

If Nerds Can Learn Linux, Why Can't They Learn Not To Interrupt People? - AndrewDucker
http://theferrett.livejournal.com/1404096.html

======
notaddicted
... in my opinion _wink_

1\. Society _does_ make sense.

2\. People ought to tell you when you do something rude. At that time they can
offer the reason (there _is_ a reason).

3\. The people in the example are poorly socialized.

4\. The socially skilled are just as rare as the mathematically skilled. The
average person is just as atrocious socially as mathematically.

~~~
dschobel
That may all be true but in the absence of a compelling antagonistic narrative
it makes for a poor online rant. Your position is way too nuanced.

Try to reframe it as _nerds vs the world_ or even better, _nerds vs the
normals_ and then maybe we can talk.

~~~
idlewords
Throw in some sweeping generalizations based on your high school experience,
find a way to tie it in to Lisp, and you might even make a career out of it.

~~~
Semiapies
That works for either the "nerds vs. the world" or the "stop being such NERDS,
NERDS" lines I've seen, lately.

------
madair
Great article! I love this:

 _"I'm continually amazed by how much better people react if I remember to
arbitrarily throw "I think" before I state an opinion. I mean, it's coming out
of my mouth, and it's not like there's some external arbiter of which sitcom
is funniest, so of course it's an "I think." That's assumed. But, apparently,
if I go out of my way to remind people that it's my opinion with a marker that
makes little sense to me, they relax. So I do it."_

A lesson I have only recently learned in my 30s, it really does help!

~~~
waterlesscloud
Yes, it does.

I always feel silly adding it in, because of course what I'm saying is my
opinion. What else would it be?

But I say it when I'm talking to people who need it.

I've always thought that the main reason for it is that most people are very
easily threatened in their opinions, so without the "I Think", they can feel
like they are being attacked.

But it could be that most people simply haven't been trained to differentiate
fact and opinion on their own, so they need clear markers.

At least, I think that's possible.

~~~
hubb
it's rather that many nerds easily assume an authoritative tone when voicing
their opinion.

i think

~~~
xenophanes
cause they thought about their opinion and have good reasons to believe it's
correct.

and they are open to debate. they aren't being closed minded. what they don't
want or like is for you to say/think "that's just your opinion" and both not
give a counter argument and also not accept they are right.

~~~
gizmo
I find that most people find disagreement of any kind uncomfortable. So
whether you're open to discussion or whether you've considered your opinions
carefully is immaterial.

~~~
xenophanes
Yes. I'm just saying why people do that. Some people don't irrationally hate
disagreement and instead see it as a learning opportunity.

------
dschobel
In what way does this analysis of a caricature (based on sitcom character!)
resemble reality? Is this really the most sophisticated thing we can say? that
"nerds" don't like society because it's illogical?

Color me underwhelmed.

~~~
ErrantX
Very little.

Also, in my experience (including personal experience in the past and
observing friends handling the same difficulties now), most of the inability
to fit meet social norms is driven by fear more than any other factor.

------
ndl
I read an article in the Harvard Business Review relating to this some time
ago. The author basically argued that social interaction comes from the limbic
brain, so trying to learn it the way one would mathematics is awkward and
misguided. The complex, inconsistent world of social cues simply has too many
variables for logical processing, but each human is equipped with an older,
instinctual understanding of this world that sometimes goes ignored or even
repressed. Maybe the key to success here really is learning to stop thinking
too hard and trusting one's instincts.

A good example is how we tell people they're being rude. Many nerds want an
explicit, clear answer, maybe even a right/wrong mark or a grade. In reality,
we respond to body language with body language. If everyone's avoiding your
eyes or shooting you dirty looks, you've probably said a bad word. Sometimes
it's more subtle, such as with the many meanings of crossed arms and angled
stances.

I dealt with these challenges by studying acting. The practice of theater
collects and refines centuries of study in body language, emotion and personal
interaction. Even more importantly, it is a practice rather than a knowledge
base, which matters if one believes that one physically cannot learn certain
things from a book.

~~~
billswift
>social interaction comes from the limbic brain, so trying to learn it the way
one would mathematics is awkward and misguided

Not just awkward and misguided, nearly impossible. I am an Aspie with an IQ of
156 and can barely maintain more than short, shallow conversations (unless I
start monologuing which isn't a "conversation" but at least I'm doing some
talking then).

