting people into buckets" - it is a tool that gives a perspective to do the opposite of that. To understand the complexity and diversity of yourself, and of others.
The idea originally comes from Carl Jung, and his point in coming up with it was for people that personally identify themselves as fitting into a particular bucket, to realize this, and be able to consciously explore the part of yourself that doesn't fit into it, that you might have ignored or rejected in the past.
For example, if you see yourself as an introverted person, and dislike extroverted qualities in others, it can be useful, for personal growth, to explore and accept your own extroverted qualities as well. I would argue that is nearly the opposite of "simply fitting people into buckets" - it is a tool that gives a perspective to do the opposite of that. To understand the complexity and diversity of yourself, and of others.
How does saying "Im an introvert" not put yourself into a bucket? Youre quite literally using someone elses made up categorization to define who you are, and people tend to speak of this as an innate and overcompassing trait, and moreover using these made up categorizations as a cause of other behaviors. I dont like making small talk with cashiers at this point in my life" essentially becomes "I am an introvert, so I dont like making small talk with strangers and its is never likely to be my thing".
I am perfectly fine describing myself with the actual details of my experiences. Its much richer and nuanced that way rather than simply saying Im not some way because Im an introvert. What Ive seen is the complete opposite of ehst you are saying. People label themselves as something and believe anything thst doesnt fit the label is not them, out of reach, a monumental step for them to do. Talking to a cashier all of a sudden isnt just muttering some words, its a foundational shift from being introverted to extroverted.
I think all of modern psychology/psychaitry suffers in this way: Making up categorizations with the belief that making things easier to conceptualize and making it easier to associate things is scientific and valuable insight. I think its the opposite. Youre losing precious detail and artificially killing complexity and getting simplified, untrue beliefs.
I dont need these labels to explore "my more extroverted qualities". Having never labeled myself this way, I had no issues being the complete "opposite"
I am perfectly fine describing myself with the actual details of my experiences. Its much richer and nuanced that way rather than simply saying Im not some way because Im an introvert. What Ive seen is the complete opposite of ehst you are saying. People label themselves as something and believe anything thst doesnt fit the label is not them, out of reach, a monumental step for them to do. Talking to a cashier all of a sudden isnt just muttering some words, its a foundational shift from being introverted to extroverted.
I think all of modern psychology/psychaitry suffers in this way: Making up categorizations with the belief that making things easier to conceptualize and making it easier to associate things is scientific and valuable insight. I think its the opposite. Youre losing precious detail and artificially killing complexity and getting simplified, untrue beliefs.
I dont need these labels to explore "my more extroverted qualities". Having never labeled myself this way, I had no issues being the complete "opposite"
The point is people are already unconsciously putting themselves in buckets- being conscious of it is the first step towards actually moving past it. By being conscious of exactly how you are doing this, you can also begin to explore and accept the parts of yourself that don't fit into those buckets (what Carl Jung calls the shadow).
The "buckets" themselves (archetypes) are simply explaining different aspects of human experience and personalities, but absolutely nobody fits into them neatly, and they are limitless- you could probably come up with hundreds of them if you wanted to. Which you think are important and worth talking about is really a matter of opinion or personal values and goals.
These ideas are widely misunderstood and misused in both popular culture and the social sciences, but that isn't the fault of the concepts themselves. For example, the categories in the popular Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) are from Carl Jung's archetypes, but people use them exactly like you said- to essentially justify their own behaviors, when the point is to explore the parts of yourself that are the opposite of that. This idea often horrifies people that are fans of MBTI and use it like you are implying.
I'm sure you would agree that people already have different personalities, and see themselves a certain way, and often dislike traits in themselves and others that are somewhat opposite traits to those. For example a person might see themselves as an analytical logical person, and look down on people who seem to be guided mostly by emotions. It can be hugely valuable for a person like this to start to understand and accept the emotional part of themselves and others, but that likely won't change the fact that they are still a person that prioritizes "thinking" over "feeling."
People often mistakenly call this Carl Jung stuff "pseudoscience" because they are misunderstanding it as trying to be science. It is not- it is a tool or technology for personal growth, and is not attempting to be a literal explanation for how the human brain works or anything like that. It would be more accurate to relate it to religious or spiritual practices like meditation.
The fact is that introverted people are quite rare compared to extroverted people, and extroverted people do tend to see it as a bad thing and want to do things like "help teach introverts to be less extroverted" but may be horrified by the idea of the opposite- learning about and accepting their own introverted aspects.
The "buckets" themselves (archetypes) are simply explaining different aspects of human experience and personalities, but absolutely nobody fits into them neatly, and they are limitless- you could probably come up with hundreds of them if you wanted to. Which you think are important and worth talking about is really a matter of opinion or personal values and goals.
These ideas are widely misunderstood and misused in both popular culture and the social sciences, but that isn't the fault of the concepts themselves. For example, the categories in the popular Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) are from Carl Jung's archetypes, but people use them exactly like you said- to essentially justify their own behaviors, when the point is to explore the parts of yourself that are the opposite of that. This idea often horrifies people that are fans of MBTI and use it like you are implying.
I'm sure you would agree that people already have different personalities, and see themselves a certain way, and often dislike traits in themselves and others that are somewhat opposite traits to those. For example a person might see themselves as an analytical logical person, and look down on people who seem to be guided mostly by emotions. It can be hugely valuable for a person like this to start to understand and accept the emotional part of themselves and others, but that likely won't change the fact that they are still a person that prioritizes "thinking" over "feeling."
People often mistakenly call this Carl Jung stuff "pseudoscience" because they are misunderstanding it as trying to be science. It is not- it is a tool or technology for personal growth, and is not attempting to be a literal explanation for how the human brain works or anything like that. It would be more accurate to relate it to religious or spiritual practices like meditation.
The fact is that introverted people are quite rare compared to extroverted people, and extroverted people do tend to see it as a bad thing and want to do things like "help teach introverts to be less extroverted" but may be horrified by the idea of the opposite- learning about and accepting their own introverted aspects.
I want to check that I’m parsing this correctly.
Caring about something beyond a typical amount for intrinsic reasons is a neurodivergent marker?
Is this really the HN I grew up with?
Caring about something beyond a typical amount for intrinsic reasons is a neurodivergent marker?
Is this really the HN I grew up with?
There are many types of neurodiversity. I am arguing that being very introverted is itself fairly rare, and a type of neurodiversity- however not at all rare among the HN crowd. I would think it goes without saying that the HN crowd is a lot more neurodivergent than the general population.
I'm not sure why people are so upset about this suggestion... I'm not sure if they just disagree, or if they don't like being labeled neurodivergent.
Different types of neurodivergence are highly correlated- a quick google search suggests introversion, left handedness, autism, dyslexia, and ADHD are all highly correlated. Left handedness is also a type of neurodivergence that goes a lot deeper than which hand you write with.
I'm not sure why people are so upset about this suggestion... I'm not sure if they just disagree, or if they don't like being labeled neurodivergent.
Different types of neurodivergence are highly correlated- a quick google search suggests introversion, left handedness, autism, dyslexia, and ADHD are all highly correlated. Left handedness is also a type of neurodivergence that goes a lot deeper than which hand you write with.
It's not about neurodivergence.
Being interested in something for its own sake beyond an "average" interest is extremely typical.
Our brains are wired to incentivize this interest via the delivery of pleasurable feelings, determination, and motivation. These experiences shape our personality and inform future higher-than-average interests. This is a good feedback cycle, and not something to be lumped together with other facets of personality.
Implying otherwise suggests that people are weird for liking things that they like.
Being interested in something for its own sake beyond an "average" interest is extremely typical.
Our brains are wired to incentivize this interest via the delivery of pleasurable feelings, determination, and motivation. These experiences shape our personality and inform future higher-than-average interests. This is a good feedback cycle, and not something to be lumped together with other facets of personality.
Implying otherwise suggests that people are weird for liking things that they like.
Obviously everyone is interested in things, but it is a matter of degree. Being extremely deeply passionate about something, especially if it is something really unpopular and obscure but complex and time consuming that has no real social or other benefits, is not common among neurotypical people. However, for example, I have ADHD and hyperfocus on niche hobbies and interests where I can barely think about anything else, sometimes for months.
From my observations, most extroverted and otherwise neurotypical people don't have obsessive interests they pursue deeply entirely on their own. When they have hobbies they enjoy a lot it is often the social community around the hobby as much as anything else that is motivating them to stick with the hobby.
From my observations, most extroverted and otherwise neurotypical people don't have obsessive interests they pursue deeply entirely on their own. When they have hobbies they enjoy a lot it is often the social community around the hobby as much as anything else that is motivating them to stick with the hobby.
I have a lot of experience working with the weird nerd archetype and watching them navigate large orgs.
First it's absolutely true that orgs that purport to support weird nerds will revert back to rewarding politicians. I've seen it happen, and typically has to do with who is doling out money.
However, in my experience the vast majority of brilliant nerds way overextend themselves, and are much too confident outside their domain. They're also much more likely to be jerks and will tumble from conflict to conflict until they get their way by attrition or status. Conflicts are strangely more personal because so much ego is tied up into it. They're more likely to assume they're right in every (non-tech/science related) situation.
My advice to weird nerds (assuming emotional intelligence isn't an innate skill) is: Find a way to turn your brainpower onto this challenge as equally important as your core interest. Treat interacting with your institution like a long term engineering project or investigation. Think long term and be strategic, create and track longer term plans, try to learn what people respond to, what works and what doesn't. Always try to be kind and maintain some humility, but assuming you aren't sure what that really means, then ask for lots of feedback. Or you can just find someone you trust and delegate all of this to them, like a technical founder hiring a CEO.
(Edit: relatedly, if you work for or with weird nerds in a support role, my advice is to take full advantage! They might have a useful point, so set your own ego aside, don't take it personally (they are weird), and try to listen charitably. Their work is what you're here to support, after all.)
First it's absolutely true that orgs that purport to support weird nerds will revert back to rewarding politicians. I've seen it happen, and typically has to do with who is doling out money.
However, in my experience the vast majority of brilliant nerds way overextend themselves, and are much too confident outside their domain. They're also much more likely to be jerks and will tumble from conflict to conflict until they get their way by attrition or status. Conflicts are strangely more personal because so much ego is tied up into it. They're more likely to assume they're right in every (non-tech/science related) situation.
My advice to weird nerds (assuming emotional intelligence isn't an innate skill) is: Find a way to turn your brainpower onto this challenge as equally important as your core interest. Treat interacting with your institution like a long term engineering project or investigation. Think long term and be strategic, create and track longer term plans, try to learn what people respond to, what works and what doesn't. Always try to be kind and maintain some humility, but assuming you aren't sure what that really means, then ask for lots of feedback. Or you can just find someone you trust and delegate all of this to them, like a technical founder hiring a CEO.
(Edit: relatedly, if you work for or with weird nerds in a support role, my advice is to take full advantage! They might have a useful point, so set your own ego aside, don't take it personally (they are weird), and try to listen charitably. Their work is what you're here to support, after all.)
However, in my experience the vast majority of brilliant nerds way overextend themselves, and are much too confident outside their domain. They're also much more likely to be jerks and will tumble from conflict to conflict until they get their way by attrition or status. Conflicts are strangely more personal because so much ego is tied up into it. They're more likely to assume they're right in every (non-tech/science related) situation.
Your next paragraph gives advice to the weird nerds, but this is practically a genre. What I haven’t seen much of is advice to an organization about how to deal with what you’re pointing out here.
You have an employee that’s brilliant in technical area X but also has very strong and very wrong opinions about how the company ought to structure its cap table, pay its cleaning staff, and market to potential customers. He gets into constant arguments about these things. What do you do?
Your next paragraph gives advice to the weird nerds, but this is practically a genre. What I haven’t seen much of is advice to an organization about how to deal with what you’re pointing out here.
You have an employee that’s brilliant in technical area X but also has very strong and very wrong opinions about how the company ought to structure its cap table, pay its cleaning staff, and market to potential customers. He gets into constant arguments about these things. What do you do?
This won't be a satisfying answer (and won't work for startups), but the solution I saw most frequently was to assign them dedicated diplomats or maintain a middle mgmt class who are well suited to coddle them, absorb most of their emotional energy, and channel it productively (or not) into the wider institution.
That’s been my experience as well. But these minders are not cheap. They need to be smart enough to win the respect of their assigned WNs, charismatic enough to smooth everyone else’s ruffled feathers, patient, and have thick skins.
Definitely worth it for a Nobel Prize level intellect but I’m not sure how far below that the line is.
Definitely worth it for a Nobel Prize level intellect but I’m not sure how far below that the line is.
The teenagers working at the local McDonalds do a fine job modifying some truly unpleasant people.
They have the added benefit of not having to give a damn about those people, as they interact infrequently, and likely won't even recognize each other the next time. An occasional unpleasant regular is a different story entirely, but I suppose that's what the security person is there for.
This hurts to read. At my previous employer I more or less carried the technical part of the organization, but also had strong opinions about high level strategy and equity (in terms of pay distribution across staff). In my defense, it was an NGO where I was working well below market rates and the opinions I pushed came from caring a lot about the mission, but it definitely led to a lot of conflict.
I think it's an interesting question, how organizations should deal with this. I think my previous employer actually dealt with it quite well - for the issues I cared about I _was_ given the opportunity to express my opinions and also share them with the people who were in the positions for making decisions around these issues. I was generally listened to patiently and also got (sometimes unsatisfying) explanations for why the actual course of action was different. I was _not_ given the authority to make these decisions or push these issues (the ones outside my area of expertise) through. I ended up leaving the organization in quite a bit of frustration, which I think was probably unavoidable, but I learned a ton from this episode, and we're otherwise still on good terms (I help out with little things now and then).
I think it's an interesting question, how organizations should deal with this. I think my previous employer actually dealt with it quite well - for the issues I cared about I _was_ given the opportunity to express my opinions and also share them with the people who were in the positions for making decisions around these issues. I was generally listened to patiently and also got (sometimes unsatisfying) explanations for why the actual course of action was different. I was _not_ given the authority to make these decisions or push these issues (the ones outside my area of expertise) through. I ended up leaving the organization in quite a bit of frustration, which I think was probably unavoidable, but I learned a ton from this episode, and we're otherwise still on good terms (I help out with little things now and then).
"You're out of your depth."
That's what you do.
A lot of very smart people think because they're very smart they have some kind of exceptional insight into the inner workings of all things. They don't. And they need to be reminded of that. Intelligence allows someone to gain that insight faster than those in the middle of the bell curve of IQ, but it doesn't magically confer it. It still takes time, reading, research, and seeing it in practice.
Or put another way - what I call the "Iceberg Analogy" - every discipline in life is like an iceberg. The average person sees about 10% of what's actually happening, and is able to comprehend that without too much effort, but the other 90% that's below the surface takes a lot to fully make sense of.
That's what you do.
A lot of very smart people think because they're very smart they have some kind of exceptional insight into the inner workings of all things. They don't. And they need to be reminded of that. Intelligence allows someone to gain that insight faster than those in the middle of the bell curve of IQ, but it doesn't magically confer it. It still takes time, reading, research, and seeing it in practice.
Or put another way - what I call the "Iceberg Analogy" - every discipline in life is like an iceberg. The average person sees about 10% of what's actually happening, and is able to comprehend that without too much effort, but the other 90% that's below the surface takes a lot to fully make sense of.
> "You're out of your depth."
Except most of the time ... they are not. Most non-junior WNs learn to have significant respect for those doing the work. The Weird Nerd judges based upon objectively observed behavior rather than social cues or group opinions.
Mostly, the Weird Nerd gets in trouble because they simply aren't fooled. And that pisses of corporatocrats like you worse than anything else.
The WN can see that you are rewarding the politician rather than the person who actually did the work. The WN will actually calculate the full cap table and see the distortion that flags the insider backscratching. The WN can envision exactly how the sales incentives will be exploited. etc.
Effectively, the WN is a canary that detects bad managers immediately unlike normal people. And that's something that bad managers simply cannot abide.
Except most of the time ... they are not. Most non-junior WNs learn to have significant respect for those doing the work. The Weird Nerd judges based upon objectively observed behavior rather than social cues or group opinions.
Mostly, the Weird Nerd gets in trouble because they simply aren't fooled. And that pisses of corporatocrats like you worse than anything else.
The WN can see that you are rewarding the politician rather than the person who actually did the work. The WN will actually calculate the full cap table and see the distortion that flags the insider backscratching. The WN can envision exactly how the sales incentives will be exploited. etc.
Effectively, the WN is a canary that detects bad managers immediately unlike normal people. And that's something that bad managers simply cannot abide.
I have been in a meeting where the weird nerd is saying "our company should completely ditch customer support phone lines and only use a chat service because I don't know anyone who wants to make a phone call". This company was a utility that had customers with every level of literacy and internet access. He was mindbogglingly wrong, because he had no idea there was information in the world that he hadn't come across. It's very common - so common it's called engineer syndrome.
And, ironically, I had the exact opposite conversation where we kept paying money to fund customer support phone lines that had one call in 6 months because the sales and marketing team couldn't conceive of the fact that nobody under 30 (our primary demographic) wanted to use voice anymore and were screaming for an app/webapp chat of some form.
Not knowing your customers isn't unique to engineers.
Not knowing your customers isn't unique to engineers.
> He was mindbogglingly wrong
How do you know?
Studies already suggest that 9 out of 10 people prefer text communication with businesses. Of the remaining 10%, we have to establish that they:
1. Prefer the phone over other alternatives. Some may want face-to-face communication, for example.
2. Want to phone a utility in the first place. Preferring phone communication over other means does not imply that they want to communicate.
3. That the person of which you speak knows of them. Someone who really does want to phone a utility, but is not known by said person, would not meet the qualifications defined.
Unless you actually compiled a list of those he knows and surveyed them in a good faith standing, you can't know. The statistics are not in your favour, though. It is quite unlikely that he does know someone who wants to make a phone call to said utility. Perhaps your weird nerdiness has clouded seeing that?
How do you know?
Studies already suggest that 9 out of 10 people prefer text communication with businesses. Of the remaining 10%, we have to establish that they:
1. Prefer the phone over other alternatives. Some may want face-to-face communication, for example.
2. Want to phone a utility in the first place. Preferring phone communication over other means does not imply that they want to communicate.
3. That the person of which you speak knows of them. Someone who really does want to phone a utility, but is not known by said person, would not meet the qualifications defined.
Unless you actually compiled a list of those he knows and surveyed them in a good faith standing, you can't know. The statistics are not in your favour, though. It is quite unlikely that he does know someone who wants to make a phone call to said utility. Perhaps your weird nerdiness has clouded seeing that?
No, we don’t have to establish that he knows them. It doesn’t matter if he is right about the people he knows: he is wrong about the customer base and the business decision.
[deleted]
Ironically, that's what the companies have been doing for the past few years, by having people talk to voice assistant "AI"s instead of humans.
Hell, you could argue the process started much earlier: before voice assistants came DTMF phone menus with automated recordings; before that came outsourcing customer support to cheapest labor available - which is like hooking up ChatGPT to the phone line, except with protein robots paid peanuts and worked to the bone instead.
Hell, you could argue the process started much earlier: before voice assistants came DTMF phone menus with automated recordings; before that came outsourcing customer support to cheapest labor available - which is like hooking up ChatGPT to the phone line, except with protein robots paid peanuts and worked to the bone instead.
> And that pisses of corporatocrats like you worse than anything else.
Congratulations, you've shown you don't know how the world actually works. This is called "Weird Nerd" but it really means, "Someone who can't operate within society and thus is forced to suffer because they'll do the hard work of building or designing something, but won't do the hard work of understanding human beings."
First, go learn how the world actually works. Not the way you clearly - and incorrectly - believe it to work - the way it actually works. Then once you figure out how to operate within the system, you might actually get something worthwhile done.
> The Weird Nerd judges based upon objectively observed behavior rather than social cues or group opinions.
This is why they so consistently fail.
> Mostly, the Weird Nerd gets in trouble because they simply aren't fooled.
They get in trouble because they have an incorrect mental model of the world and are instead stuck in how they think the world "ought" to work, instead of how it "actually" works.
Congratulations, you've shown you don't know how the world actually works. This is called "Weird Nerd" but it really means, "Someone who can't operate within society and thus is forced to suffer because they'll do the hard work of building or designing something, but won't do the hard work of understanding human beings."
First, go learn how the world actually works. Not the way you clearly - and incorrectly - believe it to work - the way it actually works. Then once you figure out how to operate within the system, you might actually get something worthwhile done.
> The Weird Nerd judges based upon objectively observed behavior rather than social cues or group opinions.
This is why they so consistently fail.
> Mostly, the Weird Nerd gets in trouble because they simply aren't fooled.
They get in trouble because they have an incorrect mental model of the world and are instead stuck in how they think the world "ought" to work, instead of how it "actually" works.
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” -George Bernard Shaw
The pragmatist in me is sympathetic to your viewpoint here. But the article in question is making the point that when Weird Nerds have to "figure out how to operate within the system", they actually lose their ability to get something worthwhile done. That still might be the optimal path for them to take as individuals, given the incentives they face, but maybe as a society, we'd be better off trying to design the system so that it could better tolerate the "downsides" of the Weird Nerd so they can maximize their ability to get something worthwhile done.
Obviously this is a balancing act (as the article points out), but the author is making the point that some environments (like academia) have swung too far in the direction of conformity, which seems to me to usually be presented using the exact language you're using here.
The pragmatist in me is sympathetic to your viewpoint here. But the article in question is making the point that when Weird Nerds have to "figure out how to operate within the system", they actually lose their ability to get something worthwhile done. That still might be the optimal path for them to take as individuals, given the incentives they face, but maybe as a society, we'd be better off trying to design the system so that it could better tolerate the "downsides" of the Weird Nerd so they can maximize their ability to get something worthwhile done.
Obviously this is a balancing act (as the article points out), but the author is making the point that some environments (like academia) have swung too far in the direction of conformity, which seems to me to usually be presented using the exact language you're using here.
> A lot of very smart people think because they're very smart they have some kind of exceptional insight into the inner workings of all things. They don't. And they need to be reminded of that.
When you talk to people, you have no idea how much time they've spent before that conversation gaining insight. Maybe their simple phrase is a culmination of several years of research and insight, whereas for you, you just thought about this topic yesterday.
Seems like normies need to be reminded of that way more frequently than nerds.
When you talk to people, you have no idea how much time they've spent before that conversation gaining insight. Maybe their simple phrase is a culmination of several years of research and insight, whereas for you, you just thought about this topic yesterday.
Seems like normies need to be reminded of that way more frequently than nerds.
