> I think it's more, not Nerd, don't care what peers think and do what really matters, instead of what appears to matter.
Hmm, no this shows the same kind of condescension (which I totally agree isn't intended) as in the article, characterized by the quote While the nerds were being trained to get the right answers, the popular kids were being trained to please.
Do you think teenage nerds do what they do because they think it's the thing that really matters?
Or perhaps just because it satisfies their urges? Is there much difference from the motivation of those who work to become popular? For me the only difference is the particular urge: For nerds it's maybe curiosity and intellectual stimulation, for others it may instead be social acceptance/validation, wanting to be influential, perfectionism in craft or sport, etc. The fact that curiosity doesn't breed social aptitude is coincidental.
> .. the answer to your "trap of condescension"
I admit I didn't fully follow you here. Although I'm not a fan of Carnegie, I agree the ability to see other's point of view is important, and think that it comes late to must people. Often long after the insecurity of teenage fades away. But it's not a very difficult problem, let alone the most.
For someone to be so condescending and arrogant, how does a person convince others to work with them, invest with them, buy their online service and ultimately sell the company? The ^be nice to influence people filter^ is turned off for writing.
This means in writing pg says what he wants (a sign of original ideas and though) without the filters of what ^others^ think.
Ah, thanks. Perhaps I misused the word "condescending" then. Maybe I meant "patronizing"? English isn't my strong hand. I didn't mean he wasn't being as nice as he should (I agree with you that turning off that filter makes a clearer message).
What I meant is that I think he's wrong, in particular the assumption about non-nerds and their intelligence. It's his limitation not to see that intelligence can be applied to different goal functions than his, not theirs.
"What I meant is that I think he's wrong, in particular the assumption about non-nerds and their intelligence."
Totally agree here. Remember the title is "Why Nerds Are Unpopular" and patronising, condescending is an apt description if you look at it from point of view. If you studied the brain of a nerd as described in this article, I'd characterise the nerd brain in the following way. A brain is high in acetylcholine (high level of focused learning), lower in serotonin (lower level of socialisation and dominance) and possibly higher levels of dopamine (reward learning system) for learning abstract things as opposed to a stylised non-nerd.
If you look at this neural level, I'd imagine nerd brains are highly geared to chasing focused learning of technical subjects at the expense of people.
Hmm, no this shows the same kind of condescension (which I totally agree isn't intended) as in the article, characterized by the quote While the nerds were being trained to get the right answers, the popular kids were being trained to please.
Do you think teenage nerds do what they do because they think it's the thing that really matters?
Or perhaps just because it satisfies their urges? Is there much difference from the motivation of those who work to become popular? For me the only difference is the particular urge: For nerds it's maybe curiosity and intellectual stimulation, for others it may instead be social acceptance/validation, wanting to be influential, perfectionism in craft or sport, etc. The fact that curiosity doesn't breed social aptitude is coincidental.
> .. the answer to your "trap of condescension"
I admit I didn't fully follow you here. Although I'm not a fan of Carnegie, I agree the ability to see other's point of view is important, and think that it comes late to must people. Often long after the insecurity of teenage fades away. But it's not a very difficult problem, let alone the most.