![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
save vs. charisma
Sep. 22nd, 2008 01:52 pmExcept for this guy, we all like to use our brains, right? So one thing I've been trying to improve the functioning of my brain with lately is this assumption reversal technique.
My hypothetical problem: popular culture still perceives geeks as being 'weak' for their common lack of social involvement, thinking that it denotes poor socialization skills. I know that most geeks I've met are strong people. Could it be that geeks lack popularity because they are strong?
As adults, we have one primary format for decision making, the cost-benefit analysis. It sounds complicated, but means that we decide whether the cost of a course of action in time, effort, and emotional hardship is worth what benefits it will bring us. The problem with predicting each analysis is that since people have different values, they will weight decisions differently. If the cost of doing something you want to do is too high, you will probably avoid it. If you want something enough to tip the scales toward the 'benefit' side of the ratio, or if the cost to you can be negated by another factor, you are likely to do it.
What social people consider to be the cost in terms of peer disapproval for following unpopular interests may be higher than another, geekier person's cost who is less interested in peer approval. The geek would not need to be more interested in the subject, merely less invested in other people. And that's a trend that I can confirm from my own observations.
There are many skill sets in which I am weak due to never bothering to develop those skills because I didn't care enough to do so. Maybe that is true of all geeks, of all people: we focus on and develop the skill sets for the things we are most invested in. We try to minimize the costs to us or find ways to disregard the costs by learning not to care.
This runs in parallel with Bryan's theory that everyone is a geek of some sort, and that some people simply geek for social skills and baseball. Tell me what you think. :)
My hypothetical problem: popular culture still perceives geeks as being 'weak' for their common lack of social involvement, thinking that it denotes poor socialization skills. I know that most geeks I've met are strong people. Could it be that geeks lack popularity because they are strong?
As adults, we have one primary format for decision making, the cost-benefit analysis. It sounds complicated, but means that we decide whether the cost of a course of action in time, effort, and emotional hardship is worth what benefits it will bring us. The problem with predicting each analysis is that since people have different values, they will weight decisions differently. If the cost of doing something you want to do is too high, you will probably avoid it. If you want something enough to tip the scales toward the 'benefit' side of the ratio, or if the cost to you can be negated by another factor, you are likely to do it.
What social people consider to be the cost in terms of peer disapproval for following unpopular interests may be higher than another, geekier person's cost who is less interested in peer approval. The geek would not need to be more interested in the subject, merely less invested in other people. And that's a trend that I can confirm from my own observations.
There are many skill sets in which I am weak due to never bothering to develop those skills because I didn't care enough to do so. Maybe that is true of all geeks, of all people: we focus on and develop the skill sets for the things we are most invested in. We try to minimize the costs to us or find ways to disregard the costs by learning not to care.
This runs in parallel with Bryan's theory that everyone is a geek of some sort, and that some people simply geek for social skills and baseball. Tell me what you think. :)