Writer of "Of Geeks and Girls" responds to some HN comments

The implicit "we should cut back on the amount of geek culture in CS" is where the article gets some blowback.

The original article said that women avoid computing because they are intolerant of geeks. The "solution" is to make computing less geeky, rather than to make women more tolerant. Huh?

If white people avoided basketball because they don't like black culture, we'd tell them (rightly) to suck it up. Yet somehow, the author of this article is comparing geeks to racists.

Those who say "who cares if non-geeks are repelled" seem to be assuming geekiness and programming ability are strongly correlated, but in my experience they seem to be pretty orthogonal, at least for the type of geekiness which leads to putting up Star Trek posters.

The article says that CS should change its culture in order to attract more and become popular, conforming with mainstream values.

If you told Stephen Hawking im sorry you cant have that picture of Spock on your wall, instead you have to have this poster of some pop group because thats what society deems acceptable. Do you think that would be well received?

The point is that if you have an interest in a field then you are tolerant of such idiosyncrasies in order to learn.

What I'd ask is how or why has the 'geek' factor changed the computer field compared to, the 1980s, when there was a notably larger percentage of women in programming.

I think this part of the 'equation' seriously needs to understood if we're going to think clearly about the situation.

The biggest difference between a banker and a computer geek is that the banker drinks more and has a better looking girlfriend. Both of them work hard when the success of a project depends on it.

Let me provide you with some information.

There is a distinctive American black counter-culture. That culture puts down people who put too much effort out for work and say they are "trying to be too white". To the extent that someone has internalized that culture, there will be a tendency to work less hard.

For many years now the USA has been experiencing something called the Flynn effect. Each generation grows up in a more technological environment that pushes children to learn to think better than the previous, and as a result IQ scores improve over time. The effect is so significant that a person who measured as a genius in the 1920s is likely to be considered borderline retarded today.

Many Latinos in the USA are immigrants or the children of immigrants from agricultural countries. These countries have not changed as much as the USA, so people there have not undergone the Flynn effect to the same extent as most American groups. Therefore it comes as no surprise that measurements of IQ versus ethnicity show that Latinos underperform whites on IQ tests. So by our standard measurements of intelligence, Latinos are (on average) less intelligent.

Now that I've presented you with that information, would you say it is OK to say that blacks are lazy and Latinos are stupid? Hopefully not because it is a hurtful thing to say that makes life unnecessarily more difficult for the many hard-working blacks and intelligent Latinos out there. And it is doubly hurtful because there is just enough truth in it for people to take the stereotype to heart and apply it to people who it doesn't apply to.

My whole love of all things math and computer has been based on the slogan "the other guy works harder, I work smarter"!

If geeks aren't thinking that way, they're losing something.

And like the procrastinator, of course I'll work really hard in order to work smart.

Hands up who's rolled into the office at lunchtime and hacked through 'til 3am... Would you trade that for 9-5 in a blue suit?

While I tend to find that people from most of those other sectors enjoy talking about a wide variety of subjects, "computer geeks" (those working in the field as technicians or programmers especially) are far more likely to conversationally hover around technical minutiae or other stereotypically geek interests, like sci-fi.

Case in point: I recently attended a professionally-attired holiday dinner party with a corporate client, where most of the employees are scientists or engineers, and many of them are PhD'd in one subject or another. Conversation wandered from ice climbing to traveling to diesel engines to raising kids, and so on. Anything "tech" was strictly verboten.

On the other hand, whenever I meet my geekier climbing buddies, it's usually only a matter of minutes before the conversation is about their latest gadget, toy, or other interesting thing in the field.

To me, the challenge is finding a field without some sort of cultural barrier to entry.

My impression is that different fields of study are becoming more and more "culturalized". Aside from the example above, there's obviously a whole cultural barrier for any art related activity.

Therefore, thinking about the "stereotypical geek" is virtually guaranteed when being put in the geek room. The study doesn't say "are geeks really like this or not" it is more about what an outsiders perception of geeks is.

That environment was remarkably un-geeky. A median engineer was about 45, university qualified, with a house, husband or wife and kids. They had very little interest in programming but a quiet pride in Engineering.

If you want to write software in that kind of environment you don't even need to mix with the comp sci geeks at university - you can get a masters in maths, physics or any engineering field instead.

This isn't necessarily because they hate energy drinks, it's that those in combination with the other things paints a certain stereotype that people find off-putting upon first glance.