------
kevinp
Context? I have a natural tendency to start sentences with "I think" and the
like, and I have to fight myself to NOT to use such phrasing on the job. Every
"perhaps," "maybe," "why don't we ... ?" opens a door through which the other
party can force his own agenda, I've found. This advice doesn't work in
business.

------
pook
At the risk of sounding an ass-kisser, this is good, but not as good as PG's
Why Nerds are Unpopular ( <http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html> )

I tend to think of sociability more in terms of the opportunity cost of
Chinese-Walling blackboxed components. The cost of the time it takes to learn
the muddled API of mores is the time that could be spent learning those
muddled API's we actually find fascinating.

It is recursively self-reinforcing as well. An hour spent in hacking Smalltalk
will get you more immediate and interesting (to us) results than an hour
rehearsing small talk. Which choice will look more appealing the next time?
Almost inevitably you will focus on those things that you're already good at,
that provide tangible rewards.

------
tomsaffell
Good article, but I found this one line surprising:

    
    
      ..many nerds actually like being interrupted in mid-sentence when they're wrong..
    

I don't feel that way (semi-nerd). Do you?

~~~
ErrantX
We have a guy in the office who is very low-social skilled and is definitely a
nerd (of the D&D tabletop variety).

He's a nice enough guy but if you speak before he is totally finished he will
ignore you and continue. He also gets stressed by the interruptions.

However he _does_ interrupt others frequently in the same way and will just
power on with what he wants to say.

This makes having a 2-way discussion _really_ hard.

I suspect that from a nerds perspective it's fine to interrupt - and they
forget they hate it (he says this is the case when I call him on it)

~~~
billswift
I'm an Aspie, processing verbal information takes too much attention - if I
wait until the other person is finished I will usually forget what I was going
to say. And if interrupted I will usually be unable to continue. Normally, I
just keep my mouth shut and don't say anything.

~~~
ErrantX
Is that common? I'd hate to think I was keeping him (and others silent). Is
there anything I can do to help improve his interaction with me?

It doesnt worry me too much (except making conversations long and sometimes
tiring) but I have noticed visitors to the office getting "mad" about it. I
hate mentioning it because that just rude... but sometimes you just have to to
avoid them snapping and embarrassing him.

He's quite embarrassed about it generally (even though there is no need to be
with us - Im as crazy as they come) so I can't figure a good way to broach the
subject with him. Even though I think it would be beneficial to discuss it and
explain it's not a worry for us! Any tips/thoughts?

(as it happens he's well qualified for the job and does well at it - a bit
more forgetful than most, but no biggie. He came to use after 15 rejections
since leaving uni a year before and could barely speak in the interview. In
the end my boss said, basically, "how can we turn him away". It was pretty
disgusting how he was treated elsewhere)

~~~
billswift
The specific problems Aspies have vary a lot. Most have _some_ problems with
speaking and especially speaking up. But from what I have read my specific
problems seem to be even more focused in those areas than most Aspies. Any
pressure, such as interviews, makes it worse, I have fewer difficulties now
than I used to, but I am 48 years old and have learned a lot of stress control
techniques. I still "meltdown" under much pressure (for example an
_unexpected_ interview).

------
olalonde
Because you have a hard time rationalizing social norms doesn't mean they
don't make sense at all. Nerds do have their social norms too (for instance,
not caring about their physical appearance) and I would actually consider
myself a nerd if it was not for the social part / lifestyle that goes with it.
I'm probably going to get down voted for this :/

------
mcantor
I enjoyed the point about prepending sentences with "I think." I have found
that, during emotional discussions with friends or loved ones, it also
behooves us to prepend many phrases with "I feel like."

The common nerd defense to this approach is to cry, "But _I'm_ saying it... of
course it's just _my_ opinion!" or, "Of course it's just my feelings!"
However, prepending a sentence with "I think/I feel like..." indicates that
you are not one of those frustrating people who refuses to consider other
people's emotions and opinions.

Additionally, "You don't consider my emotions enough" and "It feels like you
don't consider my emotions enough" are two _wildly_ different phrases, no
matter which way you slice it.

By prepending that sentence with "it feels like," we profoundly alter its
meaning. The first sentence indicates an objective truth for which the
listener can be _blamed_. The latter sentence indicates nothing except the
speaker's _internal feelings_ , which--for the most part--cannot be
consciously controlled.

