Comment by Confusion | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Confusion | Hacker News Reader

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.

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".

I agree with your friend, it's my observation that all human behaviors are somewhere on a spectrum. People have different abilities or cultural ability to discern the resolution. Some see in black and white and some see greyscale.

A spectrum approach is one of the advantages of the Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual.

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.

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...

...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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com