Star Wars Fans and Video Game Geeks 'More Likely To Be Narcissists,' Study Finds (independent.co.uk)

schwit1 writes: Those who take part in "geeky events" are more likely to have an "elevated grandiose" level of narcissism, according to a study conducted by the University of Georgia. Psychologists examined the personality traits of those who turn to "geek culture," developing a Geek Culture Engagement Scale and a Geek Identity Scale to help quantify the figures. It was found that those who scored highly on both scales were more likely to narcissists. Subjects are scored on a scale of one to five, depending on how often they take part in activities such as live action role playing games, Dungeons and Dragons, cosplaying, puppetry, robotics — and enjoying things such as video games and Star Wars.

Comments

It's obvious

[gueryjones]

They're just mad that Georgia Tech students are smarter than them and this is their way of undermining them. I'm surprised that a UGA researcher can even spell "geek."

Re:It's obvious

[phantomfive]

Given that 70% of psychology experiments are unreproducible, it's most likely that they have not even found a correlation.

Re:It's obvious

[gl4ss]

well, it's just easier to coerce it out of geeks that they feel superior - even if they're fat losers and they know they're fat losers you can get them to give answers that would mark them as feeling grandiose. especially at a geek event(well why the fuck not, they're having fun there).

neo-nazis beat them at that score though.

Re: It's obvious

[ChunderDownunder]

Is it true that Episode Three was codenamed "Revenge of the Nerds" as a tribute to the 1984 classic and to Han-Shot-First neckbeards?

Re:It's obvious

[TWX]

well, it's just easier to coerce it out of geeks that they feel superior - even if they're fat losers and they know they're fat losers you can get them to give answers that would mark them as feeling grandiose. especially at a geek event(well why the fuck not, they're having fun there).

neo-nazis beat them at that score though.

Every counter-culture is a culture of its own. Counter-cultures, with a large enough sample size, tend to reflect the mainstream cultures from which they spawn. They're fractals. There are bullies, know-it-alls, wannabes, the self-righteous, followers, the artsy, and even nerds within every subculture. I've seen it through four major subcultures. Stereotypes like the Comic Book Collector on The Simpsons exist because someone is just about always going to fill that role with a large enough sample size. It just happens with that particular character that there are a lot of men that resemble that character both physically and in temperament, so it tends to lead to a bit of confirmation bias.

People also don't act the same way around separate distinct groups. Someone might be meek or quiet in a more mainstream setting but be very outgoing or as the article discusses, narcissistic when they're within the subculture that they are comfortable in. Conversely, someone in a mainstream group might be the expert, and be narcissistic or at least very confident, but when they're put into a subculture suddenly they're quiet or subservient because within that particular group their skills or interests or knowledge is among the least, putting them at the bottom of the pecking order. The latter is why MIT has alumni interview applicants, to make sure that they can handle the fact that they'll likely go from being at the pinnacle of scholastic achievement in high school to close to the bottom when measured against all of the other students in college.

Re:It's obvious

[Aighearach]

Yeah, inferiority expressing as apparent superiority makes it all a bit funny with these sorts of studies.

Also, opinions towards the value of humbleness screw up the results considerably. I've met people with extreme narcissism whose value system holds up being humble as being good, so they're incredible smug dicks who won't even descend their mountain for a conversation that they started, because they see themselves as being too humble to admit knowing anything about the stuff they're smugly knowing more than anybody about. You can talk to a person like that for a few minutes and figure out what is happening, but in a study like this it is hard to tease much that is correct out of the things they are explicitly willing to say.

I'm not sure if it is realistic to do this sort of study at all. It may be that better data is acquired observationally, and that "objective" data is of too low quality to be clinically useful. I think it is questionable to assign labels like "narcissism" that have extremely negative connotations based on anything but actual dysfunction, because it invariably requires subjective value judgments about personality ideals. If there is no dysfunction, they might simply be getting "called names" by researchers with conflicting personal values.

Re:It's obvious

[Aighearach]

If you don't think your counter-culture has a superior point of view, how would you even know you're a part of it?

