> They are as a rule extremely competitive — more competitive, I'd say, than highly competitive non-nerds.
Sigh. What does that even mean. This is the kind of stuff I dislike a lot in pg's writings. He totally identifies with the group he describes, and then he spend the entire article sending flowers to himself through the eulogy of people just like him. It's embarrassing.
He goes right into it in the next paragraph, where he says that they're perhaps more competitive due to lower emotional competency and implicitly poorer self awareness.
> They are as a rule extremely competitive — more competitive, I'd say, than highly competitive non-nerds.
I’m a somewhat non-traditional ‘nerd’ having grown up with sports and competitive recreational activities.
One thing that gets taught over and over again in youth sports and even adult competitive activities is the importance of sportsmanship. People who display poor sportsmanship are admonished, shamed, penalized, or even excluded from competition. Everyone learns one way or another that poor sportsmanship is bad, or at minimum that it is a risk to their reputation and ability to compete.
I’ve had to learn the hard way that many of the most competitive ‘nerds’ in industry have no such sense of sportsmanship. They are out to win and to become the alpha nerd at any cost. Anyone who gets in their way can end up in the crosshairs and the tactics can be exceptionally dirty. In most cases this translates to nasty office politics, but I’ve also witnessed some ‘competitive nerds’ try to engineer character assassination of their enemies or, in the wildest case I’ve ever seen, fabricate a literal crime and try to pin it on their workplace peers (that person got caught and went to prison).
Now when I come across ‘competitive nerds’ I’m extra cautious to not appear to be too threatening to their assent to alpha nerd status, lest I end up in their crosshairs in the next round of office politics. Only after I’ve worked with someone long enough to understand their intentions will I risk entering friendly competition with a peer nerd.
Now when I come across ‘competitive nerds’ I’m extra cautious to not appear to be too threatening to their assent to alpha nerd status
I agree with this approach.
Being highly competent and also un-ambitious has allowed me to build a very comfortable career. The ambitious people know they can use me without fear of me backstabbing them, and they more or less insulate me from the politics.
My kids eat and my job is low stress, perhaps at a cost of reaching my personal professional potential. I'm pretty happy with this arrangement.
PG has some real bangers, unfortunately this is not one of them. Feels like he's just sucking himself (and a couple YC peeps) off the whole time without providing a whole lot of insight.
This article stacks up quite a long list of particular assertions (perhaps a mix of Overconfidence and giving in to your Impulsiveness). And we may or may not agree with those.
But right off the bat, just identifying that most ordinary people don't get a chance to see the weirder wonkier nerdier side of nerds is a killer observation, one with power to help heal a lot of people who do feel less for their disconnection & alienatation that is only somewhat their fault.
The explorers lack peers, fewer and fewer travellers are out traversing that endless frontier. that amazing side of you, that you are so passionate & so interested & so knowledgeable will not be recognized, will not be seen. It's hard but it's ok, and this article is a paean to that which should be better celebrated; this article is a well deserved thank you. Thanks Paul.
I realize this essay is kind of a squishy, non-specific ideology rather than some more technical breakdown of traits with evidence of long-term success. It's getting some hate for that.
But that's probably fine. I enjoyed it as an encouraging letter to those who struggle, either with their difficulty fitting in because they are all-consumed by esoteric interests, or with their difficulty being patient in day-to-day things.
It's worth keeping the essay around for a rogue nephew/niece who's being bullied for loving Pokemon, or playing too many games, or whatever. I find it to be a kindness to help someone re-frame their impatience as a latent strength that just needs to be recognized for what it is.
Any way about it I know the type and they make great start up partners. Their energy and need to prove they are right is the ultimate fuel if directed correctly
Context: This essay was published days after PG went on Twitter extolling what a great guy Antonio Garcia Martinez was [0] and got rightfully roasted for it, especially in light of what Antonio Garcia Martinez has become since that post.
This whole essay/concept is essentially just Paul Graham doing a bad job of re-hashing the main character arc from Neal Stephenson's /Cryptonomicon/...
I have to admit, I'm very surprised how poorly this is being received given the pure number of users on this site that probably perfectly fit the mold.
It is so interesting to me the way “nerd” and “geek” function as quasi-diagnostic categories for Boomers: not specifically medicalized, yet used to describe developmental differences.
It demonstrates both the power and limits of the social model of disability, in a way no amount of pure theory would.
(We can contrast this with the current Gen Z movement towards neurodiversity, which is emerging from solidarity across dramatically different subjective experiences, some regarded by the medical profession and others not.)
Why’s that? Nothing wrong with being a “nerd” (other than it’s a term no one uses anymore). I’m a nerd! The problem is with being a billionaire, corruption and centralization of power.
Sigh. What does that even mean. This is the kind of stuff I dislike a lot in pg's writings. He totally identifies with the group he describes, and then he spend the entire article sending flowers to himself through the eulogy of people just like him. It's embarrassing.