
Geek behaviors present during conversations - ronnier
http://www.stanford.edu/~pgbovine/geek-behaviors.htm
======
Nwallins
Moreso than _an altruistic desire to educate their audience_ , I think geeks
rather desire to _preserve the validity of discourse_ \-- i.e. prevent the
spread of "false" memes or concepts. It's not a patronizing focus on a peer's
education, but rather a way to preserve the truth and correctness of human
understanding of the world.

~~~
pavelludiq
True, i have a real problem with sloppy thinking the same way a musician has a
problem with noise. I don't mind being corrected, i have no emotional
attachment to my positions or believes, if they are wrong, but for some reason
proving someone wrong is seen as a personal attack, which confuses me. Why
would anyone have such an emotional attachment to a bad idea? And they call me
strange... :D

What i fear most is not that i might upset someone with my correction, but
that someone might not correct me out of politeness if im talking bullshit(i
tend to do that often). Thankfully i tend to avoid people pleasers and most of
my friends would not hesitate to state my mistakes, even at the risk of
insulting me.

~~~
sp332
It's an issue of authority. If someone says that something is true, and you
prove them wrong, you've made them look like a weak thinker or out of touch
with reality. This can actually damage their relationships with the people
around them. If the issue is actually important, you should go to them
privately and give them the information in a manner that makes it clear that
you are looking to help them instead of just calling them out. If the issue is
not important, often (in context) their posturing of "I know better" is more
important than actually being correct, so just let it slide.

~~~
loup-vaillant
Sometimes, it can also be a issue of _identity_ (left/right politician,
Java/Lisp programmer…)[1]. If you attack an idea that someone attached to his
identity, it will be like you attack his very being. Common reactions can be
dismay, denial, or even violence.

[1]: <http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html>

------
Confusion
I don't think this article describes geeks: it describes the borderline
autistic behavior of people that fail to evaluate their own peculiarities. I
have the impression there's some serious confirmation bias at work if you
become convinced this stereotypical behavior is actually typical geek
behavior.

I have to admit that I recognize all of the points he makes, but I recognize
them _because_ I have become aware of them. Some I had already remedied
subconsciously, long before I became aware of them; others required some
effort to change. I don't doubt it is exactly the same for other geeks.

One of the main things this brought me is the guideline: don't obsess over
perceived differences between you and others, because they are smaller than
you think.

For instance, (awkward) silences are normal things that occur in many
conversations. After forcing myself to pay attention to people's faces and
body language, the first thing that struck me is how little 'regular' people
actually seem to be doing that. They look away and fiddle with their papers
all the time.

~~~
thaumaturgy
While it's possible to find exceptions, there are some strong indicators of
mild (or high-functioning) autism among the geek crowd, and several of the
points in the article could be described as autistic traits.

Probably the best example is the stereotypical geek's inability to read facial
expressions. Some geeks -- like me, and, it sounds like, you -- teach
themselves how to do it, but this is still a trait which comes more naturally
to most people. This, combined with the geek's active "inner world", causes
awkward conversations and social behavior.

Above average numeracy and a tendency to mentally model problems and
situations visually are a couple of other indicators, as well as tendencies
towards emotional irregularities.

While you might be able to _act_ as though the differences between you and
others is not great, the fact is, their brain probably doesn't work very much
like yours does.

I knew someone for a while that was working on his thesis in psychology;
according to him, the field of psychology had a certain reluctance to measure
various disorders in degrees. Although psychologists might say, "this person
is autistic, and can function somewhat in society", and, "this other person is
autistic and cannot function in society", they're reluctant to say, "this
person is only a little autistic". (This was the subject of his thesis.)

Based on what I've read in the DSM and publications like SciAm:Mind, as well
as what I've observed of people, I'd tend to agree with him, and I'd say that
it's a pretty safe bet that the majority of stereotypical geeks are "a little
autistic".

~~~
aerique
_Probably the best example is the stereotypical geek's inability to read
facial expressions. Some geeks -- like me, and, it sounds like, you -- teach
themselves how to do it, but this is still a trait which comes more naturally
to most people._

I've always wondered if it comes naturally to most people or whether they just
learned it at a younger age while we were busy learning other things.

~~~
thaumaturgy
Very young in fact -- I think I remember reading an article that claimed that
very young babies could "read" facial expressions, at least in the happy-
versus-sad sense.