Re: It's obvious

[zephvark]

The Han-Shot-First neckbeards? Just how young are you, sport? Them's hipster terms, and we do shoot you for that.

Re: It's obvious

[jellomizer]

For many narcissistic tendencies come from a defensive mechanism.
You may not be strong, good looking or popular. But you can be smarter than everyone else and make sure you let everyone know that as to protect yourself from the stronger more attractive or popular people.
Are we really that much smarter. Probably not, in our lives we choose trade offs that means we are more specialized in particular areas.
Some of the most lamest geeks will specialize in areas that are mostly useless. But their smarts is assured when people people don't bother to know the difference between C3P0 and R2D2.

Re:It's obvious

[MobyDisk]

This was not a psychology experiment. It was a meta study, using information from anonymous surveys. So your criticism does not apply.

Re:It's obvious

[phantomfive]

Do you think that means it's more reliable?

Re:It's obvious

[MobyDisk]

I am not even sure what "reliable" means in this context.

Just to clarify, you posted a link to an article that claims:

Of 100 studies published in top-ranking journals in 2008, 75% of social psychology experiments and half of cognitive studies failed the replication test.

The Slashdot topic is not a psychology experiment or a cognitive study.

Re: It's obvious

[rtb61]

Narcissism properly, is a social development issue born of a genetic lack of an autonomic empathic response, basically they lack the learning trigger to feel others emotions in order to properly socially develop as they mature, from child to adult.

So this result reflects the change in nature of geek events. As they have become 'cooler' so non-geeks are latching on to public events to pose as geeks in order to be seen as 'cooler'. The 'real' geeks and nerds are staying in the background or simply not going to the more commercial psuedo geek and nerd events.

So now you have loads of wanna be celebrities going to those events hoping for their splash of fame, that will lead on to their dream, "they always knew they would succeed and are special", as is typical of any pseudo celebrities, now there is a trend of them just faking being geeks and nerds.

Delusions of grandeur

[JoeyRox]

Were C-3PO and Hans Solo talking to the audience when they said that in the Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi?

Shocking

[rumpsummoner]

You mean geeks think they're better than everyone? I can't believe it. This figuratively blows my mind.

Re:Shocking

[Austerity Empowers]

No, just people who partake in "geek culture", which as far as I'm concerned is a new thing itself and frequently not representative of greater geekdom.

Re:Shocking

[rumpsummoner]

That is an important distinction. I agree.

Re:Shocking

[Anonymous Coward]

No, just people who partake in "geek culture", which as far as I'm concerned is a new thing itself and frequently not representative of greater geekdom.

You have a good point and I think that the split started in earnest in the 90s.

Back then I started noticing people who would claim to be geeks but in fact only have the trappings of geekdom. They would say things like that they love maths or programming or astronomy or electronics or what have you, act like they did, but turn out to be so inept in whatever it was that there was little doubt they had any true interests.

Over time, as their ranks have swelled, they seem to redefining "geek" to be someone who is fascinated by certain parts of the entertainment industry and just have misplaced zeal, rather than someone who engages the modern technical culture in a greater way.

Re:Shocking

[Anonymous Coward]

I've noticed the exact same thing. I'm a rocket scientist IRL, over educated in the technical fields, strong interests in traditional nerd culture etc, but not so interested in the new geek stuff like comic book movies. I haven't even seen the new star wars.

There are a lot of people like me who feel coopted out of the culture they grew up with. I feel like I'm living n a cargo cult culture. It' difficult to discuss ideas because the broad and deep technical background is no longer there.

Re:Shocking

[ravenshrike]

Sooo, Neil deGrasse Tyson would be a prime example. Yep, it fits.

Re:Shocking

[Dogtanian]

I've noticed the exact same thing. I'm a rocket scientist IRL, over educated in the technical fields, strong interests in traditional nerd culture etc, but not so interested in the new geek stuff like comic book movies. I haven't even seen the new star wars.

There are a lot of people like me who feel coopted out of the culture they grew up with. I feel like I'm living n a cargo cult culture. It' difficult to discuss ideas because the broad and deep technical background is no longer there.

