As a kid I was smart and unpopular and assumed the one caused the other. Only in adulthood did I realize that my best friend was just as smart as me but not at all unpopular. Because he wasn’t a little jerk like I was. Never trust the self report of nerds.
A "nerd" is a made up concept that everyone has a slightly different meaning of in their heads. That being said, it's fun to attempt a unifying definition for this phenomenon that so many people seem to notice.
To me, a nerd is someone who is deeply interested in something to the point that he incurs heavy opportunity cost doing so. For example, he might speedrun videogames for 6 hours a day when he could be socializing with friends. In my experience, this definition fits with nearly all the people that I've seen be called nerds.
Reading your post, the "Bureaucracy-based theories" strikes me as far from a nerd. The bureaucrats I've worked with have all been far from nerds. They are the opposite - they don't have any intrinsic interests themselves. They all are well-kempt since their job demands them to be, but they don't go above and beyond because they aren't interested in grooming intrinsically. They are all sociable and great at talking because their job demands them to be, but it's not their own interest. The list goes on. And they don't even excel at their own jobs as much as they could because, again, they aren't even interested in that.
Of course, there are nerds in bureaucracies, but they're never successful. They usually remain in some low level position and use their job to supplement their real interests. In general, you need to be moderately good-looking, well-groomed, and good at leadership/teamwork to thrive in bureaucracies.
Another thing - there are varying degrees and types of nerds. Someone who is super into cars is sometimes called a "car nerd" for example, so I have to fit this into my definition somehow. Also, someone who doesn't let his hobby impede his normal life is seen as less of a nerd.
However, car nerds aren't true nerds. While car nerds and movie nerds and whatever lesser nerd DOES engage with his interest at some cost to what else he could be doing, TRUE nerds sacrifice what society values - social skills, relationships with other people, and conformity (society doesn't value conformity itself, but if all of society agrees in climate change, and the nerd rejects it, that's him rejecting conforming to society to stay true to his interest). Most hobbies generate all these things - relationships with people, social skills, conformity to a community - but computer-related hobbies don't (or at least those communities are invisible), which is why the term took off in the 1980s. You may be a nerd about sports or cars or climbing the bureaucracy, but you'll never be a true nerd.
I'm sure you already tell I disagree with your conclusion about our culture/bureaucracies being dominated by nerds. I see our bureaucracies as dominated by ambivalent normies, and our culture looking up to successful/agenic nerds/normies/jocks (nerds -> CEOs, normies -> actors, jocks -> athletes).
Some more points:
- You mention a culture idolizing jocks idolize social skills, but in my experience jocks have low social skills.
- If you're intrinsically interested in your thing, you're a nerd. If you're in it to be a successful youtuber/blogger/scientist/engineer/etc, you're a not a full nerd.
- You need an interest to be a nerd. Someone who just smokes weed or plays video games (without some underlying interest, just playing the AAA slop) is just a loser.
- Many people start out as nerds in high school because their looks make exploring their interests much more enjoyable than socializing. Generally, the people who mature slower (physically) are the ones who see less romantic interest for them, and so find their own hobbies more enjoyable.
- Most people turn into the aforementioned "ambivalent normies" as they grow up. The general progression looks like this: "I don't get good results socializing compared to my own interests" -> "I've developed a deep interest in some niche thing(s)" -> "Most of my niche interests are silly/childish. I'll drop most of them but keep the important ones." -> "Maybe I should work on my grooming/social skills, it's important after all. And maybe I can use my deep knowledge/skills in my interests to be successful somehow" -> "I've got a nice job with my skills, and some success with friends and romance, but I could be a bit more successful if I just..." -> "Life has been so hectic lately. At work I need to worry about the project deadlines and onboarding the new staff, then at home we're looking for a good catchment area for our kids. I was on hold with my realtor for 30 minutes the other day! Oh, yeah of course I'm still super passionate about that thing. I keep up to date with it on Twitter, and sometimes read blog posts about it." -> "Huh? X? No, I haven't been keeping up. Honestly, I think it's time to grow up." And thus another person completes their journey realizing what society has been trying to tell them - all that matters is social skills, relationships with other people, and conformity.
"People in the Terman’s study of the gifted were more likely to be tall, broad-shouldered, have matured earlier sexually, have a stronger hand grip, and have a strong lung capacity relative to the rest of the population."
This might just be a nitpick in wording, but isn't it that they "mature later sexually," i.e. they experience longer childhoods? The paper you linked says that at the time of the sampling, they're "somewhat earlier in their sexual maturity than children in the general population."
Do you actually believe climate change is propaganda or was that a joke?
As for what defines a nerd, i think it's just above average IQ + interests/hobbies that aren't popular/mainstream, which probably correlates with disagreeableness.
The very phrase “climate change” reveals itself as propaganda. It was called global cooling in the 70s and 80s (when they were angling to disarm us by pushing fears of “nuclear winter”) before the same people switched to global warming in the 80s and 90s before they switched to “climate change” in the 2000s because the public noticed the lack of consistent warming. And in any case the original concern was catastrophic anthropogenic climate change, not just any old warming, but that’s too complicated to brainwash people with. So propaganda is a pretty good summary.
