

Three cheers for Daniel Radcliffe, geek - jancona
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2741

======
axod
"Reads science fiction, likes computers, enjoys challenging games, is
generally into bright-person stuff."

I've never liked or bothered with science fiction, whilst I consider myself
pretty techy (I prefer to say techy than geeky). Why is reading science
fiction considered something bright people do? I'm not convinced it ties up at
all.

~~~
jgrahamc
Me neither, not really into science fiction; probably qualify as bright.

The reality is that just as ESR has done over and over again he has cast the
hacker persona as a reflection of himself. If you read his writings on hackers
then he's really describing himself and imagining that everyone is like this.
Here he's saying that the 'geek persona' is another ESR-type.

I found this very annoying when I read the hacker description in The New
Hackers Dictionary because there were thinks that I just wasn't:

1\. Learn to write your native language well.

2\. Read science fiction. Go to science fiction conventions.

3\. Train in a martial-arts form.

4\. Study an actual meditation discipline.

5\. Develop an analytical ear for music.

6\. Learn to play some musical instrument well, or how to sing.

7\. Develop your appreciation of puns and wordplay.

So 1, 5 and 7 are things that I'm in agreement with. I have no interest in 2,
3 or 4. 6 would probably be fun.

<http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html>

~~~
pstuart
I've seen enough mention of 3 & 4 on this site to say it fits in well with
this crowd.

I'd recommend checking out Philip K. Dick for science fiction worth reading
(more on the nature of self than on rocket ships).

------
imgabe
Why would he have suspected Radcliffe of being a "face person"? He's not just
"famous for being famous", he's famous for starring in an incredibly
successful series of movies.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>Why would he have suspected Radcliffe of being a "face person"? He's not just
"famous for being famous", he's famous for starring in an incredibly
successful series of movies.

Being famous for being in a movie seems very close to being famous for being
famous to me.

When he was in the first Harry Potter movie Radcliffe was just a cute looking
kid that could act a bit, they could have probably chosen from dozens of
others and had a similar success.

He was chosen almost certainly because his face fit the bill - he had the
right look. He most definitely wouldn't have been chosen if he'd been ugly.

So his fame, as opposed to someone else’s fame is largely IMO down to his face
- certainly it's not down to his being a geek or his apparent intelligence. He
was also helped by nepotism it seems.

Now, he also appears to have taken well to his role and made the best of it
and so his continued "stardom" and his career beyond the first Harry Potter is
certainly laudable.

------
alexandros
Now if we can get him to read (and endorse?) Harry Potter and the Methods of
Rationality...

------
guylhem
I would say that acting may involves many skills, but mostly requires being a
pretty face. Some kind of "sophistication" as described on
[http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/11/bah-
sophistication.htm...](http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/11/bah-
sophistication.html) may help - which in the end would make the person quite
unlikely to be a geek IMHO