Shame I don't have mod points to help the person who already voted you up, as this is bloody perceptive stuff. Everyone's a bloody "geek" nowadays.

There's actually nothing wrong with being interested in some of that stuff, but just because you know how to install apps on your Android phone and know who Alan Turing is- without having any real interest in any of his actual work- doesn't make you a geek in the same sense as him.

I commented just yesterday that although people nowadays are generally *much* more tech-savvy in general than they were- say- ten or fifteen years ago, most people don't seem to know or care what a basic term like "digital" actually means. That's a synonym for online, or high-tech, or something, isn't it...?

There's a guy I know at work who ticks way, *way* more of the stereotypical "geek" boxes than I do- something I've actually joked to him about. He spends lots of time playing World of Warcraft (I haven't been into computer games for the better part of 20 years), was (genuinely) excited to see the new Star Wars film (never cared about Star Wars that much myself) and apparently collected overpriced plastic anime figures at one point. (Don't think he still does as much, but then he's in his mid-thirties and in a steady relationship now). He's also pretty outgoing and far more socially skilled than I am, (#) especially in the "one of the lads" context. (He also has tendencies bordering on the neddish when drunk). He hasn't shown any signs of being interested in science or any of the "hard" traditional geek interests- as opposed to technology- itself.

But he's not fake- he genuinely is into all that stuff. It's just that a lot of those "geeky" interests, as they've become adopted by more people, have ceased to be the signifiers that they used to be, either of deeper interests, or of personality type.

To be fair, even in the past, I doubt it was ever as clear cut as the stereotypes imply (even in the early 90s I knew a guy at school more skilled with computers than myself who was also sociable, outgoing and into the rave scene in a way that I wasn't). But it's probably even less so today.

Then again, I've come to realise that I'm not remotely a "true" geek in either the old "true" sense nor in the modern superficial sense and have probably been guilty of self-stereotyping and thinking I knew myself more than I did. So maybe I'm not the person I should be comparing others to, regardless. But that's another kettle of fish.

(#) It could be argued that the social skills- or lack of- aspect is somewhat more to do with "nerd"-ism rather than geekism. But there's nothing more geeky *or* nerdy than getting obsessed with the difference between those terms, so who gives a toss? ;-)

Re:Shocking

[TWX]

You're looking at the past with rose-tinted glasses, and you're confusing geeks with fandom. There have been participants in fandom since the idea started that absolutely could not participate in a technical discussion or even keep the facts of their particular favorite franchise straight. Those aren't the people that are remembered, but they've always been there. If anything they're necessary for fandom as their dollars ultimately fund all of the events including the discussion panels that they don't participate in.

Even cosplay is not a new phenomenon. It used to be called the masquerade. It had its share of badly made costumes, excellently-made costumes, and slutty costumes that modern cosplay has. It simply didn't have the Internet as a medium in which to record it for posterity, there were few if any professional costumers because it wasn't marketed like it is now.

Re:Shocking

[Deep Esophagus]

As a recovering geek (at GA meetings we give out little pins to commemorate how many months or years we remain humble) I don't think your somewhat snarky reply is very far off. Here's my completely unqualified, half-assed armchair psychologist analysis...

Geeks tend to be on the high end of the scale for creativity which (based entirely on my observation of a very small and not at all random set of geeks including myself) usually but not always correlates with above-average intelligence. For whatever reason, that combination really does seem to produce some seriously unpleasant characteristics -- my friends and I took every opportunity to prove our superiority by being condescending to any non-geeks. I was especially harsh with cheerleaders and jocks, and heaven help you if you didn't know Star Trek from Star Wars. Nowadays some of my best friends are ranchers and hunters, some of whom don't even own a computer, and I'm just fine with that. They accept me even though I don't own any hunting gear or power tools (or know how to use them), and we get along fine. But it took decades of growing up to reach that point.

All of which is to say, my own anecdotal evidence confirms TFA.

Re:Shocking

[gweihir]

I think we do not have that "geek culture" thing here in Europe. We do have some smart, technologically educated people and some of them are even fans of Star Wars or Star Trek or the like, but hardly any are sociologically awkward in the way a member of "geek culture" seems to be required to be. Most of them also know that they are quite a bit superior in their understanding of reality to the average person, but that is just a realistic take on the situation.