I would say most "nerds" aren't smart at all. They're unathletic and want to escape the world that is relevant to "jocks", and the "jocks" naturally dismiss their interests as irrelevant to jock life, because they are supposed to be. You don't require a high IQ to like Star Wars. But you might feel smart because you read Star Wars novels and the "jocks" don't read at all, though honestly that is worse than reading nothing.
An unathletic person with a high IQ would still be living in a different world to a high IQ jock, even if his interests require a high IQ to understand or care about, and teenagers like to exclude people from social groups where they don't fit in. Though it does beg the question, are people with esoteric interests necessarily physically weak? How much does participation in athletics come down to having parents with the money for skiing trips and swimming pools? The "jock" stereotype in American culture comes with traditional WASP names like Brad or Chad attached, as if money had a connection to their clique. Are these types even athletically gifted, or have they just been outdoorsy all their lives? Maybe it's a chicken and egg problem. An high IQ 1920s accountant who likes stamps leads to a high IQ 1950s business owner who likes antiques and art, who leads to a high IQ 1980s jock kid who likes surfing. Wealth increases with IQ, and leisure activities increase with wealth, including sports.
If we're talking about a high IQ nerd and a high IQ jock of similar ethnic background, the difference looks like generational wealth and social class, unless the nerd has health problems. Poor childhood nutrition is also a factor in that.
The "nerd" is a real thing, but the "Nerd-Jock Dichotomy" is also very evidently a thinly veiled "Jew-Gentile Dichotomy" generated by Hollywood. The Nerd is how the Jew is viewed by society -- intelligent, but frail and sickly. The Jock is how the Jew views gentiles and **especially** the WASPs. Very WASPy handsome athlete with rich parents who represents everything normal and popular which the Jew (perhaps irrationally, due to neuroticism) feels alienated from, and which the Jew (again, perhaps due to a certain neurotic strain) feels victimized by.
But, as in "really smart but socially stunted guy", nerds do exist and I consider myself a nerd more than a "geek" (ew.) And nerds in this capacity have been getting utterly decimated by the Geek ascendancy for the past decade. Probably why vidya sucks ass nowadays.
As a kid I was smart and unpopular and assumed the one caused the other. Only in adulthood did I realize that my best friend was just as smart as me but not at all unpopular. Because he wasn’t a little jerk like I was. Never trust the self report of nerds.
lmfao
Extremely based post
Excellent and interesting post. I had been wondering about that paradox of intelligence correlations.
A "nerd" is a made up concept that everyone has a slightly different meaning of in their heads. That being said, it's fun to attempt a unifying definition for this phenomenon that so many people seem to notice.
To me, a nerd is someone who is deeply interested in something to the point that he incurs heavy opportunity cost doing so. For example, he might speedrun videogames for 6 hours a day when he could be socializing with friends. In my experience, this definition fits with nearly all the people that I've seen be called nerds.
Reading your post, the "Bureaucracy-based theories" strikes me as far from a nerd. The bureaucrats I've worked with have all been far from nerds. They are the opposite - they don't have any intrinsic interests themselves. They all are well-kempt since their job demands them to be, but they don't go above and beyond because they aren't interested in grooming intrinsically. They are all sociable and great at talking because their job demands them to be, but it's not their own interest. The list goes on. And they don't even excel at their own jobs as much as they could because, again, they aren't even interested in that.
Of course, there are nerds in bureaucracies, but they're never successful. They usually remain in some low level position and use their job to supplement their real interests. In general, you need to be moderately good-looking, well-groomed, and good at leadership/teamwork to thrive in bureaucracies.
Another thing - there are varying degrees and types of nerds. Someone who is super into cars is sometimes called a "car nerd" for example, so I have to fit this into my definition somehow. Also, someone who doesn't let his hobby impede his normal life is seen as less of a nerd.
However, car nerds aren't true nerds. While car nerds and movie nerds and whatever lesser nerd DOES engage with his interest at some cost to what else he could be doing, TRUE nerds sacrifice what society values - social skills, relationships with other people, and conformity (society doesn't value conformity itself, but if all of society agrees in climate change, and the nerd rejects it, that's him rejecting conforming to society to stay true to his interest). Most hobbies generate all these things - relationships with people, social skills, conformity to a community - but computer-related hobbies don't (or at least those communities are invisible), which is why the term took off in the 1980s. You may be a nerd about sports or cars or climbing the bureaucracy, but you'll never be a true nerd.
I'm sure you already tell I disagree with your conclusion about our culture/bureaucracies being dominated by nerds. I see our bureaucracies as dominated by ambivalent normies, and our culture looking up to successful/agenic nerds/normies/jocks (nerds -> CEOs, normies -> actors, jocks -> athletes).
Some more points:
- You mention a culture idolizing jocks idolize social skills, but in my experience jocks have low social skills.