Now I am a little bit older — not much older, mind you — and I've learned how stupid it is to believe that anybody could be at all considered average. In various positions I've talked to a slew of people I'd once have dismissed for their commonality. I don't think I've ever met somebody who I'd call stupid. A lot of them you'd think are stupid until you talk to them and realize they've just got a few stupid beliefs ingrained in them and beyond that are as bright as anybody. The more people you meet, the more you realize how stupid it is to sequester yourself away in an ivory tower or a dank basement, to assume that you're somehow an elite being who other people simply cannot understand.

Hell, that's why I became a writer. I learned that to understand others, I had to learn how others understood me.

"Nongeeks self-select themselves out of certain fields." "There is a certain air of superiority (and ignorance) conveyed in saying that geeks don't shower." "[T]he traits exhibited by people who are interested in geeky things are related to the traits exhibited by people who want to go into geeky fields." "It follows that they might be better about doing things which require obsessive traits, like writing code. (Or maybe geeks are just better at everything...)."

From reading these comments and knowing nothing about you, the attitude that I get from these comments is twofold: You think that being a geek is a good thing (or that geeks are inherently superior), and that there is somewhat of a persecution of geeks going on. The message I read here (which might not at all be what you wanted to say, mind you!) is: "Nongeeks don't want to be geeks because geeks are smarter."

Now, regardless of whether or not that's the case, or even whether or not you believe that, that's the message that's coming out. It's somewhat off-putting and exclusive. In your writing, you yourself are excluding so-called non-geeks; the fact that you're willing to distinguish geeks as a distinct and special category says something in and of itself. That all agrees with the author's conclusion.

I agree with the author's conclusion myself, not because I'm in the field or have done research about it but because it makes sense when you reason it out. The community that's formed around this field has certain peculiarities. The emphasis on comic books and graphic novels and Star Trek and energy drinks that's mentioned, for instance. These are each odd things that lack a distinguishing trait. It's not like the art in comic books is better than art in other media forms, or that the story is better. It's not like Star Trek was a geekier show than others; certainly it's not highbrow entertainment. And as far as drugs of choice go, energy drinks are such a specific sort of caffeinated beverage, designed to force a drug into the body rather than following a so-called natural food flow.

If we were going to go from the assumption that the comp sci field had an even distribution of interests, we'd be hard pressed to explain those certain prominences. Why is there no vodka alongside the Red Bull, no cigarettes or cigars? Why aren't other art forms represented as much as comic books? What's the group fascination with Star Trek? When they're all presented together, they're no longer idiosyncrasies. They have certain traits in common that speak about the people who imbibe them. They're all things obtainable from younger ages, they all have a certain visceral immediacy to them, they're all to some degree static and unchanging. People who drink energy drinks tend to stick with a single favorite; they'll spend years with one drink, unchanging. I don't think I'm wrong in saying that there's a certain comfort in the repetition, in knowing what you're going to get every time.

Furthermore, people with these specific interests tend to have other characteristics. Am I right in thinking you value what people think more than you do what they look like? Or even that you think people who judge others based on looks are acting in a shallow fashion? Studies suggest you like either classic or alternative rock or electronica. Perhaps I could place a bet on your liking Monty Python, or enjoying Firefly? (This isn't you, anonjon, this is the collective "you" of the geeks in the survey. I'm sure not all of this applies to you.)

Along with that, so-called "geeks" favor muted colors and t-shirts. They have particular commonalities in fashion. And they certainly have similar personality traits, which include introversion, arrogance, and short tempers. Not every person has all these traits, but they're frequent enough that we can't just say they're common traits in all human beings. They're certainly specific to this social clique.

The backlash against nerds is almost entirely one formed from individual opinions forming. Perhaps it's unfair that people have decided comp sci majors in black t-shirts who like Star Trek are less likely to be fun or friendly than a random person from another sampling of society, but that's how it's working, and that's the cause for a lot of "geek" bias. It also makes sense. When you spend your time reading anime rather than following sports, certain casual conversations become very difficult for both parties. I've got former friends who're very stereotypical geeks, and I've forced them into social gatherings, and when I listen to the conversations they get into it's cringe-worthy. Either they don't realize how awkward they are, or they do it deliberately in order to justify their social alienation.

So that's what the study is saying. It says, girls who have been shown these standard set-ups see enough cues to make them think perhaps they'd be better off somewhere else. That's entirely logical, isn't it? And the solution would be for our culture to expand and embrace more things, to reflect "normal" society in its diversity and lack of a hive mind. Until then, it will continue to be treated like what it's perceived to be: A bright, socially retarded group that's content with being largely outsiders.