Nerds who aren't that smart

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Sounds like a category I sometimes fall into when I'm being intellectually lazy (which is more often than I want to admit).

It's definitely something I've noticed in others. I can think of a few individuals who are certainly highly literate and intellectually capable, but are not quite as smart as they think they are.

A shared trait in just about all of them is a blanket contempt for "idiots," where "idiots" are usually defined by some particular metric that they themselves are strong in (grammar, background scientific knowledge, trivia, etc).

This might be the thing that bothers me the most. 

I'm pretty sure it was through discussion on this board that I realized how common that kind of thinking is, and just how ugly it really is. Intellectual ability is not a good metric for a person's moral worth, and sneering contempt over minutiae is a pretty pathetic way to elevate oneself above others.

It is, and it's something that I definitely struggle with. This superiority-by-comparison thing seems to be, as Demo Squid said, built into the culture, and because of that it's easy to sit there and think that people are SO STUPID and judge their worth based on that.

It's hard to not do it, especially after decades of habit.

[Ben Shapiro]

From the my experience the alternative to this guy is the Kais of the world. If you're not a scientist STFU about science pleb.
I guess one must choose what poison they can stomach.

I don't care much for that attitude, either. Especially when it goes hand-in-hand (as it often does) with a smug sense of superiority and an inability to admit to not knowing, being mistaken, or the existence of gray areas.

Speaking of gray areas, I don't think "I guess one must choose what poison they can stomach" is really the answer.

It's a option if you're really close with said person. Lord knows everyone here has a story of them trying to push some close friend's behavior on to a better motorcycle.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

From the my experience the alternative to this guy is the Kais of the world. If you're not a scientist STFU about science pleb.
I guess one must choose what poison they can stomach.

I don't care much for that attitude, either. Especially when it goes hand-in-hand (as it often does) with a smug sense of superiority and an inability to admit to not knowing, being mistaken, or the existence of gray areas.

Speaking of gray areas, I don't think "I guess one must choose what poison they can stomach" is really the answer.

It's a option if you're really close with said person. Lord knows everyone here has a story of them trying to push some close friend's behavior on to a better motorcycle.

I guess I don't know what you meant by that... I read it as black-and-white thinking, ie. you can choose either to accept/reject new information based on whether it fits your preexisting assumptions, or you can be an elitist with no patience for laymen discussing science.

My response is basically meant to reflect that I don't think that's an either/or choice.

[Doktor Howl]

I'm having a niggling thought in the back of my mind that there is some kind of tie-in with the differences in neurophysiology of the liberal brain vs. the conservative brain. I can't put my finger on it though.

I think maybe it could be that because scientists tend to be liberal (either because the liberal brain is better suited to science or because science tends to create liberal brains), liberals tend to associate liberalism with intelligence and assume that because they are liberal, they must be more intelligent. Statistically there is a correlation, but not a huge one.

Gonna guess, here:  I think liberal brains make better scientists. 

I am going to qualify that, though, to what you'd call "Classic Liberals" or "Franklin Liberals", because the kind of liberals you get on tumblr and much of Facebook are worse than conservatives in some ways.  They might believe the right things, but they do it for all the wrong reasons (as spelled out in the OP).

[Ben Shapiro]

I'm having a niggling thought in the back of my mind that there is some kind of tie-in with the differences in neurophysiology of the liberal brain vs. the conservative brain. I can't put my finger on it though.

I think maybe it could be that because scientists tend to be liberal (either because the liberal brain is better suited to science or because science tends to create liberal brains), liberals tend to associate liberalism with intelligence and assume that because they are liberal, they must be more intelligent. Statistically there is a correlation, but not a huge one.

Gonna guess, here:  I think liberal brains make better scientists. 

I am going to qualify that, though, to what you'd call "Classic Liberals" or "Franklin Liberals", because the kind of liberals you get on tumblr and much of Facebook are worse than conservatives in some ways.  They might believe the right things, but they do it for all the wrong reasons (as spelled out in the OP).

Seth MacFarlene is a prime example.

[LMNO]

Cain: Yes.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm having a niggling thought in the back of my mind that there is some kind of tie-in with the differences in neurophysiology of the liberal brain vs. the conservative brain. I can't put my finger on it though.

I think maybe it could be that because scientists tend to be liberal (either because the liberal brain is better suited to science or because science tends to create liberal brains), liberals tend to associate liberalism with intelligence and assume that because they are liberal, they must be more intelligent. Statistically there is a correlation, but not a huge one.

Gonna guess, here:  I think liberal brains make better scientists. 

I am going to qualify that, though, to what you'd call "Classic Liberals" or "Franklin Liberals", because the kind of liberals you get on tumblr and much of Facebook are worse than conservatives in some ways.  They might believe the right things, but they do it for all the wrong reasons (as spelled out in the OP).

These are the same people who take satire articles seriously without a second thought, however outrageous they are, because they fit in with what they want to believe.

[Reginald Ret]

I have many things to say about this subject but i detect in myself an inability to be precise(or nice) at this moment in time.
I will therefore simply state that I think the definition of intelligence could use some more consideration.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I have many things to say about this subject but i detect in myself an inability to be precise(or nice) at this moment in time.
I will therefore simply state that I think the definition of intelligence could use some more consideration.