A better response would be to tell them you are done trying to convince them because you own the responsibility and consequences of the decision. "You're out of your depth" is an insult and is intended to be one.
"You're out of your depth" is an insult to someone with an excessive ego.
If you're not actually out of your depth, you won't be insulted by it.
I don't get insulted when someone says I'm stupid. Because that is not true, and I know it isn't true. It isn't the things we know to be untrue that insults us - it's the things that we know to be true, that we can't accept - or even worse - can't see about ourselves that insult us.
If you're not actually out of your depth, you won't be insulted by it.
I don't get insulted when someone says I'm stupid. Because that is not true, and I know it isn't true. It isn't the things we know to be untrue that insults us - it's the things that we know to be true, that we can't accept - or even worse - can't see about ourselves that insult us.
> or even worse - can't see about ourselves that insult us
Isn't this the point of the previous comment? That the WN thinks they're not out of their depth and can't see that about themselves. So it is an insult from that perspective.
Isn't this the point of the previous comment? That the WN thinks they're not out of their depth and can't see that about themselves. So it is an insult from that perspective.
Is saying that someone has no expertise in a subject necessarily an insult?
To me, your proposal sounds more like a band-aid, instead of treating the core ailment: someone who won't recognize their own fallibility.
Perhaps it can't be "treated", and we just have to make do with such "band aids". But wouldn't it be more productive if we could just get to the root of it?
To me, your proposal sounds more like a band-aid, instead of treating the core ailment: someone who won't recognize their own fallibility.
Perhaps it can't be "treated", and we just have to make do with such "band aids". But wouldn't it be more productive if we could just get to the root of it?
> You have an employee that’s brilliant in technical area X but also has very strong and very wrong opinions about how the company ought to structure its cap table, pay its cleaning staff, and market to potential customers. He gets into constant arguments about these things. What do you do?
The same thing you do with any highly anti-social employee, fire them. It doesn’t matter how sophisticated their technical skills are, if they are incapable of transforming that into value for the company, then their value to the organisation is at best nothing, and more likely negative.
Companies/institutions are social systems, and the phrase “politics” is mostly just used to refer to “social skills”. If too many of the participants are corrupt or incompetent then the social network of the organisation can become especially toxic. But that’s a different problem to the fact that if you want to contribute value in such a system, you need to have social skills.
Can you get value out of somebody who has terrible social skills? Maybe sometimes, but it takes a lot of babysitting. Even then, you’ll never be able to properly trust that you’ll be able to rely on them to do anything ever. So it’s almost never worth the cost.
The same thing you do with any highly anti-social employee, fire them. It doesn’t matter how sophisticated their technical skills are, if they are incapable of transforming that into value for the company, then their value to the organisation is at best nothing, and more likely negative.
Companies/institutions are social systems, and the phrase “politics” is mostly just used to refer to “social skills”. If too many of the participants are corrupt or incompetent then the social network of the organisation can become especially toxic. But that’s a different problem to the fact that if you want to contribute value in such a system, you need to have social skills.
Can you get value out of somebody who has terrible social skills? Maybe sometimes, but it takes a lot of babysitting. Even then, you’ll never be able to properly trust that you’ll be able to rely on them to do anything ever. So it’s almost never worth the cost.
Congrats, the university you run just lost out on a Nobel Prize. The donors are going to love that.
I’m sure this is the threat that the brilliant asshole types would want you to believe. But there’s no limit to the amount of talent that one single toxically anti-social team member can deter from joining an institution, or that they can chase out of one for that matter. Especially if they’re a senior team member.
There’s also essentially no limit to the amount of damage they can do in companies. Even if you put aside the potential impact on company culture, I’ve seen many engineers needlessly waste huge amounts of company resources pursuing solutions that they considered to be technically brilliant (and which may have been), but were completely misaligned with the company’s objectives. I’ve personally witnessed one (especially brilliant) Rust engineer drive a company completely out of business with this approach.
There’s also essentially no limit to the amount of damage they can do in companies. Even if you put aside the potential impact on company culture, I’ve seen many engineers needlessly waste huge amounts of company resources pursuing solutions that they considered to be technically brilliant (and which may have been), but were completely misaligned with the company’s objectives. I’ve personally witnessed one (especially brilliant) Rust engineer drive a company completely out of business with this approach.
You’re profoundly correct, and I’m amazed by the amount of ignorance on display in this thread and in this article. The conflation of “weird nerd” with “person who thinks they are above what the perceive as politics”, or “smart asshole” or “antisocial genius” is really at odds with the usual case. Real “weird nerds” might have innocuous flaws like a tendency for extreme grandiloquence or terrible body language, but frequently the Weirdest Nerds I have interacted with are kind over and above any other quality. It’s not “weird” to hate workplace politics or think that you’re the smartest guy in the room - both of those are extremely common. Many organizations operate on these basic components, it’s kind of a sad default for business. The weirdest nerd of all is the one who can calmly explain something complex to a new hire or do the hard work of documenting and explaining their position rather than trying to belittle others. I’ve seen toxic employees do far more damage than I have seen geniuses who single-handedly save the day. The latter are largely a hallucination brought on by repeated exposure to myths like the 10x engineer.
In general I agree with all that. And genius is a wildly overused term. But that doesn’t mean there’s none. TFA is talking about a woman that won a Nobel Prize.
Not every organization is going to have any opportunity to snag one but if you are running MIT, Google, or Lawrence Livermore you probably need to consider how to handle that edge case.
Not every organization is going to have any opportunity to snag one but if you are running MIT, Google, or Lawrence Livermore you probably need to consider how to handle that edge case.
>You have an employee that’s brilliant in technical area X but also has very strong and very wrong opinions about how the company ought to structure its cap table, pay its cleaning staff, and market to potential customers. He gets into constant arguments about these things. What do you do?
Call him to your office and warn him his behaviour is unacceptable as it is interrupting the business. If he still persists, fire him for insubordination and/or disrupting the workplace.
The difference between a master and a nerd is whether the talent is socially desired, and the difference between being employed and unemployed is whether you can be productive to society regardless of your personal leanings.
Call him to your office and warn him his behaviour is unacceptable as it is interrupting the business. If he still persists, fire him for insubordination and/or disrupting the workplace.
The difference between a master and a nerd is whether the talent is socially desired, and the difference between being employed and unemployed is whether you can be productive to society regardless of your personal leanings.
I usually see both happening at the same time, but the real money still goes to the politicians.
Brilliant nerds that solve problems for the organization on their own usually don't get rewarded as much as politicians despite the skills perhaps being more rare at the organization than politics.
For example, you could deep dive into a bug that's been hanging around, finally find the really technical solution to it, but most of the money holders won't be able to appraise that value from the technical details alone.
In general, simply giving away things to companies will usually get you taken advantage of (usually not maliciously).
Doing a tour to explain why it's a problem first, then providing the solution, is the much better alternative.
It really is true that it's a thankless job if everything is working well and you're being proactive by fixing problems before they become a problem.
There are exceptions where the money holders can deal with the technical details and don't need to be sold on the problem first, but it's rare and usually those are prestigious jobs in close proximity to lots money.
Brilliant nerds that solve problems for the organization on their own usually don't get rewarded as much as politicians despite the skills perhaps being more rare at the organization than politics.
For example, you could deep dive into a bug that's been hanging around, finally find the really technical solution to it, but most of the money holders won't be able to appraise that value from the technical details alone.
In general, simply giving away things to companies will usually get you taken advantage of (usually not maliciously).
Doing a tour to explain why it's a problem first, then providing the solution, is the much better alternative.
It really is true that it's a thankless job if everything is working well and you're being proactive by fixing problems before they become a problem.
There are exceptions where the money holders can deal with the technical details and don't need to be sold on the problem first, but it's rare and usually those are prestigious jobs in close proximity to lots money.
> assuming emotional intelligence isn't an innate skill
it's a skill like any other, so if you put in dedication and practice, you can get better at it, just like practicing leetcode. whether or not an individual wants to do so is on them.
it's a skill like any other, so if you put in dedication and practice, you can get better at it, just like practicing leetcode. whether or not an individual wants to do so is on them.
Do you have any tips for practicing this? I feel like I often "take the oxygen out of the room" when I offer suggestions or get talking. Conversely when I bite my tongue (or just unplug my mic) most people don't talk or offer very weak tacit agreement with the last thing that was said.
edit: I wish I had more skill at building coalitions and/or pushing an organization in a direction without saying "we need to do X".
edit: I wish I had more skill at building coalitions and/or pushing an organization in a direction without saying "we need to do X".
I think a great way to get better at this is to ask more questions than provide answers. If you really hone in on what people are discussing, if you figure out what they want, what they’re afraid of, what they’re unsure of, etc. your suggestion will mean a lot more than if you’re perceived as “barging in and ordering people around”. I’ve practiced the Socratic method a lot with a lot of people, and it can really help to give your arguments some extra punch. Remember than people usually don’t want to be told “we need to do X” - they want to believe that they had a part in discovering and advocating for that, even if the whole thing was your idea all along.
And like any other skill some people are more gifted in learning that skill than others. Anyone can learn to paint, but not everyone is going to be a Monet or a Rembrandt.
Everyone doesn't need to be a Monet, they just have to be able to paint their name on a poster without embarrassing themselves and putting down others.
Everyone can paint their name, that is a 0 skill exercise. And I wasn't saying everyone needs to be a Monet, more that these are high ceiling skills you are talking about and there is a lot more variety than is given credit.
There's room to go really really far down that path and even become a licensed therapist if someone takes to that kind of work and is looking for a second career, but in this analogy, some people don't even have the EQ to be able to paint their name with fingerpaints. Maybe I've had more misfortune dealing with difficult people though.
While I think this is true, some people have it harder than others. So sure, anyone can learn emotional intelligence, but if it's 2x the effort for someone the ROI is much worse.
A toxic individual can tank the productivity of the whole team, if not the whole org. What's the ROI for them on being fired?
> However, in my experience the vast majority of brilliant nerds way overextend themselves, and are much too confident outside their domain. They're also much more likely to be jerks and will tumble from conflict to conflict until they get their way by attrition or status. Conflicts are strangely more personal because so much ego is tied up into it. They're more likely to assume they're right in every (non-tech/science related) situation.
If this behavior is rewarded, then you haven't eliminated politics - you've reinforced politics but eliminated social cohesion and decorum as elements thereof.
If this behavior is rewarded, then you haven't eliminated politics - you've reinforced politics but eliminated social cohesion and decorum as elements thereof.
However, in my experience the vast majority of brilliant nerds way overextend themselves, and are much too confident outside their domain. They're also much more likely to be jerks and will tumble from conflict to conflict until they get their way by attrition or status. Conflicts are strangely more personal because so much ego is tied up into it. They're more likely to assume they're right in every (non-tech/science related) situation.
Status is immensely important. people who have status or convey it can get away with being wrong or espousing falsehoods and will not be called on on it. If anyone is guilty of speaking outside of his or her expertise and spreading bullshit, it is likely not going to be the nerd.
Status is immensely important. people who have status or convey it can get away with being wrong or espousing falsehoods and will not be called on on it. If anyone is guilty of speaking outside of his or her expertise and spreading bullshit, it is likely not going to be the nerd.
[deleted]
It feels like more and more areas of life are regressing to the mean in terms of how status is distributed. The mean being some sort of centralized cabal-like structure (perhaps autonomously/accidentally centralized, like an algo) doling out status. By design, it is highly uneven, quasi-random (there are things that make you eligible but there are no guarantees), and their authority to do so unquestioned.
Take social media: it is more about who they've said you are rather than _what_ you say. The key message of the medium is less the content of the message itself (though it figures in!) and more the combination of your online persona's followers + likes along with the message itself. I'd argue social media is a real shift in the Internet itself where we began to take online reputation very, very seriously, to the point that we decided we'd believe that likes were more than just Internet Points.
And people _love_ this sort of structure because it means that something other than actual competence can be the deciding factor. They have a shot at being in the cabal and among the deciders. And it's a lot easier to evaluate people: simply see what other people say about them.
Not saying that non-technical factors don't matter. They matter a lot and are often very easy wins to pick up. But it's clear people like systems that aren't centered around competence as much as they may claim otherwise. And areas where that isn't the case seem to eventually be converted to more conventional hierarchies.
Take social media: it is more about who they've said you are rather than _what_ you say. The key message of the medium is less the content of the message itself (though it figures in!) and more the combination of your online persona's followers + likes along with the message itself. I'd argue social media is a real shift in the Internet itself where we began to take online reputation very, very seriously, to the point that we decided we'd believe that likes were more than just Internet Points.
And people _love_ this sort of structure because it means that something other than actual competence can be the deciding factor. They have a shot at being in the cabal and among the deciders. And it's a lot easier to evaluate people: simply see what other people say about them.
Not saying that non-technical factors don't matter. They matter a lot and are often very easy wins to pick up. But it's clear people like systems that aren't centered around competence as much as they may claim otherwise. And areas where that isn't the case seem to eventually be converted to more conventional hierarchies.
> And people _love_ this sort of structure because it means that something other than actual competence can be the deciding factor.
It's different competence. Not incompetence. It's being competent at identifying marks to exploit, attention-seeking, etc.
I don't particularly care for it myself and feel pretty strongly that it's narrowing the gap between humans and apes, rather than widening it, but it's still some kind of skill.
It's different competence. Not incompetence. It's being competent at identifying marks to exploit, attention-seeking, etc.
I don't particularly care for it myself and feel pretty strongly that it's narrowing the gap between humans and apes, rather than widening it, but it's still some kind of skill.
Good catch. It gets at technical competence, but it isn't constrained to that. It's more of "good at what the org ostensibly is about," vs "good at ensuring the org lives on."
[deleted]
Thanks for a thoughtful comment
That explains some of the absolute rabid hatred of the veey concept of meritocracy. Not even "this isn't based on real merit it's the same old boys club" style complaints/arguments but an absolutely furious hatred towards competence determining progression.
You see it in denials of 10x engineers, pushes for tooling to standardize everything, tons of transitive dependencies, obligatory blog posts about how tech is "really just about working well with others" and an overall un-seriousness about actually building things.
You can already see echoes of this in the software community, which was historically populated by such "weird nerds" and computer geeks who traded off social tact and grace for a childhood, or even a lifetime, spent understanding the technical minutiae of software, hardware, and computing in general.
Now we have self-identifying "computer hackers" and "security researchers" and "red team operators" who probably have never heard the words "shellcode" or "ASLR" in their life, and whose technical chops cap out at wrapping payloads from hardcoded URLs in a 100-line golang script and call it an advanced exploit. We used to call them "script kiddies." "Compiler developers" who couldn't tell you the difference between a regular expression and a context-free grammar, and simply wrap babel in a javascript snippet, calling their glorified terminal alias a real compiler.
Go look at the posers on r/programminghumor, or, god forbid, fucking Instagram influencers releasing content and memes about programming instead of having any technical competence with computing itself. While being a computer nerd used to be looked down upon with derision, it's now trendy and hip to be a "software engineer," much in the same way geek culture was appropriated and colonized by outsiders to the field. People think that 16 weeks spent studying JavaScript at a bootcamp puts them on even footing with shut-ins who spent tens of thousands of hours in front of a bash terminal and customizing their vim setups. It's the absolute depths of Dunning-Krugerism. These aren't geeks; they don't act or talk the same as people who have been embedded in this culture for years and lifetimes, even if they parade around superficial status markers to try to pose as one. It's as if an Anglophone went to a country where the predominant language was one other than English and started appropriating a few dozen words from the native tongue to pose as a local - "you're not from here, are you?"
Perhaps this stance on computer geek culture is "elitist" or not "inclusive" enough, but be aware that maximum inclusivity tends to result in the same regression to the mean that you describe. It's much easier to spin a narrative about how 31337 at programming you are when you can write any bullshit you want on social media and pose and identify as something you are not, while those who are actually out there writing software instead of posting about it, pushing commits instead of simply updating their GitHub READMEs, have scant little to show to the blithering masses of people who confuse Internet Points, narratives, and hearsay for actual competence. It's a continuation of the postmodern trend to socially construct status, narrative, and indeed, even truth, by manufacturing simulacra and digital content to stand in for and completely replace any underlying reality.
Now we have self-identifying "computer hackers" and "security researchers" and "red team operators" who probably have never heard the words "shellcode" or "ASLR" in their life, and whose technical chops cap out at wrapping payloads from hardcoded URLs in a 100-line golang script and call it an advanced exploit. We used to call them "script kiddies." "Compiler developers" who couldn't tell you the difference between a regular expression and a context-free grammar, and simply wrap babel in a javascript snippet, calling their glorified terminal alias a real compiler.
Go look at the posers on r/programminghumor, or, god forbid, fucking Instagram influencers releasing content and memes about programming instead of having any technical competence with computing itself. While being a computer nerd used to be looked down upon with derision, it's now trendy and hip to be a "software engineer," much in the same way geek culture was appropriated and colonized by outsiders to the field. People think that 16 weeks spent studying JavaScript at a bootcamp puts them on even footing with shut-ins who spent tens of thousands of hours in front of a bash terminal and customizing their vim setups. It's the absolute depths of Dunning-Krugerism. These aren't geeks; they don't act or talk the same as people who have been embedded in this culture for years and lifetimes, even if they parade around superficial status markers to try to pose as one. It's as if an Anglophone went to a country where the predominant language was one other than English and started appropriating a few dozen words from the native tongue to pose as a local - "you're not from here, are you?"
Perhaps this stance on computer geek culture is "elitist" or not "inclusive" enough, but be aware that maximum inclusivity tends to result in the same regression to the mean that you describe. It's much easier to spin a narrative about how 31337 at programming you are when you can write any bullshit you want on social media and pose and identify as something you are not, while those who are actually out there writing software instead of posting about it, pushing commits instead of simply updating their GitHub READMEs, have scant little to show to the blithering masses of people who confuse Internet Points, narratives, and hearsay for actual competence. It's a continuation of the postmodern trend to socially construct status, narrative, and indeed, even truth, by manufacturing simulacra and digital content to stand in for and completely replace any underlying reality.
I completely agree with the sentiment. The catch here is that, unlike software in the past, there's (at least in America) ALOT of money on the line with software these days that attracts strategic and outgoing people which are "playing the game" more than they are actually interested in the technical details. I've noticed more and more peers interested in giving shallow talks, nice docs with easy diagrams, and those one page blog posts. I'm sure every industry is seeing the same thing as popularity becomes king.
The author is missing a crucial pressure that pushes against weird nerds, the people that have to work underneath them. I’ve had to answer to a Weird Nerd when I was starting out in my field, it was the worst fucking experience of my life, and I’ve spent the years since warning people away from that person, their career and their contributions to their field have stagnated due to all the people like me that they burned.
The author sidesteps the problem entirely by picking the most idealistic Weird Nerd possible: A person who is indisputably talented, accomplished, perseverant, and even benevolently forgives those who wronged her in the past.
In the real world, the "Weird Nerd" rarely checks all of these boxes, let alone most of them. I bet a lot of people will read this and identify as the Weird Nerd despite checking none of the boxes. That's the nature of articles that leave out the nuance and instead give us the most idealized view of a noble scientist who was a victim of the system. It leaves an opening for everyone to feel like they were a victim of the system.
That's why this problem is far more complicated than articles like this would lead you to believe. Many of the "Weird Nerd" people out there aren't perfect scientists or engineers unfairly shunned by the system. Many of them have real flaws of varying degrees that would require a lot of guidance and mentoring even within a perfect system. And it's not easy! In fact, it can be very taxing on teams to work around the quirks of your average (non Noble Prize winning, like this article) Weird Nerd even if they can produce good output, which is why so many companies select for Boring Nerds instead.
In the real world, the "Weird Nerd" rarely checks all of these boxes, let alone most of them. I bet a lot of people will read this and identify as the Weird Nerd despite checking none of the boxes. That's the nature of articles that leave out the nuance and instead give us the most idealized view of a noble scientist who was a victim of the system. It leaves an opening for everyone to feel like they were a victim of the system.
That's why this problem is far more complicated than articles like this would lead you to believe. Many of the "Weird Nerd" people out there aren't perfect scientists or engineers unfairly shunned by the system. Many of them have real flaws of varying degrees that would require a lot of guidance and mentoring even within a perfect system. And it's not easy! In fact, it can be very taxing on teams to work around the quirks of your average (non Noble Prize winning, like this article) Weird Nerd even if they can produce good output, which is why so many companies select for Boring Nerds instead.
I read the article as acknowledging this pressure by arguing that Weird Nerds should not be forced into people management positions. Without the workplace pressure on Weird Nerds to become people managers, would they still manage people? Maybe not.
I can’t speak for academia, but in tech companies I’ve worked at I’ve seen a marked improvement in management when there’s a tech track for engineer advancement such that they never need to become managers, if they don’t want.
I can’t speak for academia, but in tech companies I’ve worked at I’ve seen a marked improvement in management when there’s a tech track for engineer advancement such that they never need to become managers, if they don’t want.
Being a professor at a research university is really multiple non-overlapping jobs all at once: managing your research group, bringing in funding and publicity, helping run your department and research community, and teaching classes. PhD programs really only prepare you for the nuts-and-bolts of research, and maybe teaching. Only if you're lucky, your advisor was thoughtful enough to make proper introductions to help you get started on funding and prestige out of the gate.
It's not surprising that lots of people opt out or wash out of this system because the expectations don't match the formal preparation for it.
It's not surprising that lots of people opt out or wash out of this system because the expectations don't match the formal preparation for it.
You can blame the bureaucrats for this multi-facted outcome. Their ever-increasing pressure of getting new funding and balancing your books with frequent budget updates is what leads to so much time spent on those activities. And of course they tie those activities to your promotion, instead of the importance of your discoveries which is what should be the only thing that matters.
From a certain perspective, there are two kinds of fields in the academia: "laboratory science" and everything else. If you want to make a career in laboratory science, you need to be a manager and a professional beggar. You need to bring in money to hire people to do your research, and you need to support the administration with grant overheads. If you are good at the job, you pay the administration more than they pay you. Long-term non-manager positions are rare, because they are more expensive for the university than successful managers.
Outside laboratory science, the expectation to bring in funding is not as strong. You don't need much money to do research, and grants are not as readily available. As far as the administration is concerned, if you do your teaching duty without too many issues, you can use the rest of your time as you see fit. Academic politics revolve more around personal relationships with the tenured people at your department.
Outside laboratory science, the expectation to bring in funding is not as strong. You don't need much money to do research, and grants are not as readily available. As far as the administration is concerned, if you do your teaching duty without too many issues, you can use the rest of your time as you see fit. Academic politics revolve more around personal relationships with the tenured people at your department.