No one is to blame for feelings: they simply _are_ , and denoting a sentiment
as "a feeling" rather than "a fact, which may be your fault," is a vital
tactic for communicating constructively on a deep emotional level.

Many nerds approach debates and communication with a feeling of entitlement to
being understood. "I have spent a lot of time learning what I know, and if
someone else can't understand it when I explain it to them, it is their
problem, not mine." Unfortunately, this leads to severe communication issues
with everyone, including other nerds.

If you want someone else to understand something, and they don't get it, _it
is your problem_ as much as it is theirs. Maybe if you never have to deal with
that person ever again, nor anyone else who _they_ have to deal with, and so
on, it is not your problem. But if they are a friend, colleague or loved one,
it inarguably behooves you to go out of your way to make them understand
what's going on in your head. Only mutual understanding of needs and desires
will provide us with the opportunity to reach constructive conclusions to our
problems.

~~~
uriel
> However, prepending a sentence with "I think/I feel like..." indicates that
> you are not one of those frustrating people who refuses to consider other
> people's emotions and opinions.

The only way to show that you are not one of those persons is by what you
actually say and by displaying in your ideas an understanding of other
people's emotions and options (or making explicit that you do not understand
them but would like to).

Prepending "I think/I feel like..." is meaningless boilerplate that can be
easily interpreted as condescending or hypocritical if your concern for other
people's feelings and opinions is not actually reflected in what follows.

------
groaner
> If nerds become the dominant consumer of any given entertainment, _it's
> fucking doomed_.

I'm not sure I understand this statement. I don't see the gaming industries
(card-, board-, and video- varieties) going out of business. I'd even go as
far as saying nerds popularized many of these.

~~~
sketerpot
Doomed to be forever dominated by nerds, perhaps. Can anybody name an example
of a field of entertainment that was successfully de-nerdified?

~~~
uriel
> Can anybody name an example of a field of entertainment that was
> successfully de-nerdified?

Reddit. (Or great parts of it anyway.)

~~~
cheald
World of Warcraft. MMORPGs were very squarely the domain of the archtypical
basement-dwelling nerd - they were intensely mathematical (which is natural,
given its D&D lineage), brutally punishing in the case of mistakes (corpse
runs, XP loss), and tuned to the highly-methodical, cause-and-effect nerd
mentality ("blind" crafting lists, week-long spawn timers, etc).

Then WoW came along, sucked out all the "nerd sauce", and replaced it with an
easily-accessible set of rules that made the game approachable and appealing
to the mass markets, and it has been wildly successful as a result. The nerd
bits are still there, buried deep down, but the average player never has to
touch them to fully enjoy the game.

Sure, if you play WoW, you're still a "nerd" by social standards, because hey,
let's face it, you're playing an online role playing game in your underwear
with hundreds of people you've never met, but there are a lot of people who we
wouldn't classify as "nerds" that play the game.

------
andywood
Spot on. I'm one of those who eventually adapted to the way people are.
Mostly. I even came to see all these customs as "true", in a perverse sense,
just because people do in fact hold them in their minds. But internally, I
still distinguish between things that are true independently of human social
wiring, and things that are only "so" because a lot of people think so. And my
loyalty is still mostly to the former, and this probably does still limit me
socially, and perhaps even career-wise. But I'm not sure I would feel better
about giving in than I feel about being a little limited in those ways.

------
evanrmurphy
I basically enjoyed the article, but not this message which I felt was
underlying: nerds are too smart to "get" society, because social customs make
no sense and only ordinary dumb people can tolerate their absurdity.

Society does have a logic to it - there are just a ton of axioms, and much
empiricism is required to catch the nuances. But clearly empiricism is at
least as important as theory when dealing with real-world phenomena: you have
to stop and observe closely how gravity works, otherwise you may deduce very
wrong conclusions from seemingly sound premises. (@aristotle i still luv u)

------
ShabbyDoo
"In a sane world, I think, people would listen to what's coming out of your
mouth"

Yes. And, that implies that you were not interrupted during that process!