You obviously didn't read the thread, or maybe your reading comprehension skills are deficient.  Probably the latter.

P.S. go fuck yourself.

[Reginald Ret]

I have many things to say about this subject but i detect in myself an inability to be precise(or nice) at this moment in time.
I will therefore simply state that I think the definition of intelligence could use some more consideration.

You obviously didn't read the thread, or maybe your reading comprehension skills are deficient.  Probably the latter.

P.S. go fuck yourself.

I read the thread, therefore I lack the reading comprehension skills.
This does not really surprise me.

I think it is highly likely that I am one of those nerds you talk about here, it fits my self esteem so I won't argue.

For a slightly more in-depth response:

but it seems to me that fact-checking and critical thinking are key elements of intelligence. They are definitely key elements of science.

I agree with the bolded part.
I have heard too many people talk about intelligence in ways that make me think they each have their own personal definition. Science, at least, has a clearer definition.

Your hostility is understandable considering my recent behaviour.

I don't think this thread was specifically about me, but if it was: That was an excellently executed attack.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I have many things to say about this subject but i detect in myself an inability to be precise(or nice) at this moment in time.
I will therefore simply state that I think the definition of intelligence could use some more consideration.

You obviously didn't read the thread, or maybe your reading comprehension skills are deficient.  Probably the latter.

P.S. go fuck yourself.

I read the thread, therefore I lack the reading comprehension skills.
This does not really surprise me.

I think it is highly likely that I am one of those nerds you talk about here, it fits my self esteem so I won't argue.

For a slightly more in-depth response:

but it seems to me that fact-checking and critical thinking are key elements of intelligence. They are definitely key elements of science.

I agree with the bolded part.
I have heard too many people talk about intelligence in ways that make me think they each have their own personal definition. Science, at least, has a clearer definition.

Your hostility is understandable considering my recent behaviour.

I don't think this thread was specifically about me, but if it was: That was an excellently executed attack.

You seem to have missed the parts where we touch on the subjectivity and mutability of intelligence.

You've been kind of a miserable bastard with nothing constructive to say recently, and this looked like just another drive-by shitting, so thanks for taking a minute to type up a post with some substance to it.

It was in no way a personal attack on you, and could not have been if I'd tried because I have no idea who you are or what you're like in person, and the person who inspired me is someone I have spent quite a bit of time with. The other person I used as an example is a relative. I love him, but bless his heart he's an idiot.

[rong]

it seems what i was gonna say has already been said.

but, then it occurred to share the following -

i worked at 2 different bowling alleys in high school and college and i bowled on a few leagues when i was in college.

someone once said to me that bowling is a nerd sport and i think it is.  but only for real nerds. 

not to say, mind you, that all bowlers are nerds - there are certainly non-nerd types with athletic ability who naturally excel in the fine sport of bowling.

however, in thinking about this, I've come to the conclusion that bowling will separate the real nerds from the poseur (sp?) nerds.

I think a poseur nerd will bowl poorly and simply conclude that they are a poor bowler because they are a nerd.

I think a real^tm nerd will also bowl poorly, but they will analyze their throw, analyze the lane, consider the characteristics of their ball, etc.  try different things, experiment with the game and try to continually improve.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

it seems what i was gonna say has already been said.

but, then it occurred to share the following -

i worked at 2 different bowling alleys in high school and college and i bowled on a few leagues when i was in college.

someone once said to me that bowling is a nerd sport and i think it is.  but only for real nerds. 

not to say, mind you, that all bowlers are nerds - there are certainly non-nerd types with athletic ability who naturally excel in the fine sport of bowling.

however, in thinking about this, I've come to the conclusion that bowling will separate the real nerds from the poseur (sp?) nerds.

I think a poseur nerd will bowl poorly and simply conclude that they are a poor bowler because they are a nerd.

I think a real^tm nerd will also bowl poorly, but they will analyze their throw, analyze the lane, consider the characteristics of their ball, etc.  try different things, experiment with the game and try to continually improve.

Is your assumption that all nerds like bowling, and care about being good at it? Because I see some flaws in that reasoning.

[rong]

no, I don't think so - i was trying to say that if you took a bunch of nerds bowling - there would be generally two outcomes in the nerds' performances.

it was an attempt to describe the characteristics of a person who identifies themselves as a nerd vs one who is of a personality type that tends toward nerd-dom

course, maybe i'm wrong

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

no, I don't think so - i was trying to say that if you took a bunch of nerds bowling - there would be generally two outcomes in the nerds' performances.

it was an attempt to describe the characteristics of a person who identifies themselves as a nerd vs one who is of a personality type that tends toward nerd-dom

course, maybe i'm wrong

I think you may be under the impression that there is some sort of hard boundary between "authentic" nerds and "inauthentic" nerds. I think that a lot of nerds who aren't that smart are still really nerdy, and I think that a lot of really smart nerds don't care about bowling enough to analyze their game at all.

Basically, I don't think there's any kind of test that would separate "real nerds" (lol) from "poseur nerds", because I think that's a false dichotomy.