Re:Shocking

[Anonymous Coward]

Just look at what has become of the internet. It used to be that you could go online and speak to actual computer and technical experts. People who actually understood programming or component level hardware.

These days you have a lot of kids on the internet who think that they are computer literate because they were able to toss together plug and play PC components and double click the installers for some drivers.

What is a geek now a days?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Subjects are scored on a scale of one to five, depending on how often they take part in activities such as live action role playing games, Dungeons and Dragons, cosplaying, puppetry, robotics — and enjoying things such as video games and Star Wars."

All of which sounds totally nuts to me. In my day "geeks" were loaners. They did not have a big social circle. Not because they were basically unsociable. Mostly because they were interested in technical things, electronics, programming, maths, that most people around them had no idea or interest in.

When did "geek" become a word to describe game playing fantasy obsessed weirdos.

 

Re:What is a geek now a days?

[Mashiki]

When did "geek" become a word to describe game playing fantasy obsessed weirdos.

Geeks have always been described at that. What changed was when mainstream decided that geeks were "cool" aka could make money off of us and they couldn't get away with ostracizing us anymore.

Link to the study:

[Anonymous Coward]

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0142200

This is silly

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not Star Wars Fans or Video Game Geeks they measure, but cosplayers and such. They rarely meet the basement dweller subspecies, though those might as well be Star Wars Fans or Video Game Geeks. They just simply don't come out of hiding.

Re:Really?

[Hognoxious]

I thought they were completely detouched

taché!

How is this information useful?

[Okian Warrior]

How is this information useful?

Assuming that the study results are accurate and significant, how does one actually *use* the information? How does it inform further research, how do physicians and/or psychiatrists use the information for diagnosis or treatment, what sort of "ruler" does this study build and what does it measure?

In what way can this information be used to improve the human condition?

There are thousands of soft-science generalizations like this, none of which is useful in any meaningful way.

Social scientists are playing an elaborate game of "make believe".

Re:How is this information useful?

[ArcadeNut]

How is this information useful?

Assuming that the study results are accurate and significant, how does one actually *use* the information?

Marketing.

Re:How is this information useful?

[hey!]

How is this information useful?

That's begging the question. The media account of the paper is so garbled that it's simply not useful at all. The paper is a different story. However the usefulness of that depends on your ability to think critically, particularly about statistics, and pay attention to details. If your takeaway after skimming the paper is that "Star Wars fans are narcissists" then you're probably better off not having opinions about the paper, period.

From what I can see the paper contains nothing that should be surprising or controversial. If you know geek fandom you know that odd or socially maladjusted behavior is more common than in the general population, but also that most participants are pretty normal except for being more interesting and imaginative than a random sample of the general population would be. The correlation of the authors' geek culture index to the personality trait "open to new experiences" is actually stronger than the correlation to narcissism, although for some reason the author of the article in The Independent chooses to ignore that finding. I think that may be a bit of pandering to the mundane crowd, who'd prefer to think of themselves as more socially well-adjusted than geeks than as less adventurous.

Re:We already know that Millennials are narcissist

[__aaclcg7560]

Extreme narcissism and self-importance are defining traits of the Baby Boomer generation!

FTFY - Signed, Gen Xer

It l comes together

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> Those who take part in "geeky events" are more likely to have an "elevated grandiose"
> level of narcissism, according to a study conducted by the University of Georgia.

And now that we know this, we are perfect.

Inflammatory article, study taken out-of-context

[MobyDisk]

This article is horrible.

Narcisissm was but one of the many things the study correlated with geekdom. Yet the article by "The Independent" talked about only that one aspect. The study actually doesn't include Star Wars as an example of geekdom since Star Wars is mainstream. The study does consider someone a geek if they mix "Star Wars" with zombies. Yet The Independent started their headline with that "Star Wars" - probably because it is so popular in the news right now and people will have knee jerk emotional reactions to it.

