Hacker News Reader

Comment by jodrellblank | Hacker News Reader

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."

View on HN

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

Even leaving aside intelligence, on geek to non-geek conversation, there's often a knowledge gap in at least one area. I'd bet that Joe Geek's knowledge of web browsers is way more than two standard deviations higher than Joe Interlocutor.

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.

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...

"... 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 ..."

Myers Brigg illustrates "self-validation" and is dangerous when used to define careers ~ http://www.skepdic.com/myersb.html

Don't agree. Being truly engaging to, say, a child, requires an applied kind of intelligence. Having more of this intelligence would not hamper one's degree of engagement with the child.

Similarly, take Feynman; probably smarter than most of us. Note how he analysed and described many everyday phenomena in ways that seem very interesting, and not at all out of intellectual reach, and didn't seem to be bored doing so.

In fact, I'd rather say that an excess of intelligence should be no limit to how fascinating one is to the listener. The most interesting conversations often involve talking about the other person and sharing life experiences; but the most visceral of those experiences don't seem to have any obvious connection to intelligence. If anything, intelligence will enhance one's descriptive abilities.

Feynman, incidentally, had a famously low IQ of 125.

I deal with a lot of different people in a given day, academics, trades people, sales people, students, parents, bankers, employees....you name it.

I do all of the context switching, or condescending, up or down because I long ago realized it was the most effective way to the job done. Most people can't or just suck at it.

End result? It's exhausting,I get incredibly sick of talking to people and start to feel incredibly alienated. It's like I have to speak a hundred different dialects of English to get through the day.

I understand exactly what you mean and I started doing it at a very young age. The end result as you described is the alienation effect you described.

The other interesting thing I found is that if I deal with somebody whom I don't need to switch too much, I find it relaxing and refreshing in some sense. But sadly it doesn't happen very often.

A friend who can switch with you is the best.

A spouse that can context switch with you is even better!

I'm still looking :(

Hum to be honest i really think this is a gross mixup of intelligence and capacity to adapt socially. Somebody very intelligent can communicate at very different levels without having to adapt. I see lots of very clever people doing this without even realizing it. That's because engaging someone vary much more on other criterias than on the mere intelligence of your interlocutor, like social context, aim of the conversation, etc ..

So the pejorative connotation of condescension fits in this context, the context of people thinking they have to adapt because their interlocutor is dumber than they are, when in fact it is they that lacks the social intelligence that would make adaptation natural.

If you weren't a geek you wouldn't be here, right?

And if I move to the point.

<rant> I wholeheartedly agree with your summary. But there is one more point about "geeks don't have social skills" myth I would like to address. Myself being a very extrovert person, I have never had problems in mingling with people. But while wearing an engineer hat, I constantly get patronized by people who SHOULD listen to me for their own good. Yet, due to their willful ignorance and intellectual laziness, I get to clear the mess in the end. And it doesn't really matter how I try to present it. If I explain on simple terms - they don't believe me, but when I try to elaborate they just shut down. But! They do like listening to themselves, talking of lies. Yes Sir! They do! </rant>

And perhaps a shorter summary.

People chat for information exchange and entertainment. To geeks, these are the same. To many people, they are not.

Amen to that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com