Even if you’re not doing performance reviews there’s still a need for directing people technically when the work exceeds what one person(even a 10xer(if such a thing really exists), and that’s where you need some minimum amount of EQ
I think the contention is that playing political games, as quoted in the article, is beyond the minimum amount of EQ normally expected for a non-management role.
Problem is that many places design their ladder such that non-managers are expected to do manager-like work past a certain level. This is to much dismay of those people who are not trained in management skills, and most of the skills they have acquired thus far are no longer being put to good use. These Weird Nerds may very well understand that being at the next level means making impact that exceeds what one person can do alone, nonetheless they will become increasingly unhappy at those roles. Maybe they will leave, maybe they will avoid getting promoted to higher levels in the first place.
Problem is that many places design their ladder such that non-managers are expected to do manager-like work past a certain level. This is to much dismay of those people who are not trained in management skills, and most of the skills they have acquired thus far are no longer being put to good use. These Weird Nerds may very well understand that being at the next level means making impact that exceeds what one person can do alone, nonetheless they will become increasingly unhappy at those roles. Maybe they will leave, maybe they will avoid getting promoted to higher levels in the first place.
I mean it really depends where the weird nerd is. I mean I can say I'm on the border of weird nerd myself, though I say I have enough EQ to get around. Never want to manage people, and have a "high enough" position for myself. The company I work for is in the middle of a new software project and just a few months in I layed out a document stating how and where the software was going to hit failure points that were going to cause outages/degradations of service. Nine months later those failures started occurring like dominoes. We had to stop on new deliveries and work on performance for months.
I mean the entire VC culture is ate up with the 10x CEO, the fact that a few other people lower down the totem pole can 10x in their narrow field shouldn't be a surprise.
I mean the entire VC culture is ate up with the 10x CEO, the fact that a few other people lower down the totem pole can 10x in their narrow field shouldn't be a surprise.
> Weird Nerds should not be forced into people management positions
Let's forget the Weird Nerds for a minute and look at the following situation: a person W is technically savvy enough to have accomplished a big chunk of project X. Say, 90%. And then there is a 10% left which takes as much work. So management hires people from a consultancy to pick up the 10%. Except that these guys don't write much code. They are adept at finding their way into technical management at light speed and want to push what should be their work back to W, while doing the bare minimum otherwise. Now W has more work than before, because he has been pushed into politics. At the very least, he will need to communicate to his colleagues that they need to pick up the slack for real. With some luck, W will find a nice way to do that, but that's the kind of problem he is ill-equipped to handle.
There is something in this article which is overlooked in these comments: people like Katalin Karikó are often under a lot of pressure to perform. They can have crippling debts, or be supporting an elderly parent or relative. Or fear something as life-wrecking as a deportation. They don't get the luxury of being "average", because there are more desirable "average" candidates than them: people who speaks with the right accent or in the right cultural code.
Let's forget the Weird Nerds for a minute and look at the following situation: a person W is technically savvy enough to have accomplished a big chunk of project X. Say, 90%. And then there is a 10% left which takes as much work. So management hires people from a consultancy to pick up the 10%. Except that these guys don't write much code. They are adept at finding their way into technical management at light speed and want to push what should be their work back to W, while doing the bare minimum otherwise. Now W has more work than before, because he has been pushed into politics. At the very least, he will need to communicate to his colleagues that they need to pick up the slack for real. With some luck, W will find a nice way to do that, but that's the kind of problem he is ill-equipped to handle.
There is something in this article which is overlooked in these comments: people like Katalin Karikó are often under a lot of pressure to perform. They can have crippling debts, or be supporting an elderly parent or relative. Or fear something as life-wrecking as a deportation. They don't get the luxury of being "average", because there are more desirable "average" candidates than them: people who speaks with the right accent or in the right cultural code.
Many weird nerds are on the spectrum and require very good people managers above them to mitigate their quirks, and should never go into people management themselves.
The industry has really changed though. It is much easier to hire social well adapted people who can code at all than to hire a bunch of people with social problems who can code really good. The former is scalable at least, the latter breaks down as no one can get along.
The industry has really changed though. It is much easier to hire social well adapted people who can code at all than to hire a bunch of people with social problems who can code really good. The former is scalable at least, the latter breaks down as no one can get along.
Any non-trivial engineering or research is a team effort. It's good to have a mix of perspectives and temperaments in a team to keep poeple creative and honest. But the team ultimately has to cohere in order to deliver. That's really the core job of a manager: to create an environment where people can work together meaningfully and direct it to productive ends.
I totally empathize with this, but there are hardly many people managers who can pull that off. And often those that can get promoted up quickly so that they aren’t managing teams directly anymore. It is much easier to produce with mediocre people managers with a team of socially well adjusted mediocre programmers, than a unicorn people manager with a diverse team of highly skilled programmers who aren’t necessarily great at social skills.
Individual efforts are completely different. A programmer like Notch can produce Minecraft on his own and then just get help to push it into a maintained product. This happens all the time, but you can’t produce that easily (and definitely not consistently) at the big corp level.
Individual efforts are completely different. A programmer like Notch can produce Minecraft on his own and then just get help to push it into a maintained product. This happens all the time, but you can’t produce that easily (and definitely not consistently) at the big corp level.
> Any non-trivial engineering or research is a team effort
There's plenty of counterexamples in the software space, to the point where most great software was originally written by a single person - C, Unix, Linux, Git, TeX, Python, Ruby, Perl, SQLite, QEMU...
Most of these now have huge teams maintaining them of course, but the initial research and engineering that was needed to come up with the golden egg is usually a one man show. C designed by committee is COBOL.
There's plenty of counterexamples in the software space, to the point where most great software was originally written by a single person - C, Unix, Linux, Git, TeX, Python, Ruby, Perl, SQLite, QEMU...
Most of these now have huge teams maintaining them of course, but the initial research and engineering that was needed to come up with the golden egg is usually a one man show. C designed by committee is COBOL.
This isn’t true, most of the best software is written by individuals. Even inside large tech companies, it still happens that major value is created by one person.
> the former is scalable at least,
I’d argue that it’s not due to communication costs. The more you attempt to parallelise a problem the harder communication gets.
I’d argue that it’s not due to communication costs. The more you attempt to parallelise a problem the harder communication gets.
> The industry has really changed though. It is much easier to hire social well adapted people who can code at all than to hire a bunch of people with social problems who can code really good
If you have no financial constraints? In what world do you spend massive amounts of money to mitigate people being "weird"?
If you have no financial constraints? In what world do you spend massive amounts of money to mitigate people being "weird"?
The shift to high level languages like COBOL, BASIC, FORTRAN from machine language? The shift to GC languages? The shift to vastly inefficient but easy to use scripting languages like Python? There's a long history of trading off CPU/RAM/storage efficiency (i.e. massive amounts of money) to make computing accessible to less and less nerdy people.
Those also save time for all people? Which also saves money? I don't think anyone was like, "we need a language to save us from having to hire all these weird people!"
Yep. Just because you're a Weird Nerd who's good at something, the world doesn't owe you respect and friendship unless you're willing to do the same.
You conflate two things that are actually quite different. You don't need to be friends with the Weird Nerd, but you do absolutely have to respect their expertise in the subject matter, especially when it exceeds yours. It's in your employer's interest to do so. Not doing so means you're being less than professional and might secretly be jealous of this person for having attained a higher level of technical achievement than your own.
Respect for your knowledge, yes - but if you're the world's top expert in Subject X, while simultaneously world-renowned for being an unpleasant asshole, don't expect people to interact with you more than the absolute bare minimum required to do the job.
And frankly, nobody's irreplaceable. If you're #1 in the world, but casually drop racist and sexist slurs, odds are that the #2 expert in the world isn't that much worse than you, nor #3..#10.
And frankly, nobody's irreplaceable. If you're #1 in the world, but casually drop racist and sexist slurs, odds are that the #2 expert in the world isn't that much worse than you, nor #3..#10.
And that's fine for most weird nerds. Being cordial and respecting of knowledge is all that's needed in the workplace. Most wns wouldn't make good friendship material either. Their opinions and tastes have a wide range from normal to rather eclectic. But without these people you will never be able to deliver the next new search paradigm. That's how they bring value and that's why the employer hires them. They also tend to be the ones that work very long hours, tinkering with stuff because it's "fun."
Re: racism and sexism, I suspect that's not just wns and may have more to do with upbringing than personality. Most wns tend to be free-thinkers, and barring some oddballs, they tend to self-select out of that way of thinking.
Re: racism and sexism, I suspect that's not just wns and may have more to do with upbringing than personality. Most wns tend to be free-thinkers, and barring some oddballs, they tend to self-select out of that way of thinking.
> Being cordial and respecting of knowledge is all that's needed in the workplace.
Yes - but a lot of Weird Nerds aren't willing to be cordial. I said in another comment that I think that one of the reasons they find their home online is because online, others can walk away from their comments when they need a break from them; something that's much harder to do at work, when you're face to face with them in a meeting, or at the watercooler, or in the bathroom where they followed you to continue their argument.
> Re: racism and sexism, I suspect that's not just wns and may have more to do with upbringing than personality. Most wns tend to be free-thinkers, and barring some oddballs, they tend to self-select out of that way of thinking.
I wildly disagree that racism and sexism - especially if you were brought up in it - is something most people, especially weird nerds who have a very high opinion of their intelligence - "think your way out of".
Yes - but a lot of Weird Nerds aren't willing to be cordial. I said in another comment that I think that one of the reasons they find their home online is because online, others can walk away from their comments when they need a break from them; something that's much harder to do at work, when you're face to face with them in a meeting, or at the watercooler, or in the bathroom where they followed you to continue their argument.
> Re: racism and sexism, I suspect that's not just wns and may have more to do with upbringing than personality. Most wns tend to be free-thinkers, and barring some oddballs, they tend to self-select out of that way of thinking.
I wildly disagree that racism and sexism - especially if you were brought up in it - is something most people, especially weird nerds who have a very high opinion of their intelligence - "think your way out of".
When someone is not willing to be cordial, you don't have to be cordial in return.
> I wildly disagree that racism and sexism - especially if you were brought up in it - is something most people, especially weird nerds who have a very high opinion of their intelligence - "think your way out of".
I don't think we're disagreeing. Certainly the way we're molded in our formative years is hard to break out of. That wns tend to be freethinkers is also true, after all their differences in thinking are what set them apart from regular members of society. I'm positing that freethinkers have a much better chance of breaking the mold than regular people.
I'm not sure of your tone in this conversation though. Are you perhaps uncomfortable with individuals who think differently from you? That is often the root of intolerance my friend.
> I wildly disagree that racism and sexism - especially if you were brought up in it - is something most people, especially weird nerds who have a very high opinion of their intelligence - "think your way out of".
I don't think we're disagreeing. Certainly the way we're molded in our formative years is hard to break out of. That wns tend to be freethinkers is also true, after all their differences in thinking are what set them apart from regular members of society. I'm positing that freethinkers have a much better chance of breaking the mold than regular people.
I'm not sure of your tone in this conversation though. Are you perhaps uncomfortable with individuals who think differently from you? That is often the root of intolerance my friend.
> And that's fine for most weird nerds. Being cordial and respecting of knowledge is all that's needed in the workplace.
Well, no it isn't. That was the point of the top comment in the chain: the commenter worked for Weird Nerd, found them insufferable, told everyone they were insufferable and that working for them sucked, and as a result the Weird Nerd's career has tanked because no one new will work with them. There really aren't many cases where you can Go It Alone without any support from anybody, even if you're brilliant.
Well, no it isn't. That was the point of the top comment in the chain: the commenter worked for Weird Nerd, found them insufferable, told everyone they were insufferable and that working for them sucked, and as a result the Weird Nerd's career has tanked because no one new will work with them. There really aren't many cases where you can Go It Alone without any support from anybody, even if you're brilliant.
I will maintain that being insufferable is largely orthogonal to being a Weird Nerd. You can be an obnoxious blowhard who is also largely insufferable. Most wns keep to themselves and don't seek out the limelight.
> that working for them sucked, and as a result the Weird Nerd's career has tanked because no one new will work with them.
We don't know for a fact that that's what killed their career. That's just the op's impression having worked with the person. The real truth is often muddy. And of course we've all met people who are extremely insufferable to their subordinates and peers but manage upwards very well and go on to very fruitful careers.
> that working for them sucked, and as a result the Weird Nerd's career has tanked because no one new will work with them.
We don't know for a fact that that's what killed their career. That's just the op's impression having worked with the person. The real truth is often muddy. And of course we've all met people who are extremely insufferable to their subordinates and peers but manage upwards very well and go on to very fruitful careers.
Beware though that the inverse is also true.
No matter if one is "weird nerd" or not
No matter if one is "weird nerd" or not
The author bemoans that any org that is not sufficiently pro-weird-nerd becomes anti-weird-nerd, and in conjunction with this comment which laments the experience of working under one alongside my own experiences of similar, I think it's worth remarking that many Weird Nerds not only do not foster social skills of any sort, but in fact view this as a badge of honor, as "proof" of their weirdness, and just, I'm over that shit.
I love weird nerds, I love the sort of people who obsess about things, who work on them as obsessively as I do, I love info dumps, I love people who are passionate even about bizarre, niche shit I don't care about (actually, I love them even more for it!) but seriously. You need to be able to hold a conversation. You need to be able to talk productively with your fellow people, including difficult conversations. You need to open to negative feedback, to be able to take criticism or contrary viewpoints without turning into a puddle of some combination of depression/rage/self-hatred, or people are just not going to get on with you.
And I fully accept that autism runs through this pack of people like a freight train, and that's fair, I am always down to provide accommodations, I will talk to people how they need to be talked to, I will bend the norms of social interaction so it's more palatable, all of that, zero issues whatsoever. But even with that in consideration, relationships of all kinds are a give and take, and if all you do is take, people will notice, and people will avoid you.
I love weird nerds, I love the sort of people who obsess about things, who work on them as obsessively as I do, I love info dumps, I love people who are passionate even about bizarre, niche shit I don't care about (actually, I love them even more for it!) but seriously. You need to be able to hold a conversation. You need to be able to talk productively with your fellow people, including difficult conversations. You need to open to negative feedback, to be able to take criticism or contrary viewpoints without turning into a puddle of some combination of depression/rage/self-hatred, or people are just not going to get on with you.
And I fully accept that autism runs through this pack of people like a freight train, and that's fair, I am always down to provide accommodations, I will talk to people how they need to be talked to, I will bend the norms of social interaction so it's more palatable, all of that, zero issues whatsoever. But even with that in consideration, relationships of all kinds are a give and take, and if all you do is take, people will notice, and people will avoid you.
> but seriously. You need to be able to hold a conversation. You need to be able to talk productively with your fellow people, including difficult conversations. You need to open to negative feedback, to be able to take criticism or contrary viewpoints without turning into a puddle of some combination of depression/rage/self-hatred, or people are just not going to get on with you.
You implying that non-nerds have any of these traits lol no they don't it's just that they exhibit more of group-thinking and less individualism, so they provoke less situations that might potentially cause conflict.
My experience with nerds is "ok each has their own opinion this is going to be difficult but let's try cooperating" whereas non-nerds act exclusively "my way or the highway" because they have never previously encountered the idea that their view of the world might be wrong "because I'm the majority".
You implying that non-nerds have any of these traits lol no they don't it's just that they exhibit more of group-thinking and less individualism, so they provoke less situations that might potentially cause conflict.
My experience with nerds is "ok each has their own opinion this is going to be difficult but let's try cooperating" whereas non-nerds act exclusively "my way or the highway" because they have never previously encountered the idea that their view of the world might be wrong "because I'm the majority".
> You implying that non-nerds have any of these traits
The thesis of the initial discussion is that it is unfair to hold "weird nerds" to certain standards.
The person you are responding to is claiming that actually some of these standards are important.
Your response to that of claiming that the standards are important is to say that actually normal people don't pass those standards either.
This doesn't refute the argument that the standards are important, but would actually agree with them that actually yes it is totally fine to hold people to important standards, weird nerd or not. (And in fact, you think the weird nerds are even better are following the standards! So what is the issue of holding them to those standards then?)
The thesis of the initial discussion is that it is unfair to hold "weird nerds" to certain standards.
The person you are responding to is claiming that actually some of these standards are important.
Your response to that of claiming that the standards are important is to say that actually normal people don't pass those standards either.
This doesn't refute the argument that the standards are important, but would actually agree with them that actually yes it is totally fine to hold people to important standards, weird nerd or not. (And in fact, you think the weird nerds are even better are following the standards! So what is the issue of holding them to those standards then?)
When people say "I want you to have good social skills" they think "I want you to collaborate with others and not cause drama". These two might seem similar but they aren't. It's okay to expect people to live up to expectations, but at the same time you might admit that these expectations are unfair and put certain people in disadvantage because of their innate traits.
Imagine you have an all-Arab company and you hire a Jew. Of course there's going to be a lot of drama, even it that particular employee has fantastic social skills, and would thrive in an environment full of people from their own culture.
My point is, in order to achieve the same result "collaborate with others and not cause drama" nerds need much higher social skills than non-nerds, simply because they're a minority.
It might reasonable to hold people to important standards, while these standards might be inherently unfair. It depends on whether you value effects or effort.
Imagine you have an all-Arab company and you hire a Jew. Of course there's going to be a lot of drama, even it that particular employee has fantastic social skills, and would thrive in an environment full of people from their own culture.
My point is, in order to achieve the same result "collaborate with others and not cause drama" nerds need much higher social skills than non-nerds, simply because they're a minority.
It might reasonable to hold people to important standards, while these standards might be inherently unfair. It depends on whether you value effects or effort.
I would absolutely, 100% expect professional behavior from a bunch of arabs and a Jew who found themselves working together, and it's frankly illuminating that that was your go-to as a scenario that would inevitably cause workplace friction, especially following a line about "innate traits."
And that's before we get into nerds being a minority which is just... no. Nerd shit is so mainstream at this point and co-opting minority status to talk about you really being into geology or something is... a lot.
There's a lot going on here and I'm not interested in unpacking it, have a lovely day.
And that's before we get into nerds being a minority which is just... no. Nerd shit is so mainstream at this point and co-opting minority status to talk about you really being into geology or something is... a lot.
There's a lot going on here and I'm not interested in unpacking it, have a lovely day.
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHR/comments/17og4us/my_jewish_em...
Your reply can be summarized as "workplace is magically immune to natural friction that occurs when people from vastly different social groups interact because I strongly believe in HR's wishful thinking and besides, talking about two social groups that are commonly known to hate each other to the point that they don't want to recognize each other's statehood is just non-compliant and goes against our community standards"
Your reply can be summarized as "workplace is magically immune to natural friction that occurs when people from vastly different social groups interact because I strongly believe in HR's wishful thinking and besides, talking about two social groups that are commonly known to hate each other to the point that they don't want to recognize each other's statehood is just non-compliant and goes against our community standards"
What exactly was the issue, and did they burn people on purpose or through some kind of extreme carelessness and indifference?
Yes, the weird nerd is rarely a good people manager. As useful as they might be as an individual contributor when property channeled, they can easily be a -10x contributor when you put them in charge of people.
I disagree. A "weird nerd" is much better in leadership than a socially adept careerist to parachutes in to get a bump on their resume. To build good products you need to care. A "weird nerd" is more likely to care.
It would help your point to separate design leadership from supervisory management. You do not want weird nerds in charge of personnel decisions beyond "Yes, we get along" and "No, we don't"; you do want them in decision-making roles about the product.
care, yes but caring about the right things in product is a process of discipline and organizational/ market knowledge. Its not hard to imagine pursuing the most interesting qualities at the cost of core functionality. (hypothetical - such as insisting that the buttons on my cable box have the touch of a mechanical keyboard)
edit: to be fair, it is extremely necessary to have both voices at the table challenging one another
edit: to be fair, it is extremely necessary to have both voices at the table challenging one another
[deleted]
There's really no such thing as "working with computers" (as is often said), because every piece of tech was made by and for humans, so social skills always matter. The hardest projects I've succeeded at depended on looking at things that way, even purely technical solo ones.
> I’ve had to answer to a Weird Nerd when I was starting out in my field, it was the worst fucking experience of my life,
I wouldn't want to tar all people who might be perceived as Weird Nerd, based on one data point (which AFAIK might not even be due to them being a Weird Nerd).
Almost all of the too-many people I've seen burn others under their influence, I wouldn't have called any of them Weird Nerd. And none of them appeared to be geniuses. Rather they tended to be at least somewhat successful as political operators, unlike how the article characterizes Weird Nerd. (Arrogant seemed to be the most common attribute, then greedy, dishonest, and unprintable bad word.)
Someone might decide to call some of those FTX cryptocurrency scammers Weird Nerds, but you could also just call them overprivileged brats with consequently warped worldviews.
I wouldn't want to tar all people who might be perceived as Weird Nerd, based on one data point (which AFAIK might not even be due to them being a Weird Nerd).
Almost all of the too-many people I've seen burn others under their influence, I wouldn't have called any of them Weird Nerd. And none of them appeared to be geniuses. Rather they tended to be at least somewhat successful as political operators, unlike how the article characterizes Weird Nerd. (Arrogant seemed to be the most common attribute, then greedy, dishonest, and unprintable bad word.)
Someone might decide to call some of those FTX cryptocurrency scammers Weird Nerds, but you could also just call them overprivileged brats with consequently warped worldviews.
> I’ve had to answer to a Weird Nerd when I was starting out in my field, it was the worst fucking experience of my life, and I’ve spent the years since warning people away from that person, their career and their contributions to their field have stagnated due to all the people like me that they burned.
And in what way is Katalin Karikó responsible for your mistreatment? I doubt you would have said something similar about a black or gay former manager, attributing your mistreatment to their race or sexual orientation. But for some reason it’s perfectly acceptable to attribute it to a Weird Nerd personality.
And in what way is Katalin Karikó responsible for your mistreatment? I doubt you would have said something similar about a black or gay former manager, attributing your mistreatment to their race or sexual orientation. But for some reason it’s perfectly acceptable to attribute it to a Weird Nerd personality.
Shades of Graeber in this essay:
>There was a time when academia was society’s refuge for the eccentric, brilliant, and impractical. No longer. It is now the domain of professional self-marketers. As for the eccentric, brilliant, and impractical: it would seem society now has no place for them at all.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7004628-there-was-a-time-wh...
>There was a time when academia was society’s refuge for the eccentric, brilliant, and impractical. No longer. It is now the domain of professional self-marketers. As for the eccentric, brilliant, and impractical: it would seem society now has no place for them at all.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7004628-there-was-a-time-wh...
Thanks be for online investing. It's been my place of economic refuge to fund my lifelong impracticality.