I can't find any references to it online in the thirty seconds or so I'm
willing to spend on it, but I did find:

[http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2009/11/10/bosto...](http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2009/11/10/boston_lab_explores_childrens_complex_lessons_in_reading_faces/?page=full)

...which says that babies start learning facial expressions at 6 months of
age.

Autism is different though; it's not just a lack of ability, but a lack of
interest. I distinctly remember reading that, for example, during a movie
where the scene is primarily depicting two people talking, a "normal" person
will watch the faces of the actors, while the "autistic" subject would tend to
focus on the light switch in the background. I doubt this is universal, and
the article may have even been about one person in particular, but at this
point correlations between autism and difficulty with interpersonal emotional
interpretation are accepted as generally true.

...I think this has an interesting, though probably coincidental, consequence:
sci-fi shows and movies tend to focus much more heavily on objects and
technology than faces and acting.

------
jodrellblank
I must be a geek, this article is pushing all the right buttons.

A quick summary might be: "When talking, geeks need to understand that the
listener doesn't know anything and doesn't want to learn, doesn't care whether
what you say makes sense or is accurate, isn't trying to understand, doesn't
even want the answer to the question they asked but rather an answer to the
question they were thinking of, and is often simply waiting for you to shut up
so they can speak. Also, everyone else has a massive inferiority complex so
stop suggesting things to improve their lives as they'll take it as a
belittling insult and somehow that's now your problem."

~~~
shawndumas
People with an IQ of 100 ("Normal or average intelligence") are two standard
deviations from people with an IQ of 70 ("Definite feeble-mindedness").

People with an IQ of 130 ("Very superior intelligence") are two standard
deviations from people with an IQ of 100.

A normal person will have to change basic communication skills to be found
engaging by a feeble-minded person.

Likewise, an intelligent person will need to accommodate a normal person.

The term condescension has come to have a pejorative connotation[1] but is
actually fitting in this context.

[1] Compare Webster's 1828 Dictionary: condescension, n. Voluntary descent
from rank, dignity or just claims; relinquishment of strict right; submission
to inferiors in granting requests or performing acts which strict justice does
not require. _Hence, courtesy_.

\- “It forbids pride and commands humility, modesty and condescension to
others.” \- “Raphael, amidst his tenderness, shows such a dignity and
condescension in all his behavior, as are suitable to a superior nature.”

With Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition: condescension, n. 1\.
act or instance of condescending 2\. a patronizing manner or behavior

~~~
thaumaturgy
FWIW, I pissed off a whole entire mailing list of self-described INTJs once by
suggesting the same thing, but for differing personality types: that INTJs,
being one of the few types that was so self-analytical as to know what type it
was, had the ability and need to talk and act in a way that could be better
understood by other types.

~~~
shawndumas
I'm an INFJ; as such take my this post as me 'counseling' all Myers-Briggs
personality types that have an IQ > ~120 to observe _genuinely kind_ people of
an average intellect interacting with the cognitively impaired.

Think uncomplaining, long-suffering, enduring, tolerant...

------
jsharpe
I think the propensity for geeks to prefer IM, Email and Texting has more to
do with a lot of them being introverts and preferring to have time to consider
their responses, than with a lack of social graces.

~~~
chipsy
The lack of context for phones frustrates me because it means you can be
"accidentally invasive." If you approach someone in real life, you can use
your senses to gauge what they're doing, thinking, and feeling at the moment
of contact, and make an social gesture that is appropriate. It helps with
first impressions, which are always important. And with email the asychronity
is high so your risk of reaching someone at a bad time is low, so again, you
can make a good first impression.

But if you're going over phone, there is some expectation of real-time
availability - nobody really likes voice mail. Phone calls have a dreadful
suddenness to them. Thank goodness we're moving past the days when almost
everything had to be done by cold-calling a number.

IM and texting can be even worse in some ways as the expectations of
timeliness are fluid so communication may get frustrating when one person is
moving way faster than the other, but I think they actually work really well
when used for short-term "business update" types of communication: "I will
meet you at 5pm." "Do you have a link for <x>?" "We changed our plans for the
meeting." etc.

~~~
dan_the_welder
I regularly find myself having two separate conversation threads in a text
message exchange with one person. I don't know if that confuses people or not.

~~~
sp332
I often have two threads of conversation going in a face-to-face exchange.
It's not very confusing.

------
Goladus
This is a great article, but I don't notice the "awkward silences" aspect of
turn-taking to be as much of a problem as _interruption_ and _waiting to say
something_.

