John Hodgman On the Coming Geek Culture

An anonymous reader writes "Famous writer and minor television personality John Hodgman posits the end of the culture of Jockdom in favor of a cultural reverence for engineers, scientists and Slashdot readers: 'Jockdom is very noble. It's not deliberative. It's certainly the best way to win wars. It's the best way to motivate teams of people to fulfill a goal — not just war, but getting things done. The most important way to motivate a factory floor. But as you know, we're not as much of a manufacturing society as we were before. China and other big industrial nations are rewarding their nerds and technicians rather than creating a culture that makes fun of them — it would be wise for us to embrace the book-smart as much as our culture has traditionally embraced the street-smart, the jock-smart. I'm not saying nerds must have their revenge; I'm just saying the time for wedgies is at an end.'"

Comments

Maybe people should be more well-rounded

[schnikies79]

Then you wouldn't be pegged with (and the associated stigmas) of a certain stereotype.

I was heavy into science in high school, as well as sports and other extra-curricular activities. I never had a problem with any group of people.

Re:Maybe people should be more well-rounded

[SirWhoopass]

I agree completely. In fact, I seem to recall this whole thread about nine years ago...

What's the big obsession on Slashdot with perpetuating silly stereotypes? It's like people here actually believe that they are B-movie nerds, waging an eternal war against jocks. My friends and I played role-playing games in high school, we liked to mess with the computers. A wild Saturday night was some Pepsi, pizza, and a game of Starfleet Battles.We also played varsity football, basketball, and track. We were in the weight room three days a week.People who thought they were "nerds" thought we were "jocks". The people who thought they were "jocks" thought we were "nerds". I had a lot of fun playing sports and a lot of fun in other activities. You only hurt yourself by letting someone label you.

I think the biggest problem is the labels would appear to identify academic and athletic achievements. When, in reality, they're just certain fringe social groups and kids often allow themselves to be identified as one or the other, to their own loss. The most successful people I know were both in academic and athletic activities while in school, and continue to pursue both physical and mental growth as adults.

Re:Maybe people should be more well-rounded

[TheRaven64]

I've lost count of the number of times I've been able to solve a programming problem that specialists are stumped by simply by realising that it was already solved a decade ago in another field and the solution can be moved across.

Re:Maybe people should be more well-rounded

[Lemmy Caution]

I think that I regret having be raised to over-identify with one trait. It happened to my siblings, as well - each of which was identified as having a single, defining trait (a talent, a temperament, etc) and being discouraged from identifying with the others. Even the geekiest of geeks is still a physical being, with a body that they can take care of and enjoy. Even the jockiest of jocks has a mind that they can cultivate, and we all have the ability to appreciate beauty, to work hard, to reflect on our circumstances, to build human relationships, etc. What is worse than being pegged as a "type" is to internalize and even enjoy that "type" at the expense of experiencing life fully. If I have any regrets about my life, it is the time I wasted trying to stay within a type, and missing out on opportunities for amazing experiences.

Re:Maybe people should be more well-rounded

[sorak]

Then you wouldn't be pegged with (and the associated stigmas) of a certain stereotype.

I was heavy into science in high school, as well as sports and other extra-curricular activities. I never had a problem with any group of people.

It's not about being well-rounded. You say you were popular because you knew about science, sports, and "other extracurricular activities". If you had known science but not sports, you would have needed to be more well-rounded. had you known sports, but not science, you would have been ok.

Well-roundedness is only necessary for people who don't play sports.

Re:Maybe people should be more well-rounded

[BrokenHalo]

Specialization means no ability to think outside the box. Knowledge is overlapping.

Verily, forsooth. A couple of generations ago, it was regarded as a Good Thing(TM) to be a polymath. It seems that has largely been buried in a drive towards specialisation, and I believe the richness of our education has suffered as a result.

One thing I have found interesting is a tendency for mathematics professors to be quite well-read in the arts. I still remember one of my first maths professors illustrating a point regarding some misdemeanour of logic as one that would return, like Banquo's Ghost to haunt one later - complete with impromptu illustration on whiteboard of Elizabethan gentleman with ruff, carrying his head under his arm...

In the years since, where I have mostly been involved with individuals involved in chemistry and molecular biology, I have rarely encountered as much in the way of breadth of education, by which I simply mean exposure to other fields of discipline, including the arts. To be a polymath is to be much more interesting as a conversationalist.

Re:Maybe people should be more well-rounded

[Bigbutt]

Specializing in IT is pretty broad though. I know I've solved a lot of problems as a Unix Admin because I'm also a programmer. I'm amazed at the number of admins who can't even use tar without help.

But still you should have other knowledge bases. I'm into motorcycles and can fix mine without too much trouble as well as go fast and get my knee down in corners. I'm also a gamer (both computer and table-top) which gives me a very broad level of knowledge.

And of course:

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

-Robert A. Heinlein

[John]

Re:Maybe people should be more well-rounded

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

As pointed out in earlier posts, it is likely our progress is more attributable to polymath efforts.

Except the polymaths would not have had an opportunity to do their thing unless others had specialized in the basics needed to support a civilization. Einstein was a patent clerk with free time on his hands - if he had been a farmer, chances are he would have been laboring from sun-up to sun-down seven days a week and to worn out to do much thinking for the remaining hours of his waking life.

Jocks win wars?

[soundhack]

I don't necessarily think "jockdom" is the best way to win wars. Military history is full of examples of headstrong, impulsive leaders losing while the soft spoken, thoughtful (as in deliberative), strategic leader winning. Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, Marcus Aurelius, don't seem to me as typical 'jocks'.