I don't know. Does internet communities count?
They don't generally supply food, housing.
The idea that IQ and EQ are negatively correlated is dubious at best.
I would venture a guess that the vast majority of "Weird Nerds" are not Katalin Karikós, and instead are simply difficult jerks who are not nearly as smart as they think they are. Hubris mixed with obstinance is a recipe for misanthropy.
Also, the notion that the internet is a place where your outputs are judged solely on their merits, so that you don't have the "ability to sell yourself and your work", is absolutely hysterical.
I would venture a guess that the vast majority of "Weird Nerds" are not Katalin Karikós, and instead are simply difficult jerks who are not nearly as smart as they think they are. Hubris mixed with obstinance is a recipe for misanthropy.
Also, the notion that the internet is a place where your outputs are judged solely on their merits, so that you don't have the "ability to sell yourself and your work", is absolutely hysterical.
Your last paragraph is interesting. When I think back about at Perl, Python, and Ruby, all of them have/had charismatic leaders -- Larry Wall, Guido van Rossum, and Yukihiro Matsumoto. This would help to explain part of the success of their programming languages. My guess: All three of them have high IQ and EQ. To be clear: I don't write this post to take anything away from the incredible accomplishments of those people. Rather, I am trying to say that having a good personality (and probably higher EQ) only helped their cause.
I would even argue that Linus Torvalds's famous abrasiveness is its own kind of charisma, well adapted to its target audience.
Oh, absolutely. Linux kernel hacking is a _dojo_ at least as much as it is a service to one's fellow man. You don't want to go to the gym with a bunch of wimps who are cheating on their curls, and you don't want to hack on the kennel all day when 90% of the people around you are more interesting in talking around the thing than in actually improving it, and improving their own skills in the process.
Linus's approach is very good at setting this precedent, while staying really quite friendly, and it's what attracts a lot of people to the endeavor.
Linus's approach is very good at setting this precedent, while staying really quite friendly, and it's what attracts a lot of people to the endeavor.
I think what this article misses is that for most real-world problems, there is a) not an objectively "right" or "best" solution (just varying degrees of partial solutions that are imperfect in different ways), and b) there are reasons to coalesce around a single solution. So it seems perfectly reasonable to me that individuals who are able to be "the most socially adept and organized manager" could rally a community around their solution.
> The idea that IQ and EQ are negatively correlated is dubious at best.
How about: IQ and EQ are mostly fixed in any given individual. You can use one to simulate the other - e.g. using EQ to get help or bullshit your way through a problem your IQ is insufficient for, or using IQ to intentionally behave in a way that would be totally natural if you had higher EQ. So it's not that they're negatively correlated per se, just that if you're being pressured past your limit in one, the other will effectively drop.
How about: IQ and EQ are mostly fixed in any given individual. You can use one to simulate the other - e.g. using EQ to get help or bullshit your way through a problem your IQ is insufficient for, or using IQ to intentionally behave in a way that would be totally natural if you had higher EQ. So it's not that they're negatively correlated per se, just that if you're being pressured past your limit in one, the other will effectively drop.
I find it dubious to make this comparison in an article which does not talk about EQ, but about ability (willingness?) to play company politics. I'd wager that one is *at most* slightly correlated with EQ.
I've witnessed more than a little of this. I worked in a university, in a library (though not as a librarian), and realized that everyone at a certain level or above in administration Came From Money. While "has a house in another country" is not subtle, "father was on an Everest expedition" is. Once I began noticing this soft ceiling I could not help but see it everywhere in the university. Meritoriousness was not on the menu and it took me entirely too long to "get" that I was locked out of promotion and that it was just a way to keep me dancing like a little dog standing up for a treat.
The "bundle of tradeoffs," which is a more humane and human way of thinking, is at odds with the "cog in the machine" approach which began with interchangeable machined parts and progressed on to the human element. Being replaceable then becomes a prized characteristic. Indeed, one of the administrative staff suggested that anyone who seemed like they were too valuable to replace ought to be let go on those grounds alone. It's a recipe for a kind of predictable mediocrity.
Business loves predictable mediocrity, and we see it in various forms of intellectual property. Why sell a copy of Office for unlimited use when you can charge monthly and predict out your next few quarters? Own a movie? No, rent. And as academic institutions continue their transformation into administratively bloated credential assembly lines, we will see more business-y strategies worm their way in.
The "bundle of tradeoffs," which is a more humane and human way of thinking, is at odds with the "cog in the machine" approach which began with interchangeable machined parts and progressed on to the human element. Being replaceable then becomes a prized characteristic. Indeed, one of the administrative staff suggested that anyone who seemed like they were too valuable to replace ought to be let go on those grounds alone. It's a recipe for a kind of predictable mediocrity.
Business loves predictable mediocrity, and we see it in various forms of intellectual property. Why sell a copy of Office for unlimited use when you can charge monthly and predict out your next few quarters? Own a movie? No, rent. And as academic institutions continue their transformation into administratively bloated credential assembly lines, we will see more business-y strategies worm their way in.
> and realized that everyone at a certain level or above in administration Came From Money
There's a lot of that. And in academia in general.
Many/most are decent people. But even those often haven't been exposed to the ordinary life experience of the majority people from their country. And that often seems to affect how they think about themselves and the world.
Also, there's often implicit self-promotion and self-interest behavior. Which they might think is normal, since it's in their upbringing, and in the circles they now travel in. But it's not necessarily normal to the masses of their countries (which I'd expect to tend towards more cooperative and egalitarian in some ways).
There's a lot of that. And in academia in general.
Many/most are decent people. But even those often haven't been exposed to the ordinary life experience of the majority people from their country. And that often seems to affect how they think about themselves and the world.
Also, there's often implicit self-promotion and self-interest behavior. Which they might think is normal, since it's in their upbringing, and in the circles they now travel in. But it's not necessarily normal to the masses of their countries (which I'd expect to tend towards more cooperative and egalitarian in some ways).
I want to say this article describes me, but then I realized that it's just my confirmation bias. Who doesn't like to think that they are the smartest ones around and it's everyone else who is stupid and clueless?
Science ultimately is a collective effort. The collaboration doesn't need to happen in real time, in the same physical place. Ideas can be spread out across time and geographies and finally one person puts them together and given our bias for hero worship, we call that one person a genius and go on a wild goose chase of how can we create more geniuses instead of asking how can we foster a environment for ideas, an environment which sometimes needs to last for decades in order to bear fruit.
Science ultimately is a collective effort. The collaboration doesn't need to happen in real time, in the same physical place. Ideas can be spread out across time and geographies and finally one person puts them together and given our bias for hero worship, we call that one person a genius and go on a wild goose chase of how can we create more geniuses instead of asking how can we foster a environment for ideas, an environment which sometimes needs to last for decades in order to bear fruit.
I do think it's a major issue that academia is increasingly bureaucratic and corporate, but I don't quite agree with the article. It's not that very smart, truth-motivated people have bad people skills (e.g., off the top of my head - von Neumann, Feynman, and Newton were all pretty good with people when they needed to be), it's that they are motivated largely by discovery and not by status and money. But academia today is essentially a machine for amassing status and money at the expense of creating genuine new knowledge, which drives away those who want to create knowledge.
Academia pays absolutely terribly for an elite job, it's all status. You could make more than 90% of tenured professors as a manager of Buc-ee's
"Earning" doesn't necessarily come with a truly elite status job, because you're not relying on a salary to live. Having to live off a salary is lower status.
I don't understand what you're saying here.
If my daddy makes 7 digits per year and set me up in a trust then I don't have to work to live upper middle class. Therefore an "elite" aka prestige only position that pays pennies may be more elite because i don't depend on the pay like the plebians.
A different way to become a low paying professor is to research and earn 7digits+ from patents
A different way to become a low paying professor is to research and earn 7digits+ from patents
I'm not disputing your point about prestige, and I'm sure that people whose 'daddies make 7 digits per year' would be interested in more prestigious roles and less interested in pay. But I really doubt that most professors are trust fund kids who don't have to work.
The comment above mine said "Academia pays absolutely terribly for an elite job". But earning doesn't really come into a truly elite (status-wise) job, because the person doing it doesn't need to earn to live.
The top comment claimed "academia today is essentially a machine for amassing status and money".
Pointing out that it pays terribly is completely on point.
Pointing out that it pays terribly is completely on point.
Yes, good point, thanks. I was thinking of the high end of disciplines with strong ties to industry, mainly STEM and business, but that's actually just a very small, although prominent, part of academia.
The very high end of academia--especially in areas where consulting gigs are readily available--is pretty nice from what I've seen. But, as you say, it's pretty rare and still probably not that lucrative overall especially if you're in some expensive living area.
The shift in the US from the 1980s to banning forced retirement age has only added to the trend toward accruing and maintaining status through navigating an established, and increasingly sclerotic, hierarchy. The quest for lifelong tenure has become increasingly and necessarily political as the length of future job security has extended into one's 80s.
> I still stand by my association of Weird Nerds with autism, but for some reason people really do not like to call Weird Nerds autistic.
I'm sorry, what, even if they're preponderant you can't just call all of them that any more than you can collectively call all basketball players "Marfan Syndrome havers"
I'm sorry, what, even if they're preponderant you can't just call all of them that any more than you can collectively call all basketball players "Marfan Syndrome havers"
I qualify as a weird nerd, and I'm definitely not autistic.
I don't like to call anybody autistic because it invites paternalism or even outright discrimination. I even object to using much milder labels such as "introvert."
I don't like to call anybody autistic because it invites paternalism or even outright discrimination. I even object to using much milder labels such as "introvert."
Yeah, this is a dumb insinuation.
The author is conflating people who are motivated internally by making great contributions to society with autism. Many of the best artists and scientists aren't autistic, and perhaps are quite the opposite: deeply emotional and socially aware. I'd argue you need a deep understanding of social value to even want to make a great contribution to society.
Also, it's not like people with autism are automatically geniuses. Anecdotally I've found autism to not really contribute to original and innovative thinking, more with excessive fixation on a subject. There is a difference.
The author is conflating people who are motivated internally by making great contributions to society with autism. Many of the best artists and scientists aren't autistic, and perhaps are quite the opposite: deeply emotional and socially aware. I'd argue you need a deep understanding of social value to even want to make a great contribution to society.
Also, it's not like people with autism are automatically geniuses. Anecdotally I've found autism to not really contribute to original and innovative thinking, more with excessive fixation on a subject. There is a difference.
>I'd argue you need a deep understanding of social value to even want to make a great contribution to society.
Autistics only nessecarily misunderstand social value in a superficial way. They are frequently compensating for a sort of "social blindness" with unusual strengths like pattern recognition to get insights into social situations in a more detached way through a different lens.
People also can be on a team with somebody who has a deep understanding of social value who doesn't have it themselves. Jobs/Woz comes to mind.
Autistics only nessecarily misunderstand social value in a superficial way. They are frequently compensating for a sort of "social blindness" with unusual strengths like pattern recognition to get insights into social situations in a more detached way through a different lens.
People also can be on a team with somebody who has a deep understanding of social value who doesn't have it themselves. Jobs/Woz comes to mind.
It seems like you're saying autistic people are not deeply emotional or socially aware, or capable of understanding social value. This is not what autism is -- it's a developmental disability that leads to impairment in social situations, not an inability to understand society and emotions.
Tell me honestly that most weird nerds are not on the spectrum and I might be able to work up enough energy to clutch my pearls at this.
I say this as a weird nerd who is definitely on the spectrum, like I suspect many HN readers are.
I say this as a weird nerd who is definitely on the spectrum, like I suspect many HN readers are.
Allow me a bit of poetic license with the original statement and maybe it will explain my objection better.
> but for some reason people really do not like to call marathon winners "Kenyans".
Why might other marathon runners not like being lumped in with that country, given its incredible winningness at long-distance racing?
> but for some reason people really do not like to call marathon winners "Kenyans".
Why might other marathon runners not like being lumped in with that country, given its incredible winningness at long-distance racing?
Maybe many and even most are on the spectrum, but not all are.
And even then, its a _spectrum_ meaning every person has a their own unique mix of, lets just call them quirks.
Meaning they (and you) are more than a single word like "autism". In fact in Sweden we've moved away from the "autistic diagnosis" because it's too simplistic. It's dangerous to be too caught up in "being autistic" that we hinder ourselves and others when we can do more.
Signed, a dad with autistic tendencies and a 4-year old child with may quirks that already give us quite a lot of challenges.
And even then, its a _spectrum_ meaning every person has a their own unique mix of, lets just call them quirks.
Meaning they (and you) are more than a single word like "autism". In fact in Sweden we've moved away from the "autistic diagnosis" because it's too simplistic. It's dangerous to be too caught up in "being autistic" that we hinder ourselves and others when we can do more.
Signed, a dad with autistic tendencies and a 4-year old child with may quirks that already give us quite a lot of challenges.
I am on the spectrum but I definitely know nerds (although not necessarily weird nerds) who are insanely good programmers/computer scientists (and do have that as their hyper specialized interest) who are not on the spectrum.
But the thing is, it's a spectrum.. Personally I do find it a little ridiculous because the biggest parts of autism have absolutely nothing to do with my work/interests but with social life, sensory issues, etc. And it's definitely more a struggle than a superpower (at least to me).
But the thing is, it's a spectrum.. Personally I do find it a little ridiculous because the biggest parts of autism have absolutely nothing to do with my work/interests but with social life, sensory issues, etc. And it's definitely more a struggle than a superpower (at least to me).
I really wish somebody had sat me down before grad school and told me just how important it is to sell yourself. So much of research is a form of sales: you have to sell your work and by extension your ability; you need to convince the department that you are a star so that they go to bat for you; you have to convince star professors to co-author with you so that you can get good publications; you need to attend all the conferences in your field and sell your research to potential reviewers and editors. Putting your head down and just doing your work is a terrible strategy and will get you absolutely nowhere.
The path of the weird nerd has never been easy. Humans are inherently social animals and when you don't fully fit that mold you will, by definition, exist somewhat on the perimeter of society, no matter how valuable your skills.
The best thing for a Weird Nerd to do is to find a trustworthy 'patron' who can appreciate that it benefits them to handle the messy human stuff and let the Weird Nerd do the nerd work. The problem is that Weird Nerds are often terrible at figuring out who is trustworthy and a good fit for a symbiotic relationship like this.
The best thing for a Weird Nerd to do is to find a trustworthy 'patron' who can appreciate that it benefits them to handle the messy human stuff and let the Weird Nerd do the nerd work. The problem is that Weird Nerds are often terrible at figuring out who is trustworthy and a good fit for a symbiotic relationship like this.
"And I believe the conversation here starts with accepting a simple truth, which is that Weird Nerds will have certain traits that might be less than ideal, that these traits come “in a package” with other, very good traits"
I think the point here can be strengthened by removing the issue of "weird traits" entirely. The simple reality is, if you are hiring someone to be very, very smart in their field, at a world-class, there is literally no one who can just parachute in and replace them, level, you need to minimize the amount of other things they have to do in order to operate at that level.
Why hire a world-class irreplaceable expert to do anything if you're going to require them to spend 90% of their time doing things other than being a world-class irreplaceable expert? Even if the expert is the nicest person in the history of humanity, it's still a complete waste if you can't support them and they have to do all this other stuff just to be allowed to function as a world-class expert.
In local parlance, this is no different than hiring a senior engineer and then 100% filling their schedule with meetings. Or expecting to hire a unicorn that is an expert in seven distinct languages and is also a manager and a high-level sales person. If I put that job listing out HR would laugh and send it back to me. Essentially making "world class scientist AND good manager AND expert sales/politician" the baseline for functionality in the sciences is just a recipe for futility.
There doesn't even have to be a correlation with "weird traits"; even a population-average distribution of the ability to me a manager + politician + sales + something else is a very, very tall ask. Add back in that there are certainly good reasons that outlier personality traits are fairly likely to go with outlier skills and it just makes it worse, but it would be plenty bad enough without that.
I think the point here can be strengthened by removing the issue of "weird traits" entirely. The simple reality is, if you are hiring someone to be very, very smart in their field, at a world-class, there is literally no one who can just parachute in and replace them, level, you need to minimize the amount of other things they have to do in order to operate at that level.
Why hire a world-class irreplaceable expert to do anything if you're going to require them to spend 90% of their time doing things other than being a world-class irreplaceable expert? Even if the expert is the nicest person in the history of humanity, it's still a complete waste if you can't support them and they have to do all this other stuff just to be allowed to function as a world-class expert.
In local parlance, this is no different than hiring a senior engineer and then 100% filling their schedule with meetings. Or expecting to hire a unicorn that is an expert in seven distinct languages and is also a manager and a high-level sales person. If I put that job listing out HR would laugh and send it back to me. Essentially making "world class scientist AND good manager AND expert sales/politician" the baseline for functionality in the sciences is just a recipe for futility.
There doesn't even have to be a correlation with "weird traits"; even a population-average distribution of the ability to me a manager + politician + sales + something else is a very, very tall ask. Add back in that there are certainly good reasons that outlier personality traits are fairly likely to go with outlier skills and it just makes it worse, but it would be plenty bad enough without that.
As a Weird Nerd who can't get a job in the industry [1], this resonates.
On one hand, I understand that I can't get a job because of my own flaws. After all, who needs a solo-only C-only [2] programmer who can't build theory of mind and thus, can't read code written by others and who refuses to prioritize employer over user?
On the other hand, it is hard, and I secretly hope the industry can change so that people like me can have a place.
Edit: To clarify, I don't think I am a Genius, just a Weird Nerd in the sense that I do not like politicking. However, I am trying to learn from my empath wife how to do it because yes, it is a necessary evil right now.
[1]: https://gavinhoward.com/2024/06/my-programming-journey/
[2]: https://gavinhoward.com/2023/02/why-i-use-c-when-i-believe-i...
On one hand, I understand that I can't get a job because of my own flaws. After all, who needs a solo-only C-only [2] programmer who can't build theory of mind and thus, can't read code written by others and who refuses to prioritize employer over user?
On the other hand, it is hard, and I secretly hope the industry can change so that people like me can have a place.
Edit: To clarify, I don't think I am a Genius, just a Weird Nerd in the sense that I do not like politicking. However, I am trying to learn from my empath wife how to do it because yes, it is a necessary evil right now.
[1]: https://gavinhoward.com/2024/06/my-programming-journey/
[2]: https://gavinhoward.com/2023/02/why-i-use-c-when-i-believe-i...
> On the other hand, it is hard, and I secretly hope the industry can change so that people like me can have a place.
In some ways, things are better than ever for folks like you. Starting and running a one-person business making software is feasible now but would've been much harder in decades past.
> Second, I work alone on code that is entirely in my head. ... Rust is great for teams ...
Unfortunately, industry has problems that are big enough that they're not easily solved with one person. So tools that work to bring about a team's success will be valuable. As will individuals who work well in teams.
In some ways, things are better than ever for folks like you. Starting and running a one-person business making software is feasible now but would've been much harder in decades past.
> Second, I work alone on code that is entirely in my head. ... Rust is great for teams ...
Unfortunately, industry has problems that are big enough that they're not easily solved with one person. So tools that work to bring about a team's success will be valuable. As will individuals who work well in teams.
> In some ways, things are better than ever for folks like you. Starting and running a one-person business making software is feasible now but would've been much harder in decades past.
Yes, you are absolutely right.
Unfortunately, I have been trying that and failing. I don't blame anyone for that either.
> Unfortunately, industry has problems that are big enough that they're not easily solved with one person. So tools that work to bring about a team's success will be valuable. As will individuals who work well in teams.
You are absolutely correct. And yes, that is why people shouldn't hire me.
Nevertheless, I think there are some problems that one person can solve.
I want to make the next-gen version control system. I think that may be small enough for one person. Other infrastructure software can be like that too.
Yes, you are absolutely right.
Unfortunately, I have been trying that and failing. I don't blame anyone for that either.
> Unfortunately, industry has problems that are big enough that they're not easily solved with one person. So tools that work to bring about a team's success will be valuable. As will individuals who work well in teams.
You are absolutely correct. And yes, that is why people shouldn't hire me.
Nevertheless, I think there are some problems that one person can solve.
I want to make the next-gen version control system. I think that may be small enough for one person. Other infrastructure software can be like that too.
I've seen your monorepo and it's definitely impressive. How are you going about acquiring clients though? It's not like I have any advice but I'm curious what you've tried.
Thank you for your compliment!
Blog post marketing, mostly. I am about to start a podcast for marketing as well.
I would do conferences, but people have advised against that.
Blog post marketing, mostly. I am about to start a podcast for marketing as well.
I would do conferences, but people have advised against that.
Just checking - have you considered switching projects, with your next project being social engineering your sales? (Cold turkey switch, not "let me get these features added, before I switch projects" etc.)
Its quite possible you have thought of this, but I cant be sure. If you have thought or acted on it, how long were you able to sustain it?
Being able to switch your obsession is something we are able to do, but it does require time and thinking.
Its quite possible you have thought of this, but I cant be sure. If you have thought or acted on it, how long were you able to sustain it?
Being able to switch your obsession is something we are able to do, but it does require time and thinking.
I have considered, but I won't.
I actually can't switch my obsessions. Not intentionally. I have tried.
It has taken me 7 years of marriage to go from uncanny valley social skills to appearing normal at first glance. Social engineering skills would probably take me another 100 years.
And on that point (and this is purely my belief, not objective truth), unlike most people, I want clients to choose my software because it actually is the best for them, not because I manipulated, er, socially engineered, them into thinking so. If people make uninformed decisions in my favor, then on some level, I am slightly scamming them. I don't want that.
I actually can't switch my obsessions. Not intentionally. I have tried.
It has taken me 7 years of marriage to go from uncanny valley social skills to appearing normal at first glance. Social engineering skills would probably take me another 100 years.
And on that point (and this is purely my belief, not objective truth), unlike most people, I want clients to choose my software because it actually is the best for them, not because I manipulated, er, socially engineered, them into thinking so. If people make uninformed decisions in my favor, then on some level, I am slightly scamming them. I don't want that.
Hmmm.
I respect your position. I am going to push against a few errors made on my part.
Social engineering was used incorrectly by me. I should have said marketing and sales. You cannot switch to something you find uninteresting, much less something you feel is in opposition to your values.
I respect your position. I am going to push against a few errors made on my part.
Social engineering was used incorrectly by me. I should have said marketing and sales. You cannot switch to something you find uninteresting, much less something you feel is in opposition to your values.
IMO Open Source software communities are where folks like you can really thrive. They're much closer at something like a meritocracy than traditional workplaces.