A simple social rule that usually works is, "Never interrupt." This implies,
of course, that the other social rule of "Provide others with period chances
to speak (pauses, questions, etc.)" is also followed. Interruption is more
difficult and nuanced. We all agree that we may interrupt anyone at any time
if we notice a fire in the building. But, it gets more difficult from there.

~~~
mattm
This is cultural and not universal.

In some cultures if you wait for the pauses, you will never be able to speak.
I found this to be the case while living in Eastern Europe. The people there
generally keep speaking until you interrupt. It's not considered rude though.
They just assume you'll interrupt when you have something to say. If you don't
interrupt, they'll keep talking.

~~~
ShabbyDoo
You are right -- that's also likely a more efficient convention.

------
asolove
Because society is basically one enormous, opaque device driver blob? It
specifies an arbitrary input/output format so ugly that seeing the underlying
reasoning would be an embarrassment.

------
xenophanes
> many nerds actually like being interrupted in mid-sentence when they're
> wrong

Not being interrupted in any kind of debate is TERRIBLE. It means the other
guy will forget exactly what you said that he disagreed with. so then he'll
argue with some vague memory of what you said. plus everything you said after
the part where he disagreed is a waste of time.

i got into a big argument once because i wouldn't let someone finish their
point b/c i knew they were going to forget what they said in the first half
that was wrong and i didn't want to waste my time listening to the rest which
was irrelevant.

> If nerds can master such arbitrarily complex things as the Linux operating
> and the complete rules of D&D, why can't they learn the rules of social
> norms?

Social norms actually are more complicated than D&D. There's more to know. If
you actively play D&D for a year you could learn and remember all the rules.
Learning all the social norms takes far longer -- even after your whole
childhood including 4 years of high school very few people know _all_ the
norms, just most.

------
dwwoelfel
Read Judith Martin's "Miss Manners" books and newspaper columns if you want to
learn how to determine what is right and what is wrong in social situations.
She has a witty writing style, and she treats manners like a science.

You can read her columns at the Washington post here:
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/linkset/2005/03...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/linkset/2005/03/25/LI2005032501837.html)

If you're going to buy one of her books I recommend her _Guide to
Excruciatingly Correct Behavior_ (<http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0393058743>)

------
swombat
_And some, frustrated by the lack of coherency, will default to the "do unto
others" rule - and be a royal pain in the ass, because many nerds actually
like being interrupted in mid-sentence when they're wrong._

What, you mean other people don't? They prefer to continue on a lengthy and
fundamentally incorrect statement when they could be saved the embarrassment
quickly and painlessly after just a few words?

~~~
dmoney
"Fundamentally incorrect" sounds like a pretty nerdy piece of metadata to
attach to a statement.

------
RevRal
When talking about something meaningful, I speak to people in a way that
humans _should_ be spoken to. It's their fault for getting offended.

That is, I speak to people with the dignity of humans in mind, which is our
power of inference. Speaking in a lesser way is disrespectful, like talking to
people as if they were dogs. Yet, that is where most people are comfortable.
That is the level of sanity which is promoted through most human society.

And this level of sanity is, frankly, animalistic and insane.

No, even if people don't like it, I won't grant them the indignity of being
spoken to like an animal.

With that said, I've learned some leniency with this rule. Now, I'm basically
sociopathically socially skilled in places where people can't communicate at
my level -- pretty much the article's last two paragraphs. I understand wit
and charm logically, and I can apply it quite consciously. I am, however,
always disquieted that I have to entertain myself like this -- and as a
byproduct, entertain others -- and yet, people don't realize that they're
being tricked.

Bah. As long as I'm not talking to the layperson about something meaningful,
I'm fine. I just _really_ wish it didn't have to be this way.

~~~
mcantor
Where is it written that people _should_ be spoken to a certain way? I feel
like you are exhibiting some signs of the very hubris that this article
cautions against. Beware the conviction you feel so strongly that there is no
possibility you could be wrong, and anyone who takes offense at your stance is
simply getting what they deserve. That way lies anger and estrangement.

Everyone has different expectations about how they will be communicated with.
It depends largely on how they were brought up, and what their brains learned
to expect from certain verbal cues. If you really care about whether someone
else understands what you are saying, it makes sense to meet in the middle.

I doubt it is your intention to offend people when you communicate honestly
with them. Perhaps it would be constructive to respond to someone taking
umbrage at your words by gently mentioning what you wrote in your second
paragraph: "I'm sorry I offended you... it is not my intention to suggest that
your opinions are worth less than mine. I know that I might be wrong, but it
is far more efficient and honest to simply state my beliefs and opinions
without cluttering my sentences with lots of extra fluff." At that point, the
ball is in their court: they can choose to do the work and remind themselves
that you are not trying to clobber their opinions, or they can decide that it
isn't worth the effort.

