Geek Social Fallacies (2003)
plausiblydeniable.com
plausiblydeniable.com
I've heard people say subreddits have taken the place of these things, but whenever I look, they have already converged to the most nanoscopically narrow idea of the respective scope. There used to be more wiggle room for authors, and surprises for readers. Now it's all writing to a well-defined audience, genre, or meme: KPI-driven socializing. In that sense, web 1.0 seemed more fluid and interesting.
Five AMAZING geek social fallacies you never learned in school. You wont believe number 4!
https://www.google.com/search?q=link:http://www.plausiblyden... revealed 370 results, including social networks, blogs and the like.
What may be true is that the global signal to noise ratio is lower than before. A consequence of the web being cheap and accessible. However, that kind of content is not only present but there is more than before. And while it is buried under piles of noise, we have much better tools to deal with it.
Search engines like Google, Wikipedia, Hacker News, etc... will get you loads of quality content. Platforms like Twitter, YouTube, Reddit, etc... can get very instructive if you follow the right accounts, or give you some mindless fun and memes if you so choose. The two are not exclusive.
The pyramids are an example of this distinction.
However I think, from your examples, that you see the world in a fairly similar way to @le-mark and your distinction is more one of labels than anything else.
The pyramids were never lost. They were in plain sight the entire time. Local people knew about them. They were 'discovered' by European colonizers and integrated into a pop culture phenomenon back in Europe, which included racist tropes and undertones.
I have literally stopped attending group events because of extreme B.O. that one or a few people have (and I'm not typically sensitive to odors). I don't expect you to care about me, but I guarantee there are people you care about who feel the same way.
Please just do these things. I know sometimes they are a hassle, and issues with depression and such can make them even harder, but please try:
1. Take a shower every day. Preferably in the morning. You may still stink even if you can't smell it yourself. This still applies even if you didn't work out or otherwise don't think you sweat.
2. Wear deodorant. Trust me, you need it, even if you can't smell yourself (others can)
3. Long hair and beards are cool, but they need to be kept clean or they become cess pools of funk.
4. Do your laundry. Taking a daily shower won't matter much if you put on a B.O. riddled shirt from the day before because you don't want to do laundry.
5. Your co-workers are often afraid to tell you when you smell, but they are trapped and helpless when they are forced to share a space with you. Don't do that to them.
6. Cigarette smoke and cologne do not cover B.O. They blend together to create a whole new type of nasty funk. But you should put on cologne after your shower. It smells good and makes other people happy. It will also raise your confidence and put you in a better mood.
7. You are an awesome person, and I love you.
I agree with everything else but this. The people that wear cologne I know ALL wear too much of it, and its really offputting. Don't trust that you'll be different, especially if taking advice from this list. Just be clean.
Now I simply have zero interest in people. I mean I can see people as a puzzle that needs solving, or a means to an end and this I can find very interesting and can result in a lot of attention from me. This is always misinterpreted. But I just don't care. I work with people for years, I "know" my neighbors and so on, and I do the necessary social events and such, but it's fake. It's a calculated move, so to speak. Like doing groceries, just somewhat more involved. I don't enjoy doing this, and it drains my energy. People generally find this very surprising, especially when suddenly that attention totally disappears.
I feel like all my social interaction is mechanical. People's reactions are very predictable, and if you want to get what you want, you have to go through some motions. I may want to learn from someone, figure something out, and they have a wife and kids, they may have a boyfriend/girlfriend, may want to have a drink, etc. Fine. I do that, but it feels like work and drains my energy just like work does. I also don't care and generally don't really remember much of that.
There are some exceptions to this. My wife and my kids, and a few, very few people around us. In total, 6 people.
So for instance we get the myth of 'freedom', 'liberty' and 'dissent' by a particular subgroup but in reality what we have seen is complete lack of moral compass, crass opportunism or quietly falling in line. There is only one Snowden.
We also get authoritarian and ignorant perspectives like all 'users are stupid' to facilitate opportunistic exploitation, imagine if people in government as a group thought all citizens are stupid or all professionals thought their clients are stupid. This is dehumanization and is the building base of authoritarianism.