> I want to make the next-gen version control system
While you certainly could invent one yourself, you could consider contributing to popular ones like git/mercurial. It'd help teach you both the positive and the negative aspects of their design choices. Also you could consider learning from newer approaches like Jujutsu [1] or Pijul [2] on your way to designing the next-gen system. Good luck!
[1] https://github.com/martinvonz/jj
[2] https://pijul.org/
> I want to make the next-gen version control system
While you certainly could invent one yourself, you could consider contributing to popular ones like git/mercurial. It'd help teach you both the positive and the negative aspects of their design choices. Also you could consider learning from newer approaches like Jujutsu [1] or Pijul [2] on your way to designing the next-gen system. Good luck!
[1] https://github.com/martinvonz/jj
[2] https://pijul.org/
[deleted]
People like you have a lot of places to shine nowadays. Having a job/boss isn't the right way for many (much less a given).
Thank you.
I have also tried to start my own business, but that is not going well.
I have also tried to start my own business, but that is not going well.
I didn't fully understand what the author meant by "Weird Nerd", and this bit was the key for me:
> Weird Nerds (I called them autistics, but people really hated that)
And I totally get why they're trying to come up with a word that markets better, and yes many people react negatively to "autist" or calling someone "on the spectrum".
At the same time, man prominent people are making public their diagnostics and assert being on the autism spectrum, and I wonder if it becomes a disservice to them to not use the term when appropriate, precisely because of how it's perceived now.
> Weird Nerds (I called them autistics, but people really hated that)
And I totally get why they're trying to come up with a word that markets better, and yes many people react negatively to "autist" or calling someone "on the spectrum".
At the same time, man prominent people are making public their diagnostics and assert being on the autism spectrum, and I wonder if it becomes a disservice to them to not use the term when appropriate, precisely because of how it's perceived now.
I am pretty certain I am a Weird Nerd.
I have good reasons to consider myself neurodivergent (and others do consider me such). There are definite divergences that have caused me problems. I have what people consider "superpowers" and what people consider "difficulties".
Not certain I am autistic. Might have been considered mild or (the then-termed) "high functioning" as a kid in the 80s.
But on the other hand, I don't think it's necessarily wrong to put me in the same broad category as autistic people, because I have the same issues in the context of the article -- with being conventionally "ambitionless", having relatively little grasp of (or instinct for) power games etc., and needing the kind of support that others often do.
That category needs a name. (In the UK we'd traditionally go for "boffin", which is broadly a term of affection, but it's a little harder to spot a boffin these days because of casual clothing at the office)
I have good reasons to consider myself neurodivergent (and others do consider me such). There are definite divergences that have caused me problems. I have what people consider "superpowers" and what people consider "difficulties".
Not certain I am autistic. Might have been considered mild or (the then-termed) "high functioning" as a kid in the 80s.
But on the other hand, I don't think it's necessarily wrong to put me in the same broad category as autistic people, because I have the same issues in the context of the article -- with being conventionally "ambitionless", having relatively little grasp of (or instinct for) power games etc., and needing the kind of support that others often do.
That category needs a name. (In the UK we'd traditionally go for "boffin", which is broadly a term of affection, but it's a little harder to spot a boffin these days because of casual clothing at the office)
I react negatively to "autist" because it's not a good description. "ist" is usually used for something people do, or more to the point something they choose to do, see cyclist, artist, etc.
Also, "on the spectrum" is used today much like "depression" was used in the '90s. It's a catch all excuse used at the expense of people actually suffering the disorder. Much like sometimes you are just sad, I would wager many people who claim to be "on the spectrum" are just assholes.
Also, "on the spectrum" is used today much like "depression" was used in the '90s. It's a catch all excuse used at the expense of people actually suffering the disorder. Much like sometimes you are just sad, I would wager many people who claim to be "on the spectrum" are just assholes.
I'd argue assholes would merit the same attention as the people on the spectrum,
but it might be another discussion.
> something they choose to do
Point taken, but then switching that for "weird" doesn't feel like helping, it's still a pejorative and not really focused description.
> people actually suffering the disorder
An issue I'd take with that is the effect to which it's penalizing depends a lot on the environment and what the person is trying to do. Would two people with the same condition, but one suffering and the other not, need to be identified in two different ways ?
> something they choose to do
Point taken, but then switching that for "weird" doesn't feel like helping, it's still a pejorative and not really focused description.
> people actually suffering the disorder
An issue I'd take with that is the effect to which it's penalizing depends a lot on the environment and what the person is trying to do. Would two people with the same condition, but one suffering and the other not, need to be identified in two different ways ?
This spectrum they speak of, are there labels for its extremes? Other spectra have things like hot/cold, large/small, etc.
Is it the autistic/not-autistic spectrum? Because if so, we're all on it.
Is it the autistic/not-autistic spectrum? Because if so, we're all on it.
I think you're circling some valid points, but realistically I don't think this happens in the current climate. There's a couple of forces at play - a) it's a medical issue that people are really passionate about b) there's an ironic (or not, at times) subculture of calling oneself 'autistic' when it's just exhibiting an interest and c) there's still no 100% accurate test, not everyone will want to out themselves, etc. So the shroud of mystery + confusion persists for the vast majority outside of those that advocate and speak out.
I think it's a good thing to come up with some other term to refer to these extrinsically motivated nerds that don't really care for typical social constructs but bring immense value to a bunch of types of work. That way whether they identify or are diagnosed as autistic isn't necessarily the important piece, more the result of their person.
I think it's a good thing to come up with some other term to refer to these extrinsically motivated nerds that don't really care for typical social constructs but bring immense value to a bunch of types of work. That way whether they identify or are diagnosed as autistic isn't necessarily the important piece, more the result of their person.
[deleted]
I agree with most of this story, but I really find the assertion that weird nerds are just autistic rather offensive and dismissive. It reminds me way too much of lazy teachers in the 90s insisting students they didn't want to manage were just suffering from ADD and hoping they could just get their parents to dope them up on Ritalin.
The Manhattan Project was a very successful model of managing big brains or "weird nerds". The key it turns out is having a big brain manage other big brains, while himself managed by a corporate type from the US Army. Another key element is a shared sense of insecurity tied to mission failure. I predict future weird nerds will be herded together in 'safe corporate cities' (like the Googleplex prototype) shielding them from the outside unwashed. They may be weird but they can do the math.
I've met a handful of people who have won at least one of the top prizes in mathematics, i.e. a Fields medal, Abel prize, or Wolf Prize. I would describe none of them as "weird nerds", and I don't think any of them are autistic. I chafe pretty hard at the suggestion here that one has to be socially ill-adjusted to advance scientific knowledge at the highest level.
> I chafe pretty hard at the suggestion here that one has to be socially ill-adjusted to advance scientific knowledge at the highest level.
This is very similar to the idea of the tortured artist or that to be a great comedian you have to be depressed.
The happy and well adjusted comedian or socially adept mathematician doesn’t make for an interesting story — it just doesn’t fit the popular narrative and so it gets ignored.
In every discipline there are total weirdos and normal people at every step of the way, from terribly inept to amazingly world-class.
This is very similar to the idea of the tortured artist or that to be a great comedian you have to be depressed.
The happy and well adjusted comedian or socially adept mathematician doesn’t make for an interesting story — it just doesn’t fit the popular narrative and so it gets ignored.
In every discipline there are total weirdos and normal people at every step of the way, from terribly inept to amazingly world-class.
That's not the suggestion though. It's that a lot of high performers in STEM tend to be "Weird Nerds" and by selecting against that type, you alienate a large number of potentially great researchers.
Not selecting against weird nerds doesn't mean selecting against "socially well-adjusted Nerds".
In fact, the article says that a person can in fact be exceptional at politic and science, despite their tenets being antithetical in many cases.
Not selecting against weird nerds doesn't mean selecting against "socially well-adjusted Nerds".
In fact, the article says that a person can in fact be exceptional at politic and science, despite their tenets being antithetical in many cases.
It says there is a "strong anti-correlation" between being a weird nerd and being pleasant to be around socially. This may be true, but it is not my experience that there is a strong anti-correlation between being an exceptional mathematician and being pleasant to be around socially. Despite the stereotype, in my experience the best mathematicians are not the ones who stare at their shoes when you talk to them.
From the article:
> There is a strong anti-correlation between these interests (that of course does not mean there is no one who is good at both.)
> There is a strong anti-correlation between these interests (that of course does not mean there is no one who is good at both.)
My point is not merely that there exist socially competent people who advance science at the highest level, but that I reject the claim that this is an anti-correlation. I do not think that scientific genius and social grace are anti-correlated, or antithetical.
I still think you're adding some nuance that isn't in the article.
The article is about how politicking is a requirement of success in academia. Schmoozing isn't social grace. It's closer to social engineering.
Social grace is having the grace to socialize without embarrassing yourself, you don't have to schmooze to do that. And yet it is often a requirement of politics.
Which is a requirement of success in academia.
Schmoozing is antithetical to science because science is the pursuit of the truth of the nature of things backed by tangible evidence. Science isn't supposed to show bias or favoritism.
Kind of hard to reject that notion. Though you could probably argue that schmoozing isn't necessary for politics. Most people would disagree though.
The article is about how politicking is a requirement of success in academia. Schmoozing isn't social grace. It's closer to social engineering.
Social grace is having the grace to socialize without embarrassing yourself, you don't have to schmooze to do that. And yet it is often a requirement of politics.
Which is a requirement of success in academia.
Schmoozing is antithetical to science because science is the pursuit of the truth of the nature of things backed by tangible evidence. Science isn't supposed to show bias or favoritism.
Kind of hard to reject that notion. Though you could probably argue that schmoozing isn't necessary for politics. Most people would disagree though.
Selection bias, the people who likes to socializes meets more persons so you are much more likely to encounter such people than the ones who keep to themselves. So even if most of those math winners hated socializing you wouldn't meet those so your conclusion would be the same, meaning we can't tell much about it.
And that’s the problem. How many weird nerds were driven out because they aren’t playing the academia game well?
My dad was the prototypical weird nerd. He was a physics teacher that was allergic to schmoozing yet could read a 600 page book in 5 minutes. He had limited career success which was opposite to his intellect and ability.
Unfortunately my only solution to this is to learn from my dad’s experience and lean into instead of away from the areas Katalin disdains. Success seems to require leaning into these areas of social reciprocity. Especially in startups. Yes you must make a product that people want, but to become big it requires distribution, which requires schlepping by performing these social reciprocity hacks.
Unfortunately my only solution to this is to learn from my dad’s experience and lean into instead of away from the areas Katalin disdains. Success seems to require leaning into these areas of social reciprocity. Especially in startups. Yes you must make a product that people want, but to become big it requires distribution, which requires schlepping by performing these social reciprocity hacks.
Speaking as a weird nerd (wn)
A wn is disconnected from society. This gives him the power to think and act independently. The non-wn can't do that.
(And, being disconnected like that, the wn is oblivious to a million social hints and cues. He is blind that way)
It isn't voluntary, being a wn. It's an artifact of habitual, excessive concentration, or something.
The non-wn's state is involuntary too.
Both are products of nature/society/habit/etc. Both trapped in their respective shape.
I suppose some of us are not trapped like that. There might even be a way to escape it. To make that habit-shape into something conscious and voluntary.
A wn is disconnected from society. This gives him the power to think and act independently. The non-wn can't do that.
(And, being disconnected like that, the wn is oblivious to a million social hints and cues. He is blind that way)
It isn't voluntary, being a wn. It's an artifact of habitual, excessive concentration, or something.
The non-wn's state is involuntary too.
Both are products of nature/society/habit/etc. Both trapped in their respective shape.
I suppose some of us are not trapped like that. There might even be a way to escape it. To make that habit-shape into something conscious and voluntary.
I read this as basically arguing that our filters throw up too many false negatives, like Kariko, in a high-risk/high-reward environment. It’s saying the cost of false negatives is way higher than the system realizes, and that’s because the system has drifted to be too much like the collaborative, incremental workplace that most of us live in. Typical work teams pay a high cost for false positives when hiring, so they guard against them at the cost of way more false negatives. The doesn’t work as well for moonshot fields.
I wish I had a source for it right now, but years ago I heard an anecdoate that Bell Labs had essentially dorms/hotels for scientists, where things like cooking and laundry were taken care of, so they could focus on their research.
This had the effect of embracing those people who hadn't necessarily figured out how to be independent adults. As long as they were lucky enough to be identified and brilliant enough to be hired, they could flourish at the Labs.
I'd love to know if other settings have made similar accommodations, and to what effect.
This had the effect of embracing those people who hadn't necessarily figured out how to be independent adults. As long as they were lucky enough to be identified and brilliant enough to be hired, they could flourish at the Labs.
I'd love to know if other settings have made similar accommodations, and to what effect.
I don't think I believe that. Look at the top scientists of previous decades. They weren't incompetent idiot savants or man-children.
But they likely did have their wives do a lot of the domestic heavy lifting.
Big tech companies like Google and Facebook?
It's the author of the article that seems weird, not the researcher.
A major risk in academia is picking a dead-end niche. We hear about the people who picked an unlikely winner. This one picked mRNA vaccines. The inventor of MRI scanning had similar problems. He was almost fired. Those two succeeded, eventually. But the people who work on E-beam lithography or vaccines against addiction didn't do so well. Both of those would have been huge if they worked well. You can't tell in advance. If you could, the problem didn't need research.
A more useful way to look at this is that doing it and selling it are different skills. This is why companies have separate R&D, production, and marketing departments. If you face a hard problem in one of those areas, you can't devote enough time to the others. This is to some extent a time management and division of labor problem.
Academia is not team-oriented in that sense. At least below the principal investigator level. Once reaching that level, university PR departments are happy to hype any modest advance into a major breakthrough. Below that level, it's a cold world. Academia seems to have built itself a dysfunctional world - a huge bureaucracy, not much of a career path for real researchers, and a shrinking pool of full professorships. So anybody who is any good goes to a startup now.
Henry Kissinger, who was not lacking in people skills, once commented that "academic policy is so vicious because the stakes are so low".
A major risk in academia is picking a dead-end niche. We hear about the people who picked an unlikely winner. This one picked mRNA vaccines. The inventor of MRI scanning had similar problems. He was almost fired. Those two succeeded, eventually. But the people who work on E-beam lithography or vaccines against addiction didn't do so well. Both of those would have been huge if they worked well. You can't tell in advance. If you could, the problem didn't need research.
A more useful way to look at this is that doing it and selling it are different skills. This is why companies have separate R&D, production, and marketing departments. If you face a hard problem in one of those areas, you can't devote enough time to the others. This is to some extent a time management and division of labor problem.
Academia is not team-oriented in that sense. At least below the principal investigator level. Once reaching that level, university PR departments are happy to hype any modest advance into a major breakthrough. Below that level, it's a cold world. Academia seems to have built itself a dysfunctional world - a huge bureaucracy, not much of a career path for real researchers, and a shrinking pool of full professorships. So anybody who is any good goes to a startup now.
Henry Kissinger, who was not lacking in people skills, once commented that "academic policy is so vicious because the stakes are so low".
> We need her in the lab, not at fancy dinners.
I think it is naive to take such a stance. This is the thinking that leads to layers of management, institutional bloat, non experts with MBAs calling shots and ultimately loss of the opportunity to fund genius as it becomes all the blurier who really has the vision and capability and who is just good with filling out grant applications.
I think it is naive to take such a stance. This is the thinking that leads to layers of management, institutional bloat, non experts with MBAs calling shots and ultimately loss of the opportunity to fund genius as it becomes all the blurier who really has the vision and capability and who is just good with filling out grant applications.
Not going to lie, I would like to see myself as one of these smart people who was held back by lack of social skills like selling oneself and capitalizing on political situations. I think that's probably unrealistic. However I do sympathize with much of what the article describes. It would be nice if politics and stuff wasn't so important.
I'm a bit "spectrumish." It's definitely way better, this late in life, than it was, when I was younger, but it's still there, if you know what to look for (my wife knows what to look for).
One aspect of it, that has always been a part of the package, is that folks Just. Don't. Like. Me.
Most, if questioned about their dislike, may come up with a couple of things, like "He's abrupt," or "He's arrogant," but these are also exactly the traits present in many folks that they do like. They are just trying to justify this "feeling" that they have about me.
As anyone in my shoes can tell you, we're "bully magnets." Most of us were recipients of multiple atomic wedgies, in school. My grade school days were a living hell. Again, there's no real "reason" for the hate. There's just something about us that pisses them off. I suspect that the "resting bitch face," prevalent amongst us may have something to do with it. It often looks as if we're being hostile, when we're not. I spent many years, training my "resting" face to be one that's basically "harmless dork," as opposed to "angry bastard." Doesn't win me a lot of respect, but, at least, I'm not being attacked out of the starting gate, anymore.
I've gotten used to it. It doesn't even really bother me too much, these days, and it happens a lot less. Feeling sorry for myself is a waste of time. I used to get all butthurt about it, but that was just stupid of me. Others have far worse crosses to bear. In the aggregate, it's been a good thing. I'm fairly decent at my software development.
The folks that matter, stick around. I do have a fairly large circle of close friends and associates that don't let my "oddness" get in the way, and enough folks have respected me, that I was able to make a decent living.
But many of us don't have those "soft" skills, that can be important, when working in a team, or trying to establish relationships with other people.
One aspect of it, that has always been a part of the package, is that folks Just. Don't. Like. Me.
Most, if questioned about their dislike, may come up with a couple of things, like "He's abrupt," or "He's arrogant," but these are also exactly the traits present in many folks that they do like. They are just trying to justify this "feeling" that they have about me.
As anyone in my shoes can tell you, we're "bully magnets." Most of us were recipients of multiple atomic wedgies, in school. My grade school days were a living hell. Again, there's no real "reason" for the hate. There's just something about us that pisses them off. I suspect that the "resting bitch face," prevalent amongst us may have something to do with it. It often looks as if we're being hostile, when we're not. I spent many years, training my "resting" face to be one that's basically "harmless dork," as opposed to "angry bastard." Doesn't win me a lot of respect, but, at least, I'm not being attacked out of the starting gate, anymore.
I've gotten used to it. It doesn't even really bother me too much, these days, and it happens a lot less. Feeling sorry for myself is a waste of time. I used to get all butthurt about it, but that was just stupid of me. Others have far worse crosses to bear. In the aggregate, it's been a good thing. I'm fairly decent at my software development.
The folks that matter, stick around. I do have a fairly large circle of close friends and associates that don't let my "oddness" get in the way, and enough folks have respected me, that I was able to make a decent living.
But many of us don't have those "soft" skills, that can be important, when working in a team, or trying to establish relationships with other people.
> "He's abrupt," or "He's arrogant," ... "angry bastard."
It sounds like those are totally fixable personality defects, yet here you are acting persecuted and making excuses. What if you didn't blame other people and instead took responsibility for your own off-putting behavior?
I've worked with too many men who think they're too special to follow social etiquette, when they are actually just garden-variety jerks who use their nerd identity as a get out of jail free card.
It sounds like those are totally fixable personality defects, yet here you are acting persecuted and making excuses. What if you didn't blame other people and instead took responsibility for your own off-putting behavior?
I've worked with too many men who think they're too special to follow social etiquette, when they are actually just garden-variety jerks who use their nerd identity as a get out of jail free card.
Why did you write that? You come across as insensitive, and likely someone who hasn't put the effort to understand the comment and the context.
It's far too easy to conclude that you aren't heeding your own advice. Was this some next level attempt to show what being a bully magnet looks like?
I don't understand.
It's far too easy to conclude that you aren't heeding your own advice. Was this some next level attempt to show what being a bully magnet looks like?
I don't understand.
Is it bullying to suggest that a person take responsibility for their own lack of courtesy?
Reread the initial message. You missed the point completely in your rush to cheerlead bullying.
Academia is just messed up because the path to the top is to become an absolute expert in some topic, (PhD, postgrad), then become a performer/people manager/grant writer/office politics master (professor). It is really dumb. You are rolling the dice twice for expert level skills, and the second roll comes after huge personal investment.
Not really sure what the solution is. Maybe a huge increase in the number of national labs, as a vent for those who hit the first roll but fail the second.
We also need a vent for people who are good at teaching but not super focused on research. Drastically increase the community college system, IMO, and start paying the instructors enough to have nice middle-class lifestyles. Stop making people-people and weird nerds compete for rare grants and let them both do the things they are better at.
Not really sure what the solution is. Maybe a huge increase in the number of national labs, as a vent for those who hit the first roll but fail the second.
We also need a vent for people who are good at teaching but not super focused on research. Drastically increase the community college system, IMO, and start paying the instructors enough to have nice middle-class lifestyles. Stop making people-people and weird nerds compete for rare grants and let them both do the things they are better at.
The alternative would be that public performance/management/grant writing/office politics are handled by someone who has absolutely no clue about what science is.
It doesn't take very long to find corporate examples of this alternative, and why it's not great either.
It doesn't take very long to find corporate examples of this alternative, and why it's not great either.
[deleted]
I guess I'm biased because I worked with so many other comparatively "weird nerds" that were given some space to be themselves in nuclear energy from hoarding old WSJs to dripping burger sauces into their keyboards, and in an academic research department we had a PI who ran between his office and the elevator like I did until I was about 15-16 and someone clued me in.
One thing is to always be looking for one's own blindspots and examining how your or other people's behavior might be misinterpreted, and defusing any potential awkwardness with honesty and humor. For example, forgetfulness or anxiety rather than intentional snubbing. And err on the side of humor mixed with some self-deprecation and self-awareness because it demonstrates you're cool, reciprocate, are domesticated, and strive to not embarrass others intentionally.
A while back, the department dean was a mildly-weird nerd but developed politician-/salesman-like cheerfulness and political skills taking some of the burden off PIs and supporting them in whatever ways were needed to bring in the big grants, licensing deals, and industry collaboration. Having 2 expert, dedicated, highly-productive grant writers were also invaluable. The grad students were absolutely going places and startups were on the minds of about 80% of folks. It was a good spot to branch out from or build a research CV but there weren't profits to be had directly there.
One thing is to always be looking for one's own blindspots and examining how your or other people's behavior might be misinterpreted, and defusing any potential awkwardness with honesty and humor. For example, forgetfulness or anxiety rather than intentional snubbing. And err on the side of humor mixed with some self-deprecation and self-awareness because it demonstrates you're cool, reciprocate, are domesticated, and strive to not embarrass others intentionally.
A while back, the department dean was a mildly-weird nerd but developed politician-/salesman-like cheerfulness and political skills taking some of the burden off PIs and supporting them in whatever ways were needed to bring in the big grants, licensing deals, and industry collaboration. Having 2 expert, dedicated, highly-productive grant writers were also invaluable. The grad students were absolutely going places and startups were on the minds of about 80% of folks. It was a good spot to branch out from or build a research CV but there weren't profits to be had directly there.