At that point, it is your turn to decide whether it's worth the effort to
change your speech patterns, or if you do not care about communicating with
them enough to bother.

~~~
RevRal
Thank you for the thoughtful response.

I was up all night finishing a project, and I am killing time right now
staying awake, so understand if I'm not writing with precision.

When I said I speak to people the way humans should be spoken to, I meant that
I am speaking to them with respect. I know that sounds counter-intuitive, but
keep in mind that I am talking _specifically_ about conversations about
_meaningful_ things. So in order to avoid speaking dis-respectfully, I avoid
these conversations if the other persons can't handle them.

When I say meaningful, I mostly mean things that can be dissected into
components and analyzed using logic. It is painful to listen to some people
talk about quantum mechanics, or even movies or books. They find a conclusion
too soon, instead of relishing the antecedent ideas and facts. It takes the
human power of inference to examine these preceding, and surrounding, ideas
and to connect them in a way that makes sense (this is that human thing that I
am respecting in my first paragraph, btw). And, it often takes more than one
brain to do this well.

Okay, the problem is a little clearer: I am much more interested in the
process of finding a precise conclusion than weighing the conclusion itself
against another person's. I get the impression that most people perceive it as
some kind of battle.

Also, keep in mind, I was talking specifically about laypeople, whose attitude
is normally this: "don't mess with my opinion. That is sacred territory." And
I am speaking about laypeople because they are the majority and tend to decide
these social norms.

This is why I _don't_ talk to them about meaningful things. It is too much
like a minefield, where I'm talking myself in circles trying to avoid
upsetting the other person. Think about talking to a fundamentalist christian
about evolution, but you have to do it in a way that wont upset them. A
layperson's thought process is jacked up just like that fundamentalist's. And
it shows in how they want to speak to one another.

Again, that is why I choose not to engage in discussion about meaningful
things with these people. I keep my head by engaging them with charm, humor,
wit, anecdotes.... which is fine exercise and I'm rather good at it. I'm not a
non-functioning nerd; I know tact very well.

I don't like it like this, but I accept it. I want to be able to talk to
anybody about important things.

It's a good thing that I've picked good close friends and partners who know
how to communicate well, and we never play the "you're not allowed to say that
card," or the "you're not allowed to omit that card" hahaha. Funny how we
never manipulate, lie, or have terrible arguments with one-another and yet
people who uphold bad communication and these silly social pleasantries, their
lives are wrought with unnecessary drama.

Please, let me know if there was anything else you would like for me to
clarify. I haven't done an all-nighter in a long time, so it's hard for me to
tell if I'm being clear or if I read your comment clearly.

------
daniel-cussen
I've learned not to interrupt people, but it took finding out I had AADD and
treating it chemically.

~~~
rbanffy
Sadly, this came to my mind:

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2010/02...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2010/02/26/AR2010022603369.html)

"Another danger is that childhood eccentricities, sometimes inextricable from
creativity, might be labeled "disorders" to be "cured." If 7-year-old Mozart
tried composing his concertos today, he might be diagnosed with attention-
deficit hyperactivity disorder and medicated into barren normality."

I sincerely hope it's not your case. We need more Mozarts.

------
orblivion
I think a lot of it was explained away for me when I took it as a logical
datum that people have illogical preferences and form illogical habits.

I still hold my fork in my right hand when my parents aren't looking, though,
dammit.

------
Maven911
I notice the people who don't use the word "I think" often will get ahead in
the workplace. It shows strength and exudes confidence.

~~~
jrockway
Correlation, meet causation. The people who are confident enough to omit "I
think" are the ones that have ideas that other people like. If you come up
with bad ideas but never use "I think", you will not get ahead. Conversely, if
you always come up with great ideas, nobody will care that you said "I think";
they care that you solved the problem.

People are not as dumb and idiosyncratic as bloggers think they are.

------
iuguy
When you can compile not interrupting people and fork it to the background,
nerds will get a handle on it.

------
planettrash
I read the article with the word 'nerd' replaced by the word 'men'.

------
Calamitous
Because _you're not using vim_

