This is very similar to the idea of the tortured artist or that to be a great comedian you have to be depressed.
The happy and well adjusted comedian or socially adept mathematician doesn’t make for an interesting story — it just doesn’t fit the popular narrative and so it gets ignored.
In every discipline there are total weirdos and normal people at every step of the way, from terribly inept to amazingly world-class.
Not selecting against weird nerds doesn't mean selecting against "socially well-adjusted Nerds".
In fact, the article says that a person can in fact be exceptional at politic and science, despite their tenets being antithetical in many cases.
> There is a strong anti-correlation between these interests (that of course does not mean there is no one who is good at both.)
The article is about how politicking is a requirement of success in academia. Schmoozing isn't social grace. It's closer to social engineering.
Social grace is having the grace to socialize without embarrassing yourself, you don't have to schmooze to do that. And yet it is often a requirement of politics.
Which is a requirement of success in academia.
Schmoozing is antithetical to science because science is the pursuit of the truth of the nature of things backed by tangible evidence. Science isn't supposed to show bias or favoritism.
Kind of hard to reject that notion. Though you could probably argue that schmoozing isn't necessary for politics. Most people would disagree though.