It was *very* hard to decode what this article is about when it started off with "quickly forgot about their support for “Women in STEM”", which (after 3 reads of the first 2 paragraphs and then closing the page) has nothing to do with anything, but makes it sound as if the article is about identity politics, which it isn't.
Speaking from big tech, you get things like rust (mozilla) or React (facebook) when your engineers are given the space to solve industry scale problems. Those are both "weird nerd" contributions since the original creators weren't interested in the celebrity public facing side of it.
In the React case, I'm not sure it would have become the framework it is today unless Dan Abramhov pushed it outside of the company. That took an insane amount of effort and skill to do that, especially at the time when Angular was quickly establishing itself.
Rust required an entire company to organize behind it and Mozilla spent a fortune getting it on its feet. Otherwise, I am not sure it would have been more than an experiment on someone's laptop, long forgotten.
I'm not sure what the solution for that is, or how else you push through all of the noise. Every great discovery and advancement in history is driven by the folks who can sell their hard work or at least have someone else willing to do it for them.
In the React case, I'm not sure it would have become the framework it is today unless Dan Abramhov pushed it outside of the company. That took an insane amount of effort and skill to do that, especially at the time when Angular was quickly establishing itself.
Rust required an entire company to organize behind it and Mozilla spent a fortune getting it on its feet. Otherwise, I am not sure it would have been more than an experiment on someone's laptop, long forgotten.
I'm not sure what the solution for that is, or how else you push through all of the noise. Every great discovery and advancement in history is driven by the folks who can sell their hard work or at least have someone else willing to do it for them.
What industry scale problems does React solve? I don't have the most experience in React but it feels like it's gotten very complex in recent years.
React is a very good framework for writing _web_ frontends in my opinion. Writing web frontends is complex, there is no getting around that. React being complex isn't a fault of react, it reflects the nature of the problem.
I’m not sure I follow the first sentence. What does this have to do with Women in STEM?
(I’m not being political. I just don’t follow the connection)
(I’m not being political. I just don’t follow the connection)
The first half of the sentence ("women in STEM") is meant to reflect on the confounding approach to the person mentioned in the second half of the sentence, a woman in STEM. First half "YAY GIRL POWER GO!," second half is that same bunch of people, presumably the Twitterati in question, being down on an opinion held by a woman in STEM who, well, the Nobel Prize is pretty good as a confirmation that you are STEMming very hard, when what they ought to be doing is, "Hey, we were just talking about women in STEM, maybe we should not reflexively criticize the very model of the person we were praising when she has an opinion which might be new or troublesome to us."
It's because of a lot of the people who push for more women in STEM (i think there is a movement called that too) also called out Karico for her vision on politiking and asskissing in academia (and science in general. My sister interned in a private lab in the past spring, it seemed to be even worse than academia on those point, although the pay was way better).
It's not a dig at the movement or their values, i do think its a minority who do this, but its a vocal minority who might be capturing the movement (i don't think this is the case, but this is a danger. look at what HAES as become).
It's not a dig at the movement or their values, i do think its a minority who do this, but its a vocal minority who might be capturing the movement (i don't think this is the case, but this is a danger. look at what HAES as become).
There is an argument that, to make STEM more friendly to women, it needs a culture change - which implies less weird-nerd culture. Whether this argument is correct or not is a separate matter (I'm leaning towards "it's complicated, but I'll round off to 'no'.") But what's going on here is people holding this argument are dunking on a woman in STEM.
[deleted]
I'm on the same page as you here.
Even the proposed rule
> Any system that is not explicitly pro-Weird Nerd will turn anti-Weird Nerd pretty quickly
just feels like a misunderstanding of the paradox of tolerance[0] ("in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance").
So we need to question what the author means with "Weird Nerd", because if a weird nerd just isn't expressing intolerance, I can't fathom how anyone could have an issue with it ...and become "anti-Weird Nerd".
[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Even the proposed rule
> Any system that is not explicitly pro-Weird Nerd will turn anti-Weird Nerd pretty quickly
just feels like a misunderstanding of the paradox of tolerance[0] ("in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance").
So we need to question what the author means with "Weird Nerd", because if a weird nerd just isn't expressing intolerance, I can't fathom how anyone could have an issue with it ...and become "anti-Weird Nerd".
[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Yes; with more and more people having degrees just to get into lame jobs that previously required no degree, academia necessarily changes away from being Weird Nerd ranch. Key positions of power in the academic organization will end up staffed by fewer Weird Nerds, making the structure less sympathetic toward Weird Nerds.
Here's a different take.
> Everything comes at a cost: spend more time worrying about politics, there will be less time for science. What’s more, the kind of people who really care about science or truth to the extent that Karikó did, are not the same people that get motivated by playing politics or being incredibly pleasant.
Obvious answer: We should incentivize and structure our institutions to be more receptive to Weird Nerds in order to enable further progress of science.
My take: Scientific work is by its nature unnatural for human beings. Human beings played politics for millenia and are structured to do so, mentally, physically, biologically. Structuring our society to be more receptive to the people which we are wired to not be receptive is swimming against the current.
The same argument can be applied to a lot of modern phenomena.
> Everything comes at a cost: spend more time worrying about politics, there will be less time for science. What’s more, the kind of people who really care about science or truth to the extent that Karikó did, are not the same people that get motivated by playing politics or being incredibly pleasant.
Obvious answer: We should incentivize and structure our institutions to be more receptive to Weird Nerds in order to enable further progress of science.
My take: Scientific work is by its nature unnatural for human beings. Human beings played politics for millenia and are structured to do so, mentally, physically, biologically. Structuring our society to be more receptive to the people which we are wired to not be receptive is swimming against the current.
The same argument can be applied to a lot of modern phenomena.
I found Eric S. Raymond's take on this interesting (and most likely false):
https://x.com/esrtweet/status/1795088812944584781
He contends that autism is brain damage that limits your max IQ and that all the smartest people are neurotypical -- the genius brain is almost necessarily a normie brain, but better.
I think that what's closer to the truth is that extremely high intelligence is itself a form of neurodivergence, which is likely to be comorbid with other forms of neurodivergence. Eric himself I believe to be neurodivergent (in some non-autistic way) with 95% confidence: one of the tells is his choice of desktop environment: a minimalist tiling window manager (likely i3) with Emacs full screen on one of his displays -- anything else he deems too distracting and a drag on his brain. This sounds very ADHD and in any case is an almost archetypal Weird Nerd setup. Neurotypicals love their Windows and Mac style UIs, and every NT software engineer I've met has no problem managing -- and mousing through -- multiple windows: Visual Studio Code for coding, Postman for making HTTP calls, DBVisualizer for database interactions, etc.
NTs also love what people like Eric (and I as well sometimes) dismiss as "monkey socio-sexual games"; and if you are smart as well, you tend to get really, really good at these. Having been around extremely intelligent people who otherwise seem neurotypical (in particular, having married one and thus gained two more as in-laws), they tend to get less into hard science fields like math and physics, and more into fields where they can wield their impressive social skills for maximum benefit such as law, psychology, or entertainment. (Great actors, like Orson Welles or Sir Patrick Stewart, fit this profile to a T, though there are some great actors -- like Dan Aykroyd -- with autism!) My in-laws were legal professionals for the entertainment industry; after that long and successful career they retired, went to seminary, and joined the clergy of the Episcopal church!
Eric's observation that all the best scientists are neurotypical-ish may be a result of what's described in TFA: in today's world, being a prominent scientist selects very hard against Weird Nerd traits because at that level, beyond a baseline level raw skill in the discipline doesn't correlate well with success; schmoozing and marketing do. The same has been true of professional software engineering for at least a decade and a half or so.
https://x.com/esrtweet/status/1795088812944584781
He contends that autism is brain damage that limits your max IQ and that all the smartest people are neurotypical -- the genius brain is almost necessarily a normie brain, but better.
I think that what's closer to the truth is that extremely high intelligence is itself a form of neurodivergence, which is likely to be comorbid with other forms of neurodivergence. Eric himself I believe to be neurodivergent (in some non-autistic way) with 95% confidence: one of the tells is his choice of desktop environment: a minimalist tiling window manager (likely i3) with Emacs full screen on one of his displays -- anything else he deems too distracting and a drag on his brain. This sounds very ADHD and in any case is an almost archetypal Weird Nerd setup. Neurotypicals love their Windows and Mac style UIs, and every NT software engineer I've met has no problem managing -- and mousing through -- multiple windows: Visual Studio Code for coding, Postman for making HTTP calls, DBVisualizer for database interactions, etc.
NTs also love what people like Eric (and I as well sometimes) dismiss as "monkey socio-sexual games"; and if you are smart as well, you tend to get really, really good at these. Having been around extremely intelligent people who otherwise seem neurotypical (in particular, having married one and thus gained two more as in-laws), they tend to get less into hard science fields like math and physics, and more into fields where they can wield their impressive social skills for maximum benefit such as law, psychology, or entertainment. (Great actors, like Orson Welles or Sir Patrick Stewart, fit this profile to a T, though there are some great actors -- like Dan Aykroyd -- with autism!) My in-laws were legal professionals for the entertainment industry; after that long and successful career they retired, went to seminary, and joined the clergy of the Episcopal church!
Eric's observation that all the best scientists are neurotypical-ish may be a result of what's described in TFA: in today's world, being a prominent scientist selects very hard against Weird Nerd traits because at that level, beyond a baseline level raw skill in the discipline doesn't correlate well with success; schmoozing and marketing do. The same has been true of professional software engineering for at least a decade and a half or so.
> Eric's observation that all the best scientists are neurotypical-ish may be a result of what's described in TFA: in today's world, being a prominent scientist selects very hard against Weird Nerd traits because at that level, beyond a baseline level raw skill in the discipline doesn't correlate well with success; schmoozing and marketing do.
I definitely think so. If Eric had gone to tea with faculty at the Institute of Advanced Study back when Einstein and Gödel were top dogs he may well have had the opposite impression.
I definitely think so. If Eric had gone to tea with faculty at the Institute of Advanced Study back when Einstein and Gödel were top dogs he may well have had the opposite impression.
In other words your typical academic institution likes all kinds of diversity except diversity of thought.
And they hide this behind a smokescreen by focusing on all the superficial forms of diversity (gender, skin color, orientation etc).
And they hide this behind a smokescreen by focusing on all the superficial forms of diversity (gender, skin color, orientation etc).
>There was a time when academia was society’s refuge for the eccentric, brilliant, and impractical. No longer. It is now the domain of professional self-marketers. As for the eccentric, brilliant, and impractical: it would seem society now has no place for them at all.
There never was such a time, since at least the time of Newton and Euler Academics are a popularity and status contest. You got to be eccentric only after you climbed to the top of your field.
There never was such a time, since at least the time of Newton and Euler Academics are a popularity and status contest. You got to be eccentric only after you climbed to the top of your field.
> Weird Nerds (I called them autistics, but people really hated that^2) [...] But it’s also hard to believe someone like her could ever become the most pleasant interlocutor at a dinner party, or the most socially adept and organized manager.
The part about "organized manager" is surprising. If we're going to stereotypes, I would've guessed that a manager who was autistic would likely have being organized as one of their strengths.
Regarding "socially adept [...] manager", I've worked with two software engineering project managers who were autistic. They were both very different (one amiable, and had much better than average understanding of human behavior and emotions; the other came off as making an effort to tolerate people). Both were not only well-respected, but liked, and were effective at difficult work&people-herding jobs.
Even with the manager who came off as not really liking anyone by default, and even on a very difficult project, almost everyone on large teams respected the project manager (excepting one person, who couldn't stand something about the project manager, or the nature of the project). And I didn't hear the grumbling like I'd normally hear about a manager who was unfair, incompetent, or dishonest.
The part about "organized manager" is surprising. If we're going to stereotypes, I would've guessed that a manager who was autistic would likely have being organized as one of their strengths.
Regarding "socially adept [...] manager", I've worked with two software engineering project managers who were autistic. They were both very different (one amiable, and had much better than average understanding of human behavior and emotions; the other came off as making an effort to tolerate people). Both were not only well-respected, but liked, and were effective at difficult work&people-herding jobs.
Even with the manager who came off as not really liking anyone by default, and even on a very difficult project, almost everyone on large teams respected the project manager (excepting one person, who couldn't stand something about the project manager, or the nature of the project). And I didn't hear the grumbling like I'd normally hear about a manager who was unfair, incompetent, or dishonest.
[deleted]
Everyone get your bucket ready, I'm going to throw an anecdote into it.
I play D&D. This exposes me to a wide variety of people, but unsurprisingly, a lot of them are probably what the author would consider Weird Nerds.
Most of them are perfectly pleasant people, and I look forward to spending time in their company, both in the context of playing D&D, and just as a way to socialize. Heck, at my last session, a player proposed doing a regular board game night, and I am very excited to do this with those people.
But. Occasionally, you meet someone who is just fucking unpleasant to be around. Maybe they're on the spectrum (as the author really wants to lump all Weird Nerds on the far end of), maybe they're just poorly socialized, maybe they're just assholes. And unless they're just awful people [more on this later], you learn to put up with their idiosyncracies - because in the end, they're pretty good at playing D&D, and it's fun to slay a dragon or solve the mystery of the mermaid pond, or finally get revenge on your vampire stepfather from hell or whatever. But those people? They're not coming to board game night, and they're not fucking coming to any of my BBQs. They're ok in the context of playing D&D for three hours, but I'm not willing to spend more time with them.
I think that's another reason why some Weird Nerds who are unpleasant to be around have found a safe haven on the internet, as the author puts it: because while they're still unpleasant, you can read their unpleasant words and then walk away for awhile. They're not standing in front of you, demanding your time face to face. If someone is the world's expert on a thing you're collaborating on online, it doesn't matter if you groan every time you have to talk to them, because your time with them is largely limited, and you can walk away at literally any point during the interaction and regain the will to live and spend more time with them.
I'm not sure what my point is. Maybe that it's kind of ok to not want to be around people who are unpleasant to be around, and that despite that, it's also ok for them to still meaningfully participate in the things that matter to them.
[About the awful people in D&D: it's a game, and it's made to be fun. Not every table is made for every player, and vice versa. If you're in a game, and someone is truly ruining the game for the other players by being a generally unpleasant person, I am begging you to just fucking stop playing with them. Life is short, don't surround yourself with assholes. I promise you can find more players. And if you're the one being asked to leave a D&D table because other people find your unpleasant, reflect on your actions. Maybe you're just at a table that's a bad fit for you. Or maybe you're an asshole.]
(If I currently play D&D with you, rest assured that I am not talking about you; all the examples are from past games.)
I play D&D. This exposes me to a wide variety of people, but unsurprisingly, a lot of them are probably what the author would consider Weird Nerds.
Most of them are perfectly pleasant people, and I look forward to spending time in their company, both in the context of playing D&D, and just as a way to socialize. Heck, at my last session, a player proposed doing a regular board game night, and I am very excited to do this with those people.
But. Occasionally, you meet someone who is just fucking unpleasant to be around. Maybe they're on the spectrum (as the author really wants to lump all Weird Nerds on the far end of), maybe they're just poorly socialized, maybe they're just assholes. And unless they're just awful people [more on this later], you learn to put up with their idiosyncracies - because in the end, they're pretty good at playing D&D, and it's fun to slay a dragon or solve the mystery of the mermaid pond, or finally get revenge on your vampire stepfather from hell or whatever. But those people? They're not coming to board game night, and they're not fucking coming to any of my BBQs. They're ok in the context of playing D&D for three hours, but I'm not willing to spend more time with them.
I think that's another reason why some Weird Nerds who are unpleasant to be around have found a safe haven on the internet, as the author puts it: because while they're still unpleasant, you can read their unpleasant words and then walk away for awhile. They're not standing in front of you, demanding your time face to face. If someone is the world's expert on a thing you're collaborating on online, it doesn't matter if you groan every time you have to talk to them, because your time with them is largely limited, and you can walk away at literally any point during the interaction and regain the will to live and spend more time with them.
I'm not sure what my point is. Maybe that it's kind of ok to not want to be around people who are unpleasant to be around, and that despite that, it's also ok for them to still meaningfully participate in the things that matter to them.
[About the awful people in D&D: it's a game, and it's made to be fun. Not every table is made for every player, and vice versa. If you're in a game, and someone is truly ruining the game for the other players by being a generally unpleasant person, I am begging you to just fucking stop playing with them. Life is short, don't surround yourself with assholes. I promise you can find more players. And if you're the one being asked to leave a D&D table because other people find your unpleasant, reflect on your actions. Maybe you're just at a table that's a bad fit for you. Or maybe you're an asshole.]
(If I currently play D&D with you, rest assured that I am not talking about you; all the examples are from past games.)
I had a "friend" like you once. We got along well, he would excitedly dive deep with me in tech because he wanted to learn programming, and I would excitedly dive deep with him into creating coffee and beer because I find the stricture in creation leading to creativity endlessly interesting.
However, whenever he'd have his "cool" friends over for parties I wouldn't get an invite, in fact never met any of his other acquaintances. He explained to me once that he likes to keep his different social lives separate, and I was apparently the only one in his "tech" social circle.
That made me feel like shit, and reinforced my self-view as failing to be a normal human.
This is a theme that's continued with multiple "friends" throughout my life, to the point where I eventually just gave up trying, gave up giving of myself to others to simply be siloed or discarded once they got what they wanted from me. I got tired of the lack of reciprocation in giving me a chance to be a part of their actual life even though they were apparently getting enough from me that they were willing to keep me around when it suited their needs.
I hope some day you gain some compassion and can see that people who are different than you are still people, and that treating them as lesser except when you can get something from them (like an interesting dnd game) is a huge part of the problem in these types of people retreating even more from the social and emotional norms.
At this point, why in the hell do you think I would even _want_ to be willful part of the society you inhabit, that treats other humans as you do?
However, whenever he'd have his "cool" friends over for parties I wouldn't get an invite, in fact never met any of his other acquaintances. He explained to me once that he likes to keep his different social lives separate, and I was apparently the only one in his "tech" social circle.
That made me feel like shit, and reinforced my self-view as failing to be a normal human.
This is a theme that's continued with multiple "friends" throughout my life, to the point where I eventually just gave up trying, gave up giving of myself to others to simply be siloed or discarded once they got what they wanted from me. I got tired of the lack of reciprocation in giving me a chance to be a part of their actual life even though they were apparently getting enough from me that they were willing to keep me around when it suited their needs.
I hope some day you gain some compassion and can see that people who are different than you are still people, and that treating them as lesser except when you can get something from them (like an interesting dnd game) is a huge part of the problem in these types of people retreating even more from the social and emotional norms.
At this point, why in the hell do you think I would even _want_ to be willful part of the society you inhabit, that treats other humans as you do?
I don't know you, and you don't know me. I won't hypothesize about your situation - though based on what you've written, you're right, and it was an objectively terrible experience for you, and I'm sorry you had to go through it..
But please don't equate me with someone who treated you badly, based on five paragraphs I banged out this afternoon.
Just because I don't want to invite a casual acquaintance who regularly says things I find vile to my house, doesn't make me an incompassionate villain.
But please don't equate me with someone who treated you badly, based on five paragraphs I banged out this afternoon.
Just because I don't want to invite a casual acquaintance who regularly says things I find vile to my house, doesn't make me an incompassionate villain.
I ask, if that person is truly unpleasant have you spoken to them about how unpleasant they are?
Not to defend but how is someone to recognise a fault of their own if they're not called upon? Unless its truly terrible and they know they are doing it on purpose.
The issue we live in nowadays we are all scared how to tell each other how we feel towards and that we now safe harbour them by throwing them a label and approving that to a degree.
I'm direct and blunt, if someone is doing something in a group I call them out of it; I expect folk to do the same for me.
I may be offended but you should be offended, there's no harm in that.
Granted it's a double edged sword. You tell them; they preach to their safe haven and breathe the toxic fumes of their peers. Or they actually recognise it.
Not to defend but how is someone to recognise a fault of their own if they're not called upon? Unless its truly terrible and they know they are doing it on purpose.
The issue we live in nowadays we are all scared how to tell each other how we feel towards and that we now safe harbour them by throwing them a label and approving that to a degree.
I'm direct and blunt, if someone is doing something in a group I call them out of it; I expect folk to do the same for me.
I may be offended but you should be offended, there's no harm in that.
Granted it's a double edged sword. You tell them; they preach to their safe haven and breathe the toxic fumes of their peers. Or they actually recognise it.
Sometimes, yes, we talk to them.
But I'm a DM, not their therapist or their dad - I'm not obligated to hand-hold someone through a radical restructuring of their personality.
And, it might not surprise you to find out, some people react very badly to being criticized. And I'm not particularly interested in having an argument over my subjective opinion of a person. I just don't want to be around them anymore.
But I'm a DM, not their therapist or their dad - I'm not obligated to hand-hold someone through a radical restructuring of their personality.
And, it might not surprise you to find out, some people react very badly to being criticized. And I'm not particularly interested in having an argument over my subjective opinion of a person. I just don't want to be around them anymore.
> But I'm a DM, not their therapist or their dad - I'm not obligated to hand-hold someone through a radical restructuring of their personality.
Therein lies the crux of the issue. Everyone agrees that this person needs help, but also agrees that they shouldn't feel obligated to provide it.
And so they continue on, blissfully unaware of the chafing they cause. Life goes on, and their contribution remains minimal.
Therein lies the crux of the issue. Everyone agrees that this person needs help, but also agrees that they shouldn't feel obligated to provide it.
And so they continue on, blissfully unaware of the chafing they cause. Life goes on, and their contribution remains minimal.
Am I my brothers keeper? Culturally, we've just bought into the notion that I'm not your therapist, so as to absolve myself of the responsibility of fixing broken people. But if I don't do it, who will? so I take care of myself first, so that I'm sable to take care of others, but when I encounter broken people, I still try to fix them (as if people are devices like microwave ovens that need fixing) , because we all have to live in a society and hurt people hurt people, so don't over extend yourself, but also do the work that's staring you in the face.
This is 10 hours later.
> Therein lies the crux of the issue. Everyone agrees that this person needs help, but also agrees that they shouldn't feel obligated to provide it.
This sentence will definitely seem targeted at you. However both the following are true:
1) You are not their keeper 2) Therein lies the crux of the issue
I would say your anecdote did its task brilliantly, it described a situation fairly, which presented reasonable expectations humans can have today.
The pros/cons of this current accommodation were then discovered.
> Therein lies the crux of the issue. Everyone agrees that this person needs help, but also agrees that they shouldn't feel obligated to provide it.
