If Nerds Can Learn Linux, Why Can't They Learn Not To Interrupt People?

1. Society does make sense.

2. People ought to tell you when you do something rude. At that time they can offer the reason (there is a reason).

3. The people in the example are poorly socialized.

4. The socially skilled are just as rare as the mathematically skilled. The average person is just as atrocious socially as mathematically.

"I'm continually amazed by how much better people react if I remember to arbitrarily throw "I think" before I state an opinion. I mean, it's coming out of my mouth, and it's not like there's some external arbiter of which sitcom is funniest, so of course it's an "I think." That's assumed. But, apparently, if I go out of my way to remind people that it's my opinion with a marker that makes little sense to me, they relax. So I do it."

A lesson I have only recently learned in my 30s, it really does help!

Color me underwhelmed.

A good example is how we tell people they're being rude. Many nerds want an explicit, clear answer, maybe even a right/wrong mark or a grade. In reality, we respond to body language with body language. If everyone's avoiding your eyes or shooting you dirty looks, you've probably said a bad word. Sometimes it's more subtle, such as with the many meanings of crossed arms and angled stances.

I dealt with these challenges by studying acting. The practice of theater collects and refines centuries of study in body language, emotion and personal interaction. Even more importantly, it is a practice rather than a knowledge base, which matters if one believes that one physically cannot learn certain things from a book.

I tend to think of sociability more in terms of the opportunity cost of Chinese-Walling blackboxed components. The cost of the time it takes to learn the muddled API of mores is the time that could be spent learning those muddled API's we actually find fascinating.

It is recursively self-reinforcing as well. An hour spent in hacking Smalltalk will get you more immediate and interesting (to us) results than an hour rehearsing small talk. Which choice will look more appealing the next time? Almost inevitably you will focus on those things that you're already good at, that provide tangible rewards.

  ..many nerds actually like being interrupted in mid-sentence when they're wrong..

I'm not sure I understand this statement. I don't see the gaming industries (card-, board-, and video- varieties) going out of business. I'd even go as far as saying nerds popularized many of these.

Society does have a logic to it - there are just a ton of axioms, and much empiricism is required to catch the nuances. But clearly empiricism is at least as important as theory when dealing with real-world phenomena: you have to stop and observe closely how gravity works, otherwise you may deduce very wrong conclusions from seemingly sound premises. (@aristotle i still luv u)

Yes. And, that implies that you were not interrupted during that process!

A simple social rule that usually works is, "Never interrupt." This implies, of course, that the other social rule of "Provide others with period chances to speak (pauses, questions, etc.)" is also followed. Interruption is more difficult and nuanced. We all agree that we may interrupt anyone at any time if we notice a fire in the building. But, it gets more difficult from there.

Not being interrupted in any kind of debate is TERRIBLE. It means the other guy will forget exactly what you said that he disagreed with. so then he'll argue with some vague memory of what you said. plus everything you said after the part where he disagreed is a waste of time.

i got into a big argument once because i wouldn't let someone finish their point b/c i knew they were going to forget what they said in the first half that was wrong and i didn't want to waste my time listening to the rest which was irrelevant.

> If nerds can master such arbitrarily complex things as the Linux operating and the complete rules of D&D, why can't they learn the rules of social norms?

Social norms actually are more complicated than D&D. There's more to know. If you actively play D&D for a year you could learn and remember all the rules. Learning all the social norms takes far longer -- even after your whole childhood including 4 years of high school very few people know all the norms, just most.

The common nerd defense to this approach is to cry, "But I'm saying it... of course it's just my opinion!" or, "Of course it's just my feelings!" However, prepending a sentence with "I think/I feel like..." indicates that you are not one of those frustrating people who refuses to consider other people's emotions and opinions.

Additionally, "You don't consider my emotions enough" and "It feels like you don't consider my emotions enough" are two wildly different phrases, no matter which way you slice it.

By prepending that sentence with "it feels like," we profoundly alter its meaning. The first sentence indicates an objective truth for which the listener can be blamed. The latter sentence indicates nothing except the speaker's internal feelings, which--for the most part--cannot be consciously controlled.

No one is to blame for feelings: they simply are, and denoting a sentiment as "a feeling" rather than "a fact, which may be your fault," is a vital tactic for communicating constructively on a deep emotional level.

Many nerds approach debates and communication with a feeling of entitlement to being understood. "I have spent a lot of time learning what I know, and if someone else can't understand it when I explain it to them, it is their problem, not mine." Unfortunately, this leads to severe communication issues with everyone, including other nerds.

If you want someone else to understand something, and they don't get it, it is your problem as much as it is theirs. Maybe if you never have to deal with that person ever again, nor anyone else who they have to deal with, and so on, it is not your problem. But if they are a friend, colleague or loved one, it inarguably behooves you to go out of your way to make them understand what's going on in your head. Only mutual understanding of needs and desires will provide us with the opportunity to reach constructive conclusions to our problems.

You can read her columns at the Washington post here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/03...

If you're going to buy one of her books I recommend her Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior (http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0393058743)

What, you mean other people don't? They prefer to continue on a lengthy and fundamentally incorrect statement when they could be saved the embarrassment quickly and painlessly after just a few words?

That is, I speak to people with the dignity of humans in mind, which is our power of inference. Speaking in a lesser way is disrespectful, like talking to people as if they were dogs. Yet, that is where most people are comfortable. That is the level of sanity which is promoted through most human society.

And this level of sanity is, frankly, animalistic and insane.

No, even if people don't like it, I won't grant them the indignity of being spoken to like an animal.

With that said, I've learned some leniency with this rule. Now, I'm basically sociopathically socially skilled in places where people can't communicate at my level -- pretty much the article's last two paragraphs. I understand wit and charm logically, and I can apply it quite consciously. I am, however, always disquieted that I have to entertain myself like this -- and as a byproduct, entertain others -- and yet, people don't realize that they're being tricked.

Bah. As long as I'm not talking to the layperson about something meaningful, I'm fine. I just really wish it didn't have to be this way.

I still hold my fork in my right hand when my parents aren't looking, though, dammit.