That is, as soon as you get an idea you immediately begin plotting to share it
with everyone, and you either blurt it out or you stop listening until you get
a chance to talk (thereby causing you to say things that don't seem to fit in
the conversation or make it seem like you aren't keeping up)

Not yielding the floor when appropriate is definitely a problem too, but
doesn't always result in awkward silences.

------
indiejade
The commentary on "awkward silence" is interesting. Personally, I think it's
kind of impossible to have an awkward silence; never do I find silence to be
an uncomfortable thing, especially if there's the "comforting" sound of
keyboard typing as background noise. "Thinking" noise, as it may be.

Maybe the main differentiating factor between geeks and non-geeks (as the
author calls them) is ability to deal with silence. Most geeks I get along
with best tend to listen with their eyes and speak with their hands.

~~~
joeyo
Perhaps you have an inability to notice when a silence has become awkward?

------
ilitirit
> Non-geeks might perceive such behavior as rude and arrogant, like the geek
> is trying to show his smartness and be a 'know-it-all'.

It's only perceived as rude when it comes across as rude. For example, if you
interrupt someone mid-sentence to correct something insignificant, then that's
rude. Waiting for the person to finish talking and then immediately correcting
something they said earlier gives the other person the impression that you
weren't listening to what they were saying. There are better ways of dealing
with this in conversation. One of them is simply to ignore irrelevant
inaccuracies.

Calling it "altruistic behaviour to educate" is also disingenuous. I've met
many geeks who thrive on expounding minutiae about irrelevant or insignificant
topics at the most inappropriate moments, all for the sake of recognition.
It's the same as when jocks try to impress others by being macho. Obviously
not all geeks are like that, but they definitely exist. My dad is geek who is
like this but for him it's also about self-affirmation.

Finally, I often see articles on the net trying to explain "geeky" social
interaction, but I rarely read articles specifically targeted at people with
these tendencies describing how to improve their social skills. That's
because, IMO, people who have these skills recognize that intelligence has
little to do with it.

------
pgbovine
hi everyone: this is the author here. i'm pleasantly surprised to see this pop
up on HN.

please reply to my comment if you have any suggestions for improving this
article. thanks!

~~~
Mz
I'm kind of appalled at the negative tone and unpleasant assumptions behind
most of the comments. Let me suggest an alternative view:

Most geeks have been "weird" their entire lives. From kindergarten on, they
didn't quite fit in with the other kids. The teachers actively made their
social lives worse by setting them up as an object of scorn: The kid to hate
because they get the answers right while the teacher acts like a) you, too,
could get the answer right if only you studied more (never mind that is not
why the geek kid knew the answer) and b) see, this kid is proof I am a
wonderful teacher and your failures are on your own head for being lazy (never
mind that she or he isn't responsible for the geek kid's stellar performance
either).

They have had scorn heaped upon them until even the ones who started out as
extroverts have probably become gun-shy. The vast majority of people around
them were also inculcated in this sick, twisted social system so even when you
are in your 40's, you run into this "5-year-olds-on-the-playground"-style
bullshit harassment and get abused by it no matter how hard you try to
"behave" the way other people try to dictate you "should".

Someday, after you have twisted yourself all out of shape trying to do what
other people claim would make you "socially acceptable", you eventually figure
out that just knowing more than other people or just thinking differently
about problems is inherently verboten and there is no social disguise that
will make you "acceptable" to most people. It doesn't matter one iota that you
are sharing information out of genuine enthusiasm for a topic or out of a
genuine desire to make the lives of other people better, you will still be
treated like an egomaniac, a threat, a bitch/bastard...etc.

So maybe if the more "normal" folks who think "social skills" are vastly more
important than "hard"/technical skills would exercise some genuine compassion,
refrain from being too quick to judge and other types of social wisdom that
they like to brag they have more of than the "geeks", they would find that
geeks aren't so dreadful after all. They can be coaxed out of their shells if
you don't start off by automatically labeling them and being openly hostile.
And if you don't hate them on sight for simply existing and are kind and
patient with their foibles, they may not need to act like know-it-alls in
self-defense, which is probably the only ego defense they had in many ugly
social situations.

~~~
epochwolf
This pretty much describes my life until college. It took a lot of work from a
bunch of friends in college for me to develop enough social skills to handle
non-geeks.

~~~
Mz
I used to be more extroverted. Recent years have left scars that have turned
me more gun shy. I am still trying to find a balance. My innate wiring is to
just be warm and friendly to everyone. But I have found that there are often
unexpected and harsh consequences to doing so. It's rather counter-intuitive.