This sentence will definitely seem targeted at you. However both the following are true:
1) You are not their keeper 2) Therein lies the crux of the issue
I would say your anecdote did its task brilliantly, it described a situation fairly, which presented reasonable expectations humans can have today.
The pros/cons of this current accommodation were then discovered.
I suppose, and that's fair enough. I just tend to trial their behaviour.
"No that's not alright, cut the crap otherwise your out of here"
Why play with them and not just cut them out completely? By keeping them in group your only enforcing their unpleasantness.
"No that's not alright, cut the crap otherwise your out of here"
Why play with them and not just cut them out completely? By keeping them in group your only enforcing their unpleasantness.
> Why play with them and not just cut them out completely? By keeping them in group your only enforcing their unpleasantness.
The people who actually ruin the game and make it not fun to play, we do cut them out.
But other people, well - I guess the threshold for playing a cooperative game with someone is different than the threshold for inviting them to a party at my house. Plus, at D&D, they spend a lot of their time inside a character who may be more interesting and pleasant than the person rolling the dice.
The people who actually ruin the game and make it not fun to play, we do cut them out.
But other people, well - I guess the threshold for playing a cooperative game with someone is different than the threshold for inviting them to a party at my house. Plus, at D&D, they spend a lot of their time inside a character who may be more interesting and pleasant than the person rolling the dice.
Normies don't require feedbacks to be verbally and explicitly delivered most of the time. It's the last resort path. Constantly delivering and being delivered clear and blunt express feedback is not normal. It's "sad"-"agitated" state if you ask them
It might be true that allowing minute variances between normie nonverbal feedback gatherer people to be a factor to their successes has its own problems, but encouraging everyone to drop that BS and just be offensive and blunt to make things simple is at least not a widely supported solution.
So be nice... it sometimes gets complicated to be just a nice and happy person, but you actually don't have to be a fearless warrior at all times.
It might be true that allowing minute variances between normie nonverbal feedback gatherer people to be a factor to their successes has its own problems, but encouraging everyone to drop that BS and just be offensive and blunt to make things simple is at least not a widely supported solution.
So be nice... it sometimes gets complicated to be just a nice and happy person, but you actually don't have to be a fearless warrior at all times.
I think we both know the kind of That Guy we're talking about and a conversation isn't going to change things.
Okay, moot. But in that case why keep them active in group? Why tolerate it in the first place.
Maybe I'm just to compassionate.
Maybe I'm just to compassionate.
Not gp, but because they aren't so unpleasant they're intolerable. But i definitely know one person i won't play a game with once my current campaign is over, and another i won't have as a player, ever. For two different reasons. The first might overall be a nice player to have if you manage to canalise him, he play his character well as long as the NPC he interact with isn't a female, then he becomes incredibly weird. I thought he was playing that part too, but since we have a female player at the table it became painfully obvious its not (and it became worse, weirdly). The second one is actually pleasant to be around most of the time, just very tiring. I had a player with the same energy level before and it's exhausting. I'd love having her as a DM however.
I would suggest you check out some of the things on reddit's rpghorrorstories subreddit.
Of course, we're only seeing one side of a narrative, and the stories are obviously written for an audience that expects something - but it can be rather enlightening at just how bad some people can be, and just how much some other people can put up with.
Of course, we're only seeing one side of a narrative, and the stories are obviously written for an audience that expects something - but it can be rather enlightening at just how bad some people can be, and just how much some other people can put up with.
I've had my fair share. I know the stories. In the end I just started not tolerating the bull and told them go away.
As I said, I trial them out if they can't obey the first warning than out they go.
As I said, I trial them out if they can't obey the first warning than out they go.
If it’s their general emotional candor, I don’t think it’s worth wondering if they are self aware.
Not your emotions, not your circus.
Not your emotions, not your circus.
It’s really harsh that Katalin Karikó got such a backlash for calling academia like it is in her book.
Academics are as much courtiers these days as they are researchers.
Academics are as much courtiers these days as they are researchers.
I agree, I think it's victim blaming or a diversion tactic or something.
I think the real problem isn't so much the skillsets of the researcher involved as much as is what is implied about the environments and the vagaries thereof.
The argument this piece is referring to and the way it is responding to it seem to deflect attention from the real problems, or rather, recasts it in the wrong way. My focusing on whether or not Karikó is "too weird" or whether it's time to abandon "weirdness", it deflects attention from all the problems that people are dealing with in academics. For every person who is "weird", there are many others who are not and still get screwed, or still others who are not but also not particularly bright and still "milk" the system or are in the right place at the right time.
This whole debate strike me a bit like climate change debates, specifically the criticism that berating people for not recycling or using plastic straws or whatever is just blaming the victim, or is hiding the real offenders behind the curtain. In the same way it strikes me as kind of besides the point whether Karikó is weird or not, or how weird is too weird, or whatever. The bottom like is academics is no longer really about science in many fields, and not even really about how socially skilled you are, it's about politics and random dynamics of fate.
My impression of academics is that it blew way past "social skill" long ago and is now in a very different realm altogether. I've seen too much fraud and manipulation to blame anyone who has good ideas for "not being socially skilled enough."
I didn't read the original tweets but the idea that Karikó should be shamed for complaining because "that's just the way it is" seems like condoning the problems and then blaming her for calling them out. The next step is complaining about people calling out fraud because "that's just what everyone does".
I think the real problem isn't so much the skillsets of the researcher involved as much as is what is implied about the environments and the vagaries thereof.
The argument this piece is referring to and the way it is responding to it seem to deflect attention from the real problems, or rather, recasts it in the wrong way. My focusing on whether or not Karikó is "too weird" or whether it's time to abandon "weirdness", it deflects attention from all the problems that people are dealing with in academics. For every person who is "weird", there are many others who are not and still get screwed, or still others who are not but also not particularly bright and still "milk" the system or are in the right place at the right time.
This whole debate strike me a bit like climate change debates, specifically the criticism that berating people for not recycling or using plastic straws or whatever is just blaming the victim, or is hiding the real offenders behind the curtain. In the same way it strikes me as kind of besides the point whether Karikó is weird or not, or how weird is too weird, or whatever. The bottom like is academics is no longer really about science in many fields, and not even really about how socially skilled you are, it's about politics and random dynamics of fate.
My impression of academics is that it blew way past "social skill" long ago and is now in a very different realm altogether. I've seen too much fraud and manipulation to blame anyone who has good ideas for "not being socially skilled enough."
I didn't read the original tweets but the idea that Karikó should be shamed for complaining because "that's just the way it is" seems like condoning the problems and then blaming her for calling them out. The next step is complaining about people calling out fraud because "that's just what everyone does".
For real. I was talking to an academic friend who claims that she doesn’t do politics then I had to remind her about the 5 steps she uses when she wants to get someone fired (starts with creating negative narratives then gets worse from there)
There is a similar parallel in the corporate world. Being involved with tech and software has never had less to do with actually being good at those things. I just remarked to my director the other day that the only innovation we have had in the org in the last 5 years was relentless self promotion, marketing, and branding. When did being known as an excellent and reliable engineer stop being “enough”.
> I just remarked to my director the other day that the only innovation we have had in the org in the last 5 years was relentless self promotion, marketing, and branding.
What was your director’s response?
Do you think there’s any chance you’re biased and blind to other innovations because you really dislike self-promotion, marketing, and branding?
What was your director’s response?
Do you think there’s any chance you’re biased and blind to other innovations because you really dislike self-promotion, marketing, and branding?
They agreed, but we have a similar viewpoint on the overall technical excellence of the org, so that part is unsurprising.
I am definitely biased, but whether I am blinded to real innovation or progress is something I think about all the time.
I think I would not be opposed to the self-promotion, marketing, and branding were it in support of some significant achievement or accomplishment. Unfortunately we have a culture that seems to think showering and getting dressed in the morning is a noteworthy event.
To use a more concrete example, I ran a project to upgrade a significant piece of software in our environment that had been neglected for some time. The project went well and I moved on to more interesting work. I had multiple people tell me that we should promote it, give talks about how it was done, pound our chest about how hard of a project it was, etc. I refused. In my mind it was a normal upgrade of a system we were responsible for and frankly was disgraceful that it was in such a bad state of deferred maintenance. There was no way I would be comfortable “taking credit” for doing what should have been done years ago.
Fast forward a few years and another team responsible for doing a similar project is giving multiple presentations all around the org and all the way up to the 2nd in command of the company. I’m like wow, maybe we should have taken the opportunity when we had it to pretend like we are superheroes for doing the bare minimum of our job and not having a vendor drop our support contract.
I am definitely biased, but whether I am blinded to real innovation or progress is something I think about all the time.
I think I would not be opposed to the self-promotion, marketing, and branding were it in support of some significant achievement or accomplishment. Unfortunately we have a culture that seems to think showering and getting dressed in the morning is a noteworthy event.
To use a more concrete example, I ran a project to upgrade a significant piece of software in our environment that had been neglected for some time. The project went well and I moved on to more interesting work. I had multiple people tell me that we should promote it, give talks about how it was done, pound our chest about how hard of a project it was, etc. I refused. In my mind it was a normal upgrade of a system we were responsible for and frankly was disgraceful that it was in such a bad state of deferred maintenance. There was no way I would be comfortable “taking credit” for doing what should have been done years ago.
Fast forward a few years and another team responsible for doing a similar project is giving multiple presentations all around the org and all the way up to the 2nd in command of the company. I’m like wow, maybe we should have taken the opportunity when we had it to pretend like we are superheroes for doing the bare minimum of our job and not having a vendor drop our support contract.
It’s obviously not the bare minimum of the job because like you said nobody did it for years. So the bare minimum is just not doing it.
You think you’ll change from this experience or just keep doing stuff the way you like to do it?
You think you’ll change from this experience or just keep doing stuff the way you like to do it?
Consider a person that never brushed their teeth, flossed, or used mouth wash for an entire year. On the night before their dentist appointment they finally decided it would be good to brush and floss. How would you describe that? Would it be fair to call it the bare minimum? After all, it is more than nothing.
I take that as a no to my question lol.
Not a great comparison because work is a deal in exchange for money and tooth brushing isn’t a deal you make with anyone.
With employment, the outcome you want is likely continued employment and/or some sort of increase in power/pay/responsibilities/etc.
Can’t really tell which it is on behalf of someone else, but in the programming case, the company agreed to pay for work. Unless people were being fired left and right whose job it was to do the thing that was left undone then the company was satisfied with their output. You can tell because they kept paying them.
With teeth brushing the outcome you likely want is healthy teeth and gums and fresh breath. Brushing once a year the night before the dentist won’t likely get you to that outcome (but if it does then it is good enough).
Not a great comparison because work is a deal in exchange for money and tooth brushing isn’t a deal you make with anyone.
With employment, the outcome you want is likely continued employment and/or some sort of increase in power/pay/responsibilities/etc.
Can’t really tell which it is on behalf of someone else, but in the programming case, the company agreed to pay for work. Unless people were being fired left and right whose job it was to do the thing that was left undone then the company was satisfied with their output. You can tell because they kept paying them.
With teeth brushing the outcome you likely want is healthy teeth and gums and fresh breath. Brushing once a year the night before the dentist won’t likely get you to that outcome (but if it does then it is good enough).
I really enjoyed this article, as someone who is learning to play the politics game while also trying to still do interesting and unique research that’s slightly off the mainstream. I’ve felt horrible for not doing “popular” research, or research that employers might care about first and foremost, but this is what academia is about I think.
I think about this all the time in the context of the arts. Kanye, for example, definitely has extremely weird political ideas. He also created Dark Twisted Fantasy. The tolerance for this kind of "troubled genius" is dropping in artistic pursuits too. I wonder if that's why pop culture increasingly feels like a "content" slurry instead of anything identifiable.
So lack of respect for nazis with abhorrent personalities is what's dragging down the arts?
When it becomes beneficial to game a system (fame, power, money), people will learn to game the system. "Weird Nerds" weren't drawn to their interests with the intent to game the system. Sometimes "weird nerds" can achieve more success if they find a political animal who recognizes the benefit of teaming with them.
If you read this and think it doesn't apply in corporate technology jobs, either you're already doing so well at it that you take it for granted, or you are so unaware of the relationship dynamics going on around you that you don't even know what opportunities you've missed.
i think the whole argument is kind of confused because it groups a bunch of separate nerd characteristics into one "weird nerd" archetype. feeling like your career shouldn't be stymied because you're bad at playing politics and socially awkward is totally understandable. specifically in the university context, i sympathize with the critique of how much begging for funding is required by the job, especially at more senior levels. but i feel like these reasonable sentiments basically cloak what the essay is really trying to defend: the asshole nerd. i've never worked with kariko, i do not know if she falls under this category, but that seems to be the archetype that is implicitly being discussed in the hn comment section, presumably because a lot of us work in tech and have worked with or under an asshole nerd.
I wonder, with tools like ChatGPT available, how much more time before society feels they don't need to put up with the weird nerd any longer?
I'm something of a weird nerd myself, and though I haven't tried it, I'm sure ChatGPT could spit out some of the most complicated code I've written and make it look easy.
I'm something of a weird nerd myself, and though I haven't tried it, I'm sure ChatGPT could spit out some of the most complicated code I've written and make it look easy.
I’d say ChatGPT is helping me writing a lot of things that I won’t bother but apparently you need it to play the social game
> In 2011, the average age at which a biomedical scientist gets their first R01 grant to establish their independent career as a PI is 42
This is ridiculous! The best researchers won't be much better at 45 than 25, so it's just wasting 20 years getting "experience" and moving up the ladder. But by nature of getting that experience, they're going to give up on actual innovation.
This is ridiculous! The best researchers won't be much better at 45 than 25, so it's just wasting 20 years getting "experience" and moving up the ladder. But by nature of getting that experience, they're going to give up on actual innovation.
The best researchers won't be much better at 45 than 25
To get great research done you have to be great manager who can prioritise time and resources, balance a budget, forge connections with other researchers, get the most out of the people working for you and know where and how to get even more funding to keep the research going after the initial round of research dries up. Those 20 years might not make you a better 'scientist', but hopefully they will make you better at all the other 'soft' skills that are required for successful scientific research. At 25 you should be focusing on the science and doing research and not have to bother with all that 'crap'.
To get great research done you have to be great manager who can prioritise time and resources, balance a budget, forge connections with other researchers, get the most out of the people working for you and know where and how to get even more funding to keep the research going after the initial round of research dries up. Those 20 years might not make you a better 'scientist', but hopefully they will make you better at all the other 'soft' skills that are required for successful scientific research. At 25 you should be focusing on the science and doing research and not have to bother with all that 'crap'.
Getting other people to do research isn't doing research. You're misattributing who does what.
Very little research can be done by just one person working alone. A huge part of 'doing research' involves getting other people to do research in support of your research.
You're talking past me. I understand that getting research done requires social infrastructure. Do you understand that I don't consider that research?
Right, the "Did Steve jobs make the iPhone?" conundrum.
I've thought a lot about the analogy with Steve Jobs and the iphone, but it's also a bit misleading to me because academics doesn't even credit things the same way as in business.
The iphone is made by Apple after all, and we can get into discussions about how much credit Apple even deserves for the iphone or whether Steve Jobs deserves credit for whatever portion of that we give.
But in academics we still act as if it's just "Joan Smith" doing their research and hiring people to get things done, and acting as if they're brilliant for doing so, when in fact many other people probably have the exact same ideas, or happened to be in the right place in the right time, or know the right people in the grant agency, or whatever; or their grad students or postdocs are the ones with the ideas, etc. etc.
I keep thinking about a colleague of mine who, whenever someone like a grad student would have an original idea, but required his grant money or whatever to pay for it, he would take credit on papers saying "ideas are a dime a dozen; it's the work involved getting it to happen that matters." But if there was a paper that was the result of a relatively unoriginal idea that required a lot of RA, grad student, and postdoc labor, it was always "it's the idea that counts, and not whoever follows through with it."
I feel like that's the atmosphere in academics now.
The iphone is made by Apple after all, and we can get into discussions about how much credit Apple even deserves for the iphone or whether Steve Jobs deserves credit for whatever portion of that we give.
But in academics we still act as if it's just "Joan Smith" doing their research and hiring people to get things done, and acting as if they're brilliant for doing so, when in fact many other people probably have the exact same ideas, or happened to be in the right place in the right time, or know the right people in the grant agency, or whatever; or their grad students or postdocs are the ones with the ideas, etc. etc.
I keep thinking about a colleague of mine who, whenever someone like a grad student would have an original idea, but required his grant money or whatever to pay for it, he would take credit on papers saying "ideas are a dime a dozen; it's the work involved getting it to happen that matters." But if there was a paper that was the result of a relatively unoriginal idea that required a lot of RA, grad student, and postdoc labor, it was always "it's the idea that counts, and not whoever follows through with it."
I feel like that's the atmosphere in academics now.
Research is very labor intensive. It's easy to reach a point where the lack of time is a bigger obstacle to pursuing your ideas than the cost of pursuing them. Which is why you need to apply for grants to hire people to do your work.
At 25, you are likely pursuing somebody else's ideas, because you have not proven yourself yet. At 35, you should be pursuing your own ideas, but it often gets delayed to 45, because taxpayers are stingy with their money.
At 25, you are likely pursuing somebody else's ideas, because you have not proven yourself yet. At 35, you should be pursuing your own ideas, but it often gets delayed to 45, because taxpayers are stingy with their money.
Was the reaction to that excerpt of Karikó's book really that bad? The author mentions one deleted tweet, but nothing else specific.
I ask because I hear/read very similar things to what she wrote from people in all kinds of fields (not just STEM or academia).
I ask because I hear/read very similar things to what she wrote from people in all kinds of fields (not just STEM or academia).
As startups become a viable path to status and success, it too gets infiltrated with non-weird nerds.
It’s absolutely mind boggling that this author tries to fundamentally equate “weird nerds” as autistic, only to then present an example of a weird nerd who has never been documented as autistic.
Kariko is biochemist who got her PhD in 1982 before the public internet even existed.
Number of times the words "weird", "nerd" or "autistic" appear in Kariko's memoir: 0
Number of times the word "internet" appears in the book: 3
#1 referrring to her mother ("there was nothing she couldn't find on the internet") who would call Kariko daily to keep her informed of current events because Kariko was too busy working the lab (not publishing silly ideas to a substack blog about "Weird Nerds")
#2 referring to a book about stress by an endocrinologist that she read as a teenager ... she describes how the author in 1925 noticed that many diseases have the same symptoms and comments that "anyone looking up symptoms on the internet today" would also notice this
#3 referring to a period "in the 1990s, before the dawn of the internet bubble"
Thus, Kariko appears to have achieved success without being autistic and without heavy use of the internet. In fact, she achieved success despite an "internet bubble".
Let's hope the blogger finishes her PhD despite the distractions of the internet. It is likely that the only "Weird Nerds" she has identified are an internet audience who likely worship university dropouts and who are most certainly not doing real work on real biological problems in a wet lab. Instead, they are staring at screens and playing video games.
Trying to put computer addicts that idolise university dropouts whose idea of biotech is life extension in the same category as Nobel Prize-winning biochemists who have solved real problems is pure fantasy, like computer games. But coming from web bloggers, it's not surprising.
It's also not surprising that Kariko refers to an "internet bubble". That bubble arguably needlessly diverted investment away from biotech during Kariko's career. The example she cites is gene therapy which in the 1990s was "the next big thing", only to be later overshadowed when the internet bubble arrived.
Number of times the words "weird", "nerd" or "autistic" appear in Kariko's memoir: 0
Number of times the word "internet" appears in the book: 3
#1 referrring to her mother ("there was nothing she couldn't find on the internet") who would call Kariko daily to keep her informed of current events because Kariko was too busy working the lab (not publishing silly ideas to a substack blog about "Weird Nerds")
#2 referring to a book about stress by an endocrinologist that she read as a teenager ... she describes how the author in 1925 noticed that many diseases have the same symptoms and comments that "anyone looking up symptoms on the internet today" would also notice this
#3 referring to a period "in the 1990s, before the dawn of the internet bubble"
Thus, Kariko appears to have achieved success without being autistic and without heavy use of the internet. In fact, she achieved success despite an "internet bubble".
Let's hope the blogger finishes her PhD despite the distractions of the internet. It is likely that the only "Weird Nerds" she has identified are an internet audience who likely worship university dropouts and who are most certainly not doing real work on real biological problems in a wet lab. Instead, they are staring at screens and playing video games.
Trying to put computer addicts that idolise university dropouts whose idea of biotech is life extension in the same category as Nobel Prize-winning biochemists who have solved real problems is pure fantasy, like computer games. But coming from web bloggers, it's not surprising.
It's also not surprising that Kariko refers to an "internet bubble". That bubble arguably needlessly diverted investment away from biotech during Kariko's career. The example she cites is gene therapy which in the 1990s was "the next big thing", only to be later overshadowed when the internet bubble arrived.
I think for a "weird nerd" to be successful, they need the support of someone (a manager, a mentor, a project leader, department head, etc.), who does have political and social savvy.
Status seeking and envy are absolutely at the heart of it all. Status seekers and flatterers are weak people, because their lives are very much about agreeableness and approval seeking. Truth-seeking has always been at odds with "the world". You will know them by what they love.
Dante hated flattery so much, he immersed flatterers in excrement in the 8th circle of hell, below murderers. A fitting image given how full of crap such people are in this life.
In a riff on John Adams, no scientific enterprise will function in the absence of a moral people. You cannot have good scientists without first having virtuous men and women. You are wasting your time, and in fact, probably laying the groundwork for harm.
Dante hated flattery so much, he immersed flatterers in excrement in the 8th circle of hell, below murderers. A fitting image given how full of crap such people are in this life.
In a riff on John Adams, no scientific enterprise will function in the absence of a moral people. You cannot have good scientists without first having virtuous men and women. You are wasting your time, and in fact, probably laying the groundwork for harm.
Not sure if I count as a 'weird nerd' or not but if there's been one constant in my life, it's the theme of "you're amazing at a whole range of things, but here's some things you're not amazing at, could you maybe just try being a version of yourself with all of your strengths and none of your inconvenient shortcomings?" and tbh it's fucking infuriating.
I found this article to be quite vexing; she seems to dance around the actual terms and instead likes to define them by exclusion, which is pretty weird.
weird nerds depend on a kind of nobility and magnanimity from the people they work with that is perhaps a bit much to expect in academia, or anywhere that isn't a high-growth environment where participants can afford the risks of eccentricity. middling people indexed on in-group status aren't equipped to handle exceptional people who don't reciprocate what is essentially corruption, and so they force them out.