If the previous president is any indication, jocks are more likely to start wars, for inane reasons, and either lose or not finish the job. Not that I think of Bush as a jock, but he certainly wasn't a nerd/geek. There should probably be three categories, 'jock','nerd','loser/lamer'

Re:I'm a PC

[Philip K Dickhead]

From the article:
'My town is the best because the incredibly wealthy owners decided to keep the team for now.' Or, 'My political team is the best because it was my dad's and they best stoke my primitive fears,' as opposed to 'They have the best policies for me and my family.'

Required reading. In a couple of short sentences, he exposes and decodes the core cultural aberration of the false spectacle - the pseudo-life - in which people imagine themselves.

It won't happen

[MikeRT]

Our culture does not respect those whose labor directly produces wealth. In fact, it doesn't even have a clue about how to become wealthy and stay wealthy now. The very fact that companies look at their domestic wealth-producing workers and think "these guys are optional" rather than going to H.R., middle management, etc. for budget cuts is proof of that.

Re:It won't happen

[kz45]

"Our culture does not respect those whose labor directly produces wealth. In fact, it doesn't even have a clue about how to become wealthy and stay wealthy now. The very fact that companies look at their domestic wealth-producing workers and think "these guys are optional" rather than going to H.R., middle management, etc. for budget cuts is proof of that."

In an army, the privates are important, but mostly replaceable. A general (and other people that are making important decisions), on the other hand, cannot be replaced easily.

Even though you don't want to hear it, it works the same way with companies. Most non-management jobs are important, but replaceable. It's just a fact of life. On top of this fact, we have an economy where there is a surplus of talent and employees.

You say that H.R and middle management are easily replaceable? I would have to disagree. Not everyone can do those positions well. I would not want the job of determining who gets fired. I also don't enjoy managing other programmers or filling my day with meetings.

The trick to not being replaced is to have some sort of domain knowledge that makes it painful for the company to find someone to replace you.

We already do

[nate nice]

I'm a nerd, enjoy math and computer science and worked hard at it. I have a job that pays really well compared to most people. I come in and go when I want and am responsible for myself. Most people I know in this field have similar lifestyles. I don't see how I'm being cheated or not rewarded.

Sad

[4D6963]

It's sad to see middle-aged men still talking about stuff that happened to them in high school. I know John Hodgman is hardly serious, but the more I know about the USA the more it sounds like a country of 17-year old self-claimed losers who get publicly humiliated on a daily basis by having their underpants pulled up.

Seriously, it's sad to see grown men still dragging along their high school complexes. Jocks and nerds? Grow the fuck out of it. Not only must every single god damn American TV show plot that's centred around males at school must be about so-called losers who get humiliated by big mean guys and mean "popular girls", on top of that you have a very significant portion of the American adult population who must completely identify and go out of their way to fit the stereotypes, from reading children's comic books about superior men in tight pants who avenge anyone by kicking the arse of the big mean guys (yes, so-called losers enjoy escapism by means of reading about a superior man who kicks all the arse they never had the balls to kick themselves) to being pansies who'll get pushed around by their wife as if they were still 12 and that the chick was their mom, probably because they feel that so-called losers don't need to grow some balls and become a man, so they forever remain whiny overgrown teenagers who play with Star Wars figurines and get flashbacks of having their underpants pulled up. If you're gonna play something that involves dungeons and you're over 20, it'd better involve gags and leather restraints.

As an outsider, watching that shit is getting increasingly painful. We don't even have a word for wedgie cause no one gets their underpants pulled up in France, except maybe girls with G-strings that stick out of their pants, so that's hard to relate to your neurosis. It's like your entire culture and civilisation revolves around men with complexes who can't grow out of their teenager bullshit. Look at movies. How many of them are about a loser hero any other loser can relate to and who becomes a loser+ by staying a loser so you can still relate but in the process accomplishing something great? As in "big jewy loser who never kissed a girl and plays WoW goes through a bunch of adventures and in the end he kisses a hot chick whom he thought was "out of his league", whatever the fuck that means". Or "divorced middle-aged loser with a crappy job saves the world and gets with a hot woman". Sometimes it seems like you ALL must think of yourselves as loser, one way or another. That's pathetic.

Re:Not mutually exclusive

[Zalbik]

The dichotomy between nerds and jocks is a false one, and it has been for some time. The stereotypes assert that "jocks" who are socially active, athletic, and attractive must not have any interest in technology, be smart, or value intellectual pursuits. Likewise, "nerds" who are smart and dedicated to learning must be slobs, socially awkward, and unattractive.

I believe Hodgeman's point is more around the dichotomy between society's celebration of jockdom as opposed to nerddom. How many current professional athletes can the average person name? 50? 100?. How many Nobel prize scientiest? Maybe 3?

Sure, those Nobel prize winners may also be rock climbers, rugby players, what have you, and those professional athletes may have IQ's in th 140's, but that is not what they are being recognized for.

The fact is, society rewards elite jockdom much more that in does elite nerddom.

Re:I'm a PC

[photon317]

In a couple of short sentences, I've decoded your political biases too. You do understand that the whole political liberalism vs conservatism argument actually has merit and is worth debate, once you throw out the extreme religious and communist (and other) wingnuts, right? To characterize that most people's political beliefs (at least, those that oppose you) are based on something false because you fail to see the merit of their ideas is silly. Liberal views have merit: there are obvious benefits to both society and the individual if we take care of each other through a public system. Conservative views also have merit: there are obvious benefits to both society and the individual by rewarding those who are the most productive to our economy, and not allowing large percentages of the population to sleepwalk through life on welfare sucking the life out of the country. Finding the right balance is what the political process is all about. Claiming your political "foes" only hold their beliefs due to primitive fears is counter-productive.