- If you're intrinsically interested in your thing, you're a nerd. If you're in it to be a successful youtuber/blogger/scientist/engineer/etc, you're a not a full nerd.
- You need an interest to be a nerd. Someone who just smokes weed or plays video games (without some underlying interest, just playing the AAA slop) is just a loser.
- Many people start out as nerds in high school because their looks make exploring their interests much more enjoyable than socializing. Generally, the people who mature slower (physically) are the ones who see less romantic interest for them, and so find their own hobbies more enjoyable.
- Most people turn into the aforementioned "ambivalent normies" as they grow up. The general progression looks like this: "I don't get good results socializing compared to my own interests" -> "I've developed a deep interest in some niche thing(s)" -> "Most of my niche interests are silly/childish. I'll drop most of them but keep the important ones." -> "Maybe I should work on my grooming/social skills, it's important after all. And maybe I can use my deep knowledge/skills in my interests to be successful somehow" -> "I've got a nice job with my skills, and some success with friends and romance, but I could be a bit more successful if I just..." -> "Life has been so hectic lately. At work I need to worry about the project deadlines and onboarding the new staff, then at home we're looking for a good catchment area for our kids. I was on hold with my realtor for 30 minutes the other day! Oh, yeah of course I'm still super passionate about that thing. I keep up to date with it on Twitter, and sometimes read blog posts about it." -> "Huh? X? No, I haven't been keeping up. Honestly, I think it's time to grow up." And thus another person completes their journey realizing what society has been trying to tell them - all that matters is social skills, relationships with other people, and conformity.
i guess i can feel a little better about being a dumb nerd 🤓
"People in the Terman’s study of the gifted were more likely to be tall, broad-shouldered, have matured earlier sexually, have a stronger hand grip, and have a strong lung capacity relative to the rest of the population."
This might just be a nitpick in wording, but isn't it that they "mature later sexually," i.e. they experience longer childhoods? The paper you linked says that at the time of the sampling, they're "somewhat earlier in their sexual maturity than children in the general population."
"Have matured earlier sexually"
Does this not mean the same thing?
I guess relative to children would be the most accurate sentence.
Do you actually believe climate change is propaganda or was that a joke?
As for what defines a nerd, i think it's just above average IQ + interests/hobbies that aren't popular/mainstream, which probably correlates with disagreeableness.
>Do you actually believe climate change is propaganda or was that a joke?
The hysteria about it is.
The very phrase “climate change” reveals itself as propaganda. It was called global cooling in the 70s and 80s (when they were angling to disarm us by pushing fears of “nuclear winter”) before the same people switched to global warming in the 80s and 90s before they switched to “climate change” in the 2000s because the public noticed the lack of consistent warming. And in any case the original concern was catastrophic anthropogenic climate change, not just any old warming, but that’s too complicated to brainwash people with. So propaganda is a pretty good summary.
I would say most "nerds" aren't smart at all. They're unathletic and want to escape the world that is relevant to "jocks", and the "jocks" naturally dismiss their interests as irrelevant to jock life, because they are supposed to be. You don't require a high IQ to like Star Wars. But you might feel smart because you read Star Wars novels and the "jocks" don't read at all, though honestly that is worse than reading nothing.
An unathletic person with a high IQ would still be living in a different world to a high IQ jock, even if his interests require a high IQ to understand or care about, and teenagers like to exclude people from social groups where they don't fit in. Though it does beg the question, are people with esoteric interests necessarily physically weak? How much does participation in athletics come down to having parents with the money for skiing trips and swimming pools? The "jock" stereotype in American culture comes with traditional WASP names like Brad or Chad attached, as if money had a connection to their clique. Are these types even athletically gifted, or have they just been outdoorsy all their lives? Maybe it's a chicken and egg problem. An high IQ 1920s accountant who likes stamps leads to a high IQ 1950s business owner who likes antiques and art, who leads to a high IQ 1980s jock kid who likes surfing. Wealth increases with IQ, and leisure activities increase with wealth, including sports.
If we're talking about a high IQ nerd and a high IQ jock of similar ethnic background, the difference looks like generational wealth and social class, unless the nerd has health problems. Poor childhood nutrition is also a factor in that.
I would love to hear your thoughts on intelligence and learning speed (as it relates to learning highly g-loaded subjects).
The "nerd" is a real thing, but the "Nerd-Jock Dichotomy" is also very evidently a thinly veiled "Jew-Gentile Dichotomy" generated by Hollywood. The Nerd is how the Jew is viewed by society -- intelligent, but frail and sickly. The Jock is how the Jew views gentiles and **especially** the WASPs. Very WASPy handsome athlete with rich parents who represents everything normal and popular which the Jew (perhaps irrationally, due to neuroticism) feels alienated from, and which the Jew (again, perhaps due to a certain neurotic strain) feels victimized by.
But, as in "really smart but socially stunted guy", nerds do exist and I consider myself a nerd more than a "geek" (ew.) And nerds in this capacity have been getting utterly decimated by the Geek ascendancy for the past decade. Probably why vidya sucks ass nowadays.
✡️