------
kilian
I completely suck at turn-talking, even when actively trying to anticipate
when my 'antagonist' wants to say something. Does anyone have actual tips for
improving this?

~~~
sp332
A sharp intake of breath is a pretty solid indicator. The more pronounced it
is, the more agitated they are that you're still talking. (Unless they're just
yawning.)

Looking away for a while and suddenly looking back with their mouth open
slightly can also be an indicator. If they have their mouths closed tightly,
they're deciding whether to interject, so you might want to check a sentence
or two later to see if they've made up their minds.

~~~
thirdusername
I love your comment, it's really informative and just what I need. Do you have
any suggestions of references (online or offline) where a layman can learn
more about social queues? :)

~~~
sp332
Unfortuately, I don't. I learned these from years of frustration when I was a
kid. I had hoped that my comment would get other people to post, but :-/

And it's _cues_ , not queues :-)

~~~
nitrogen
In true geek form, of all the posts to which I wanted to reply, I couldn't
resist pointing out that "queues" could technically be correct in this
context, as in message queuing in a conversation.

------
kylemathews
I think I used do more of those. Being at college has exposed me to far more
people and social situations than high school and rubbed off many of my
sharper social edges.

------
petercooper
A behavior in a similar vein that I see on Twitter a _lot_ :

    
    
      some_twitter_person: I went to the park tday.
      some_twitter_person: In the last tweet, I meant "today" and not "tday."
    

Unnecessary overcorrection. I've seen it on HN a lot too. It's as if making a
mere typo will make everyone think they're an uneducated idiot.

~~~
dkarl
I don't remember seeing that kind of post on HN. If you mean people editing
their posts, I blame/credit the ease of editing. I tend to post before
proofreading and then clean up any mistakes. It just seems like the natural
way to do it.

------
masterponomo
I would be interested in a database conveying this article's information in
tabular form. Then it would be useful to record the traits of other population
strata, each in its own row (or with one row per observer/observed combo, to
allow capture of multiple points of view). I would enjoy reading, searching,
updating and sorting that.

------
10ren
\- self-centered

\- blind to the relative importance of issues

These are also characteristics of children. I note them in myself. I think
every human being has these characteristics to some extent, but they are
especially prevalent in geeks/nerds.

As a result, if you can overcome them enough, and you have _some_ technical
competence, you can be absurdly successful.

------
jackchristopher
_"they often make heavy use of technical terminology because it's the most
concise and accurate way to convey their thoughts."_

If you get your point across by using terms no one understands, you're not
getting your point across. It's not efficient at all, since you'll have to
explain yourself further. But we all do this, not just "geeks". We're
inferentially distance from each other. Who doesn't compress their understand
of the world into their own specialist jargon?

------
defdac
The comments of this article are so great. I can see myself in so many of them
and I love how the topic can be seen from so many angles. I've always wondered
over the telephone phobia that I've seen from time to time with my geek
friends. I'm also a geek, but intro+extrovert. I feel more comfortable around
geeks than noisy people though. My father was extreme introvert and my mother
extreme extrovert.

------
elblanco
I think most geeks misunderstand the nature of the problem. They look for the
kind of precision and completeness necessary in technical fields in all areas
of life. When really they should understand that there are different kinds of
precision and completeness present in many different milieus.

A good geek might recognize this and seek to understand various types of
complex systems and seek the type of precision and completeness necessary to
model and work with that kind of system...a party is nothing more than a
complex system that has a complex and complete set of rules that have to be
adhered to with high precision in order to get invited to another party.

To play on this example, a geek might realize that he is failing in social
interactions. Thus she/he might look at socialization as a complex system akin
to a technical field and look to operate successfully at socialization by
understanding it in detail. For example, learning how to take turns in a
conversation, how to participate in small talk or tell an entertaining story
to somebody from a different, non-technical background. They'll learn
precision in using pop-culture references and completeness regarding the
social situations to use them in. They'll learn about the social graphs of the
people in the party, and when and how to reference other people ("don't talk
mean about Suzy to Greg, they broke up, but he still digs her").

In programming a geek may test their knowledge by writing a program and seeing
if it works "correctly". In electrical engineering they may build some useful
gadget. If a geek is trying to "hack" socialization, they might test their
knowledge by navigating a party without causing uncomfortable silences in
conversations they participate in.

A party thus can be thought of as a particular kind of social "application"
like a software application on a computer. Given time a geek might learn
several different kinds of "social applications" like "giving a toast at a
wedding", "having a 1-on-1 conversation with a cute girl", "going on a date",
"selling software" etc.

------
jpwagner
i like the article and the main theme of the post.

one thing i'd point out that tends to be forgotten is that these "traits" are
merely results of having not practiced (unless of course there is a condition
such as OCD, autism, etc preventing development of certain social norms.)

Someone who does not practice verbal communication will suck at it. Someone
who does not practice understanding others' interests will suck at it. Put
these together and they will suck at teaching. Someone who doesn't practicing
noticing others' clothes will not notice their own clothes.

"geek" is a choice, not a condition.

------
zephyrfalcon
So a quick summary would be: "Geeks" are mostly interested in technical
details, rather than touchy-feely stuff, and (often incorrectly) assume their
conversation partner is as well.