> weird nerds depend on a kind of nobility and magnanimity from the people they work with that is perhaps a bit much to expect in academia
I thought academia was created by the nobility to be a place for weird nerds since the weird nerds were useful.
I thought academia was created by the nobility to be a place for weird nerds since the weird nerds were useful.
> middling people indexed on in-group status aren't equipped to handle exceptional people who don't reciprocate what is essentially corruption, and so they force them out.
I think you hit the head of the nail there.
I think you hit the head of the nail there.
[deleted]
This skill alone would cause most of the Internet and politics to shut down:
being agreeable when you disagree, even when you are 100% certain you are correct
being agreeable when you disagree, even when you are 100% certain you are correct
At the root of it is a lot of "yes man" behavior, and I don't think it's just academia. But I think academia has a stronger history and stereotype of allowing people to be weird.
It's essentially the bureaucrats taking over. Putting metrics on things that can't be measured well and treating those as if they're the answer. Saying "good enough" or "something is better than nothing" when they don't apply. Because it's easier to deal with that than the chaos and uncertainty of innovation.
I think this is also something silicon valley lost. We definitely stopped dreaming. Stopped building the future we wanted and instead just started doing work. There's been a lot of stagnation. It's not just about making things smaller
It's essentially the bureaucrats taking over. Putting metrics on things that can't be measured well and treating those as if they're the answer. Saying "good enough" or "something is better than nothing" when they don't apply. Because it's easier to deal with that than the chaos and uncertainty of innovation.
I think this is also something silicon valley lost. We definitely stopped dreaming. Stopped building the future we wanted and instead just started doing work. There's been a lot of stagnation. It's not just about making things smaller
i would like to see more hard data on this instead of what amounts to a rant. or does that make me a weird nerd?
There should be word for the fallacy where you conflate a group's average opinion with that of the inevitable subgroup that sends angry tweets about a topic.
I'm probably somewhat autistic and introverted in that I often don't care (much) about other people's opinion unless backed by fact proving I am wrong.
Societal niceties are difficult to navigate as I just can't predict the effects of what people do as a consequence of what I say and personal opinion may not be grounded in fact.
For example the job interview, technically I have no issues at all, but initially I did not know the "right" way to behave in them, and I would come across arrogant (statement of fact comparing oneself's achievements to others invariably tend to do this). I expected to be hired based on technical merit and that I am generally amenable.
I wasn't hired until I started manipulating the interview, faux humble, quiet, hiding smaller achievements, exactly the kind of thing you're taught in school is the opposite of what to do.
I'd also investigate the interviewers to find out their interests and hobbies for leverage e.g. they like paint balling, ok, I don't do that but I can use some of their common phrases in parlance "by accident" and without giving away my background research on the interviewer.
I shouldn't have to do this, and I despise it (mainly from resentment of the process) but the results speak for themselves. In 4 interviews since I started it I've landed all 4 jobs.
Side note: I'm wondering what will happen with this comment will people downvote because it's showing I'm manipulative in interviews, or up vote due to agreement / feeling the same way. Obviously I want the latter as I like points, but society (perhaps not community) tends to go the other way when you speak uncomfortable truths.
Societal niceties are difficult to navigate as I just can't predict the effects of what people do as a consequence of what I say and personal opinion may not be grounded in fact.
For example the job interview, technically I have no issues at all, but initially I did not know the "right" way to behave in them, and I would come across arrogant (statement of fact comparing oneself's achievements to others invariably tend to do this). I expected to be hired based on technical merit and that I am generally amenable.
I wasn't hired until I started manipulating the interview, faux humble, quiet, hiding smaller achievements, exactly the kind of thing you're taught in school is the opposite of what to do.
I'd also investigate the interviewers to find out their interests and hobbies for leverage e.g. they like paint balling, ok, I don't do that but I can use some of their common phrases in parlance "by accident" and without giving away my background research on the interviewer.
I shouldn't have to do this, and I despise it (mainly from resentment of the process) but the results speak for themselves. In 4 interviews since I started it I've landed all 4 jobs.
Side note: I'm wondering what will happen with this comment will people downvote because it's showing I'm manipulative in interviews, or up vote due to agreement / feeling the same way. Obviously I want the latter as I like points, but society (perhaps not community) tends to go the other way when you speak uncomfortable truths.
> A few weeks ago, a lot of people on academic X quickly forgot about their support for “Women in STEM” and got angry at, of all people, Katalin Karikó, the co-inventor of the mRNA technology used in COVID-19 vaccines and 2023 Nobel Prize winner. Her crime? A passage from her book where she laments that academia involved way too much people pleasing and political games for her…. A couple of months ago I wrote a piece called “The flight of the Weird Nerd from academia”, in which I argued there is a trend wherein Weird Nerds are being driven out of academia by the so-called Failed Corporatist phenotype. Katalin Karikó is a perfect example of a Weird Nerd.
What this misses is the fact that a massive element of the “support for women in STEM” discourse was the blatant demonization of the Weird Nerd in favor of the Failed Corporatist.
What this misses is the fact that a massive element of the “support for women in STEM” discourse was the blatant demonization of the Weird Nerd in favor of the Failed Corporatist.
While I agree with the notion of the article, please stop calling gifted, driven, and non-conforming people "weird nerds."
Both terms have negative connotations.
The intent is to de-stigmatize the labels. I consider myself a "weird nerd". I find the use of the label affirming. Perhaps ASD or other symptom descriptive way to describing things would be more "correct". However "weird nerd" is what the other parts of society use to describe these terms. Using the term to describe the positive aspects of these symptoms helps to take the sting out.
If we're gonna find a better way to work together we need something neutral so that there's no reason to miscategorize yourself. I definitely prefer "weird nerd," to anything that feels like a diagnosis or like praise.
In education they call this "twice exceptional".
In education they call this "twice exceptional".
[deleted]
I think "genius" fits the author's meaning and connotation much better than "weird nerd". If the author wants to fight for genius rights, why start from a position of weakness?
Because 99% of weird nerds are not geniuses. I know that I am a weird nerd, I work surrounded by a significant percentage of weird nerds, but in the past, a couple of times, had the privilege of working with a true genius - and I can say that we weird nerds and the geniuses are as different species. It's like yard birds vs. eagles: both have wings and feathers and lay eggs, but the final product is very different.
Genius would be a much worse term for what the author is describing because it explicitly doesn't come with trade-offs. The term needs to convey both the unique talents and the odd differences.
"Nerd" has been the subject of a long and largely successful attempt at reclamation, to the point where people younger than a certain age don't generally consider it to be derogatory and comfortably identify with it. It's been so successful that the author feels the need to prepend the word "weird" to clarify that we're not talking about just anyone who likes video games.
"Nerd" has been the subject of a long and largely successful attempt at reclamation, to the point where people younger than a certain age don't generally consider it to be derogatory and comfortably identify with it. It's been so successful that the author feels the need to prepend the word "weird" to clarify that we're not talking about just anyone who likes video games.
Younger than what age? I think every age still generally considers "nerd" derogatory. Also, I think a genius would tell you the trade-offs only exist because most people are wrong. Calling them weird has the connotation that something is "wrong" with them, yet it seems quite the opposite is true. I could agree with the term "outlier" but not "weird".
The trend towards embracing it was already starting when I was a kid in the late 00's and early 10's, but it really picked up with the class of ~2016. The rise of the computer programmer as the highest ROI degree in this generation made a huge difference in perception of the word "nerd".
By the time I was helping with a local youth group in 2017 (14 year olds) the very extroverted ringleader of the group was a proud "nerd", by which he meant that he and his friends loved to play video games like Fortnite and had an aversion to sports.
Take a look at the highest voted entries in Urban Dictionary [0]. Obviously this isn't a scientific measurement, but it shows a strong subculture of self-identified nerds who embrace the label to some degree.
Edit: here's another source [1] that you may find more credible, from 2012:
> And the appropriation of the word "nerd" was a "battle that got won", says [Neil] Gaiman. "It's like many terms that were originally intended to offend, the team that was offended took it as its own as a badge of honour.
> "It's part of a cycle, that terms of abuse are turned around - in this case it has been socially turned around."
[0] https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nerd
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-20325517
By the time I was helping with a local youth group in 2017 (14 year olds) the very extroverted ringleader of the group was a proud "nerd", by which he meant that he and his friends loved to play video games like Fortnite and had an aversion to sports.
Take a look at the highest voted entries in Urban Dictionary [0]. Obviously this isn't a scientific measurement, but it shows a strong subculture of self-identified nerds who embrace the label to some degree.
Edit: here's another source [1] that you may find more credible, from 2012:
> And the appropriation of the word "nerd" was a "battle that got won", says [Neil] Gaiman. "It's like many terms that were originally intended to offend, the team that was offended took it as its own as a badge of honour.
> "It's part of a cycle, that terms of abuse are turned around - in this case it has been socially turned around."
[0] https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nerd
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-20325517
Do you think you're setting people up for social success by giving them a reason to say:
> I'm a genius and I'd like you to change your behavior to accommodate my needs.
> I'm a genius and I'd like you to change your behavior to accommodate my needs.
If you replace words with negative connotations with other words, those new words sooner or later get the same connotations.
Good article, but I would probably have stopped at "Nobody should give any weight to the opinions of people still using Twitter in this day and age."
Stopping reading something because of one sentence you disagree with doesn't exactly resonate with your stance.
Not reading it, I would have stopped at writing it. The author's impetus for writing it was apparently a response to Twitter comments, and that's half a step above writing a hot take in response to YouTube comments in terms of worthiness of the data source.
Introduce struggle sessions for supervisors of scientists like her. Clear the cruft quickly. Careerist ciminals have no place running research labs.
Could you expand more on your struggle session idea? I'm aware of the analogy to Mao's China but I'm curious how you'd see it playing out in this setting.
These comments prove compsci has a long way to go on respecting marginalized people
I am mixed on how much we focus on posts by "a lot of people on academic X". Perhaps they offer some valuable insight here, or perhaps it is just a few grumpy individuals spouting off unwarrented critisim.
> Any system that is not explicitly pro-Weird Nerd will turn anti-Weird Nerd pretty quickly.
Wow. Sure as hell feels that way.
See, I actually feel like this is happening across the Internet, too, in a different way.
Firstly, I'd consider myself some sort of "Weird Nerd" but certainly not a genius or even especially intelligent; I would be willing to indulge in the idea that my contingent and I have some unusual qualities that, while not remarkable, are still somewhat unique and indeed basically a package deal with our "other" traits.
Secondly, while "weird nerds" are prominent on the Internet of today, they're definitely struggling to keep control over their own spaces. Anyone remember forums, and have routine thoughts about how different it is from social media? I think that forums were controlled by weird nerds, and social media is clearly not, it's controlled by people who play the political games better and more often. Weird nerds are forced to try to adhere to the rules of this system, they get increasingly tired of it, burn out and start behaving erratically. I think a lot of people are deeply in denial that this is happening, and some of them may have never even known a world where it wasn't happening, so they find other reasons why.
Being driven by truth and put off by bullshit is something that I think is very core to a lot of people who are currently struggling to find anywhere to fit in. No matter how much time passes, it will never feel "right". It feels like people can only ever be their true and honest selves in small quantities, in closed groups, being careful with who to trust.
Note that this person seems to be somewhat convinced that the Internet is the best place for weird nerds, but also note that the critique they are talking about happened on X, one of the largest and most influential social websites on the Internet. I think this should speak volumes to how much weird nerds are not in control of the "rules" and narratives of the Internet right now. I'm not sure what the authors thoughts are on this (and I'm sure it's detailed in other posts if I wanted to know) but I think this is a huge battleground. It's a bit hard to see it because it's obfuscated by the broader "culture war" of the Internet, which makes it appear as if the "fight" is between two hyper-partisan groups that have completely opposite views. I think that's neither the cause nor the reality of why the Internet is full of so much strife; I think those hyper-partisan spats formed around more interesting and nuanced conflicts and overshadowed them. I hope that some day there will be a moment of clarity where everything starts to make sense...
Wow. Sure as hell feels that way.
See, I actually feel like this is happening across the Internet, too, in a different way.
Firstly, I'd consider myself some sort of "Weird Nerd" but certainly not a genius or even especially intelligent; I would be willing to indulge in the idea that my contingent and I have some unusual qualities that, while not remarkable, are still somewhat unique and indeed basically a package deal with our "other" traits.
Secondly, while "weird nerds" are prominent on the Internet of today, they're definitely struggling to keep control over their own spaces. Anyone remember forums, and have routine thoughts about how different it is from social media? I think that forums were controlled by weird nerds, and social media is clearly not, it's controlled by people who play the political games better and more often. Weird nerds are forced to try to adhere to the rules of this system, they get increasingly tired of it, burn out and start behaving erratically. I think a lot of people are deeply in denial that this is happening, and some of them may have never even known a world where it wasn't happening, so they find other reasons why.
Being driven by truth and put off by bullshit is something that I think is very core to a lot of people who are currently struggling to find anywhere to fit in. No matter how much time passes, it will never feel "right". It feels like people can only ever be their true and honest selves in small quantities, in closed groups, being careful with who to trust.
Note that this person seems to be somewhat convinced that the Internet is the best place for weird nerds, but also note that the critique they are talking about happened on X, one of the largest and most influential social websites on the Internet. I think this should speak volumes to how much weird nerds are not in control of the "rules" and narratives of the Internet right now. I'm not sure what the authors thoughts are on this (and I'm sure it's detailed in other posts if I wanted to know) but I think this is a huge battleground. It's a bit hard to see it because it's obfuscated by the broader "culture war" of the Internet, which makes it appear as if the "fight" is between two hyper-partisan groups that have completely opposite views. I think that's neither the cause nor the reality of why the Internet is full of so much strife; I think those hyper-partisan spats formed around more interesting and nuanced conflicts and overshadowed them. I hope that some day there will be a moment of clarity where everything starts to make sense...
Agreed. Having been part of the internet since its genesis, every day I mourn the loss of the critical mass of the weird and curious that pervaded it. I absolutely abhor the exploiters that came from behind and effected a nerd diaspora to simply transformed it into the same manipulative, self-congratulating trash hole that is so widely lauded as "normal".
I lost my job in a layoff over 6 months ago and really struggled to find something in the state that tech has been in since zirp and section 174 went away.
If there's any positive I see from all of this is that there are a lot of weird nerds out there feeling unmoored, unmotivated, and are looking for somewhere to fit in and do the greatest work of their career. I think that someone(s) with resources who creates such a nerd commune will create something truly special, something that transcends the "normal", giving these misfits something that they fully own, drive, but still share with the same world that looks down on them as "divergent". I have never met a more passionate or selfless group of people.
I think Steve Jobs was an example of this type of nerd whisperer. He knew what drove the people that actually create things in this world, and he gave them a powerful outlet to show their value. I think he deeply felt and meant what they were selling at the time: "the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do".
https://invidious.privacydev.net/watch?v=VCz_SiPD_X0
I lost my job in a layoff over 6 months ago and really struggled to find something in the state that tech has been in since zirp and section 174 went away.
If there's any positive I see from all of this is that there are a lot of weird nerds out there feeling unmoored, unmotivated, and are looking for somewhere to fit in and do the greatest work of their career. I think that someone(s) with resources who creates such a nerd commune will create something truly special, something that transcends the "normal", giving these misfits something that they fully own, drive, but still share with the same world that looks down on them as "divergent". I have never met a more passionate or selfless group of people.
I think Steve Jobs was an example of this type of nerd whisperer. He knew what drove the people that actually create things in this world, and he gave them a powerful outlet to show their value. I think he deeply felt and meant what they were selling at the time: "the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do".
https://invidious.privacydev.net/watch?v=VCz_SiPD_X0
A case study in this:
"Normal person," 2002: "you use the Internet? How weird and anti-social!"
Same person, 2012: addicted to Internet in public, oblivious to people around them
Interesting how the social acceptability changed so drastically in ten years time. It's almost as if it is completely arbitrary and based on political (e.g. relative) observations. And not a hint of incongruity is felt between the former and latter opinions.
"Normal person," 2002: "you use the Internet? How weird and anti-social!"
Same person, 2012: addicted to Internet in public, oblivious to people around them
Interesting how the social acceptability changed so drastically in ten years time. It's almost as if it is completely arbitrary and based on political (e.g. relative) observations. And not a hint of incongruity is felt between the former and latter opinions.
someone else said it well here.
Weird nerds are suited for environments with high growth that need experts and will transfer resources to get the most out of them.
This is in general true - groups will spend resources on an advantage, when the need for it is painfully obvious.
Weird nerds are suited for environments with high growth that need experts and will transfer resources to get the most out of them.
This is in general true - groups will spend resources on an advantage, when the need for it is painfully obvious.
This is just Geeks, MOPs, Sociopaths restated. It's the nature of all fields: explorers discover, exploiters scale. But there are explorer mimics and exploiter mimics and they succeed at some rate dependent on the cost of verification.
I think the biggest hardest tradeoff is just relating to a world where not only is there a huge dissonance between your strong stirring passions & beliefs & other's, but where most people flat out don't have strong stirring passions. Most people are not absurdly driven into deep shit. Most people don't love their day feeling torn apart by wanting to know or wanting to make the things, most people aren't living in their future possibles.
> Paul Graham talks about an underrated quality one needs for extreme success, namely the willingness to be low status. And Karikó had plenty of that: she lived her convictions, in this case the conviction in the importance of mRNA through rejections, humiliations (her office was vacated without her having received prior notice) and hardship. I would go even further and say: she had intellectual courage
Spoken of as courage and low status, being on the pursuit. But societally what I think is most under-stated is the dissonance.
Bruce Sterling's Reboot 2011 put forward two modern archetypes. The first isn't super relevant here, but Favella Chic, being low resources but amazingly cool, bending & reusing whatever you can scrape together to be cool as hell & on top of your shit. The other is High Tech Gothic, where you are wired to the 9's, a master of your domain, amazingly capable & competent, but desperately alone & on your own; a It's Lonely At The Top / The Crown Wears Heavily sentiment.
This idea of apartness, the stark difference of values and beliefs and actions between the individual and the world they see about them: I am so glad to have had some referents for this notion, it's been so helpful. And personally, mulling it over, I keep thinking, it's not really the Weird Nerd's issue. It's not really their problem per se; another view is that the world is failing to hook people, failing to expose them to the raw awe and majesty of possibility and science, failing to inspire exploration & discovery & maker-ship that such an amazing universe of possibilities and circumstance has created around us.
As the Butthole Surfers song Weird Revolution says, The so-called weirdos in this country stand as completely freaked out by the normal man as the normal man is completely freaked out by the weird masses reaction to him. It's worth assessing not just the weirdos as the weird ones! And it's worth telling them, letting them know, this dissonance between your world and the so called normality isn't necessarily your fault, isn't necessarily something wrong with you. I don't think we duly sympathize or grok the alienation the weirdos suffer with.
> Paul Graham talks about an underrated quality one needs for extreme success, namely the willingness to be low status. And Karikó had plenty of that: she lived her convictions, in this case the conviction in the importance of mRNA through rejections, humiliations (her office was vacated without her having received prior notice) and hardship. I would go even further and say: she had intellectual courage
Spoken of as courage and low status, being on the pursuit. But societally what I think is most under-stated is the dissonance.
Bruce Sterling's Reboot 2011 put forward two modern archetypes. The first isn't super relevant here, but Favella Chic, being low resources but amazingly cool, bending & reusing whatever you can scrape together to be cool as hell & on top of your shit. The other is High Tech Gothic, where you are wired to the 9's, a master of your domain, amazingly capable & competent, but desperately alone & on your own; a It's Lonely At The Top / The Crown Wears Heavily sentiment.
This idea of apartness, the stark difference of values and beliefs and actions between the individual and the world they see about them: I am so glad to have had some referents for this notion, it's been so helpful. And personally, mulling it over, I keep thinking, it's not really the Weird Nerd's issue. It's not really their problem per se; another view is that the world is failing to hook people, failing to expose them to the raw awe and majesty of possibility and science, failing to inspire exploration & discovery & maker-ship that such an amazing universe of possibilities and circumstance has created around us.
As the Butthole Surfers song Weird Revolution says, The so-called weirdos in this country stand as completely freaked out by the normal man as the normal man is completely freaked out by the weird masses reaction to him. It's worth assessing not just the weirdos as the weird ones! And it's worth telling them, letting them know, this dissonance between your world and the so called normality isn't necessarily your fault, isn't necessarily something wrong with you. I don't think we duly sympathize or grok the alienation the weirdos suffer with.
> As the Butthole Surfers song Weird Revolution says, The so-called weirdos in this country stand as completely freaked out by the normal man as the normal man is completely freaked out by the weird masses reaction to him.
The Butthole Surfers' observation was -- only recently -- given scientific support in autism research, where it's called the "double-empathy problem". Previously, the prevailing theory was that autistics suffer from "lack of empathy" or "mind-blindness"; the double-empathy theory posits that it's rather a case of mutual incomprehensibility between autistic and allistic minds. Dogs and cats get into conflict because they have difficulty reading each other's body language, but if you are a dog person (as most people are) you have a tendency to always blame the cat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_empathy_problem
The Butthole Surfers' observation was -- only recently -- given scientific support in autism research, where it's called the "double-empathy problem". Previously, the prevailing theory was that autistics suffer from "lack of empathy" or "mind-blindness"; the double-empathy theory posits that it's rather a case of mutual incomprehensibility between autistic and allistic minds. Dogs and cats get into conflict because they have difficulty reading each other's body language, but if you are a dog person (as most people are) you have a tendency to always blame the cat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_empathy_problem
I really like this new term! I was working R&D / Development at J&J for about 14 years. I was one of the early members of a group called: "Mental Health Diplomats" When I first got involved, and over the years, I would try to pitch ideas to set up a system/program for neurodivergants who were under utilized.
In retrospect, it is pretty hard for a weird nerd to gain traction with any ideas other than obviously profitable products. Strategic thinking needs to be done by the MBA's /s
In retrospect, it is pretty hard for a weird nerd to gain traction with any ideas other than obviously profitable products. Strategic thinking needs to be done by the MBA's /s
The neckbeards are leaking again. Someone go beat them with a spanner.
The exact stereotype differed by domain... the performer who is a diva, the self destructive author, the manic artist... each with a hint of nobility but also quite off-putting.
The author wanting to combine Weird Nerd with autistic is very incorrect IMHO... I've known a lot of weird nerds, am one myself, and there's lots of different flavors, most of them not autistic.
So much of talent is just really caring about something specific. Caring about it above other things. Specifically above external motivation and incentives. Do that and the weirdness grows naturally, neurodivergence isn't even necessary (though it might help)