It would be easier to understand how human groups behave when they have status and power both real and perceived and when they don't. That follows a predictable path. Self appointed 'smart people' are always dangerous as they are quick to assume a monopoly on wisdom and lack empathy for the 'other', and are unable to perceive errors in their ideology and thinking and course correct.
It’s a common response to social bullying, and not limited to geeks — though it tends to manifest in marginalized social groups, for obvious reasons.
These become fallacies when someone starts taking them for bedrock principles they can rely on without considering other factors. People do this because they are overwhelmed and flailing, or because they can't stand the uncertainty of not knowing how their friends will act in a potential situation. Geeks like taming confusion and uncertainty with knowledge, but instead they should choose the path (which is also appealing to geeks, if they get enough confidence) of developing skills and trusting their skills to see them through unpredictable situations.
This just seems like an attack on an entire group of people that I'm guessing have annoyed or belittled the author at one time or another.
For what purpose?
I don't believe he is genuinely trying to advise and help here. The tone isn't right for it.
It's a cheap and hostile article masquerading as socially conscious self-reflection. To put it like a conservative might, it's 'virtue signalling' without any self-awareness.
I'm not a fan of stereotyping people this way. It's never helpful and is merely an attempt to elevate oneself by putting another group down.
It's hostile and crass.
Do you feel your criticism would still apply with the same force if it was clear that the author was considered to be a geek by himself and others?
*Edited to add a quote from http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/fifteen.html regarding this point:
> First up is the issue of what "geek" means. It's an ill-
> defined subculture at the best of times, but I generally
> see two loose and overlapping superfamilies. On the one
> hand, those geeks whose common denominator is a passion
> for technical pursuits of all sorts -- OS geeks, coding
> geeks, sysadmin geeks, etc.; on the other, those whose
> common denominator is a passion for media -- comic book
> geeks, film geeks, anime geeks, gaming geeks, etc. I'm a
> game designer with a degree in performance studies. You
> can probably guess where I fall. I wasn't thinking espe-
> cially rigorously when I wrote 5GSF (or, for that matter,
> Why Geeks Like Anime), so while I defined my terms, I
> used the media-geek definition throughout. This caused
> problems for some readers coming from the other side of
> the tracks -- like, say, Metafilter.I just can’t find the hostility or attack in it that you’re seeing. It sounds like someone inside a group pushing the emergency button.
This kind of comment is a poor response, and not one you could ever prove. All it does is shit up the comments and amounts to little more than an insult.
At least post something substantial.
It's an attack on an entire group of attitudes/behaviors.
Unless people that exhibit them are entirely defined as personalities by those attitudes (which I don't think is the case), it's not an attack of a "group of people", and even less so, an attack on particular persons.
>For what purpose?
To help stomp out attitudes/behaviors that are not good (at least not good according to the author).
>I don't believe he is genuinely trying to advise and help here. The tone isn't right for it.
You are mistaken, or don't have a clear grasp of what it is said in that post.
I believe the author meant well, and these are social fallacies, but attaching them to “geeks” seems more out of bias than fact.
A more valid criticism might be that the shared concept is harmful to the discussion of people, as it doesn't fairly communicate a reality of their personality, like the concept of "monsters".
There's no such thing as "stereotyping" geeks.
Geeks are already a stereotype -- they refer to specific category of people with specific traits (not everyone having exactly the same, but in a "family resemblance" kind of way).
If you want, you can say that invoking geeks is already stereotyping. But I don't think it's valid to say this is "stereotyping" geeks, as if geeks themselves weren't a stereotype.
So, "Geeks" already implies certain traits, and a narrow set at that.
In other words "geeks" is not like saying "programmers" (which is a much more varied group with hardly much in common). Attributing something to programmers in general would not be very successful (though, even programmers, are statistically more alike in some aspects between them than between the general population: e.g. for one, all of them use computers).
Stereotypes serve a purpose: they are ways to refer to collective traits and behavior shared by groups of people. It's expected that not everybody called an X is an X (we might mislabel someone). But it's not very logical to never make collective observations about groups. We do them all the time, in polling, in business, in politics, in medicine, in social studies, and so on. People are not exactly unique snowflakes, they also tend to have certain traits, and can be categorized into groups by the traits they have.
(And again, nobody expects the categorization to be 100% perfect. It's enough that it's close enough to be usable).