~~~
pvg
A better quick summary is that there are many socially awkward people who
excel in technical fields.

There are likely as many who do just as well and have no shortage of basic
social skills. One just doesn't notice the awkward silences so there's nothing
to write broad generalizing blog posts about.

------
gills
This seems tautological in the mainstream thought? Degrees of these behaviors
are often used to identify geeks in the first place.

------
abalashov
It is a strange premise, from my point of view, to characterise rather
militant anti-intellectualism and hostility to the achievements of science,
culture, scholarship, etc. as merely a trait of the majority of "ordinary"
(non-"geeky") people.

I hope the author is wrong about that, or, alternately, that my understanding
of what exactly is meant by "geek" is a bit off.

~~~
drtse4
Being from another continent, i don't even get why is even necessary to
catalog people (and sometimes how it could be done) either in the geek or non-
geek category. Each one of us should have a multi-faceted personality that
makes hardly possible to confine ourself in whatever definition we apparently
seems to adhere to.

------
StudyAnimal
Geeks have really got to spend at least as much time with people as in front
of the keyboard, which is something they can only partially influence by
themselves. Employers have to realize that too and redesign jobs so that no-
one should be spending more than 50% of their time in front of a keyboard.

~~~
tumult
I'd choke you if you dragged me out of deep thought just for the sake of it.

------
dkokelley
_If someone tells me that the DVD player they recommend costs $297.89 at
Costco but I can get a $49.95 mail-in rebate, then I need to spend some time
rounding that to $250 before committing it to memory._

Did anyone else file that as 'less than $250' in their brains?

------
psnj
No mention of the "geeksnort"?

~~~
sketerpot
Now that you've mentioned it, _somebody_ should explain what it is.

------
dpatru
It bothers me when people use the word "many" when single digit numbers will
do. For example someone might say, "I read many books," when it would be more
informative to say, "I read about 5 books a week."

~~~
billybob
I think from a non-geek perspective, "I read a lot of books" might mean "I
enjoy reading, perhaps we can talk about books we've read?"

Whereas "I read about 5 books a week" sounds more like "I count how many books
I read so that I can one-up anyone who thinks they are as smart as I am."

A non-geek who reads 5 books a week might admit the exact figure if probed,
but would be more likely to look slightly embarrassed, to imply "yes I know
that makes me odd" and "don't dislike me; I'm not trying to seem superior but
you asked."

------
andrewvc
Weird,

I definitely suck at turn taking, but I love phone calls. I'd much rather talk
than email/SMS/IM/whatever. In my mind those have even fewer social cues.

~~~
hoggle
I am utterly afraid of phone calls. I act like it's no problem though.

~~~
ajtaylor
I really dislike making phone calls. I don't have time to perfect my thoughts
as I do when writing them out. I forget questions I wanted to ask. And I often
talk too fast and thus stumble over my words. Email is so much better.

~~~
spython
I often make a list of things I want to talk about in my head, before making a
phone call; often I also think of a nice introduction and phrase the first
question - after that it just gets easier. Singing or making music, especially
jam sessions, helps a lot in finding the right rhythm in speaking.

------
chaostheory
A good way to end or reduces these geek mannerisms: Dale Carnegie's "How to
Make Friends and Influence People"

------
adrianwaj
GeeksDoItRarely.com - true, true (no site exists here as yet)

------
Raphael_Amiard
I think this article, while raising some valid points in some valid contexts,
is very stereotypical. I'd very much prefer watching The big bang theory for a
fun explanation of these stereotypes to be honest

------
Abook
Interesting Article