I am sad that Slashdot chose to link to this article, rather than to the study itself which is completely free, reasonably short, and paints a different and more interesting picture. It talks about geek involvement with family, the political process, civic organizations, and long-term life goals. It even explains how the term "narcissism" is used differently in the clinical context and might be misinterpreted when used without the relevant context. Yet that is exactly what The Independent did.

Probably just a strong sense of self

[topham]

The most likely screwup is mischaracterizing a strong sense of self as grandiose when half the "normal" population is suffering from body image issues and inferiority complexes.

Re:Probably just a strong sense of self

[micahraleigh]

Exactly. Wish I had mod points.

If I look at my behavior and ask how I can live like a better person *Surprise!* I'm a megalomaniac.

Prediction: people who watch Star Trek are more likely to be hypocrites (living off a script oblivious to what's really going on inside).

Newsflash: Subjects willing to take tests are...

[RyanFenton]

Newsflash: Folks willing to be interviewed on being 'geeky' tend to be gregarious and be quite optimistic about their own potential. Shy/anti-social 'geeks' not measured.

Everyone's got a mixed bag of ignorance and hangups - and folks who self-label as 'geeky' in public are folks who project a willingness to focus and specialize on a small range of subjects that they admire. Many others are going to be shy or antisocial, or unwilling to put up with a 'geeky' label.

BREAKING NEWS: DJs and Rap Artists also found to be frequently narcisistic! 'Fronting' found to be a very helpful form of marketing, and method of promoting causes in a comedic and exaggerated manner.

FURTHER BREAKING NEWS: 'Profesional'-style wrestlers and independent entertainment wrestling groups also found to be overwhelmingly narcissistic, in a fascinating dual dynamic! When in 'face' mode, these entertainers will be narcissistic in a friendly way, and in 'heel' mode, they will be narcissistic in an overly flamboyant and violent way. These modes can change at seemingly random patterns, but usually near the start/beginning of a season.

OMG BREAKING NEWS GUYS: Actors and many others found to be narcissistic! In a similar dynamic to 'entertainment' wrestling, this same form of narcissism seems to be almost everywhere, in most professions with a public facing component. The dynamic of trying to gather a crowd with comedy and drama seems to be steeped with various kinds of narcissism, and reactions to self-overestimation.

It's almost as if people overestimate their own potential in order to motivate themselves to try difficult things, even if it means failure, because they might learn something or motivate others in the process!

We must stop this plague of overestimation before it grows too large! The only logical conclusion to this process will be everyone jumping off buildings because they believe they can fly. Yes. Geeks must not believe in themselves, or our world is doomed!

In other news, journalists frequently post articles they know has misleading information, or false or incomplete versions on of the science they're reporting on, because it builds drama and readership. Oh no - the narcissism is spreading!

Re:We already know that Millennials are narcissist

[__aaclcg7560]

FTFY - SIgned, Zorgon (Supreme Ruler of The Galaxy)

Uh, huh.

Zorgons appear to be cold-blooded, as they can be deterred by cold temperatures and were at one point distracted with a burning couch.

http://aliens.wikia.com/wiki/Zorgon_(Zathura)

If the Supreme Ruler of the Galaxy can be distracted by a burning couch, there may be hope for humanity. We got plenty of couches to burn up.

Social Scientists

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just an example of Social Scientists demonstrating they are

1) Not Socialist
2) Not Scientists

Odd from the women... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Funniest part's that normal women like men who are self confident and take charge. They don't respect whimps. If you're a whimp, they're like cats with a mouse and will destroy you. Sure - They might say otherwise but when you're in bed with them and ask them they will admit it. How do I know this? Experience. Many times.

Prime personal example being one of my ex-girlfriends on/off for more than a decade++ who acted like she found my being that way (sometimes inflexible yes, but once I made up my mind about something, that WAS it - my way, or the highway) bad!

Yet when I asked her after we broke up about it? She literally ADMITTED she loved that about me and that I kept our "ship afloat" in this life.

Since then, I've seen her go bankrupt (literally) and my own attorney advised me (a woman no less, not "after me" either, she's married) to get away from her fast saying she was "dumb as a box of rocks" & would drag me down. From what I've seen, she would have.

Yes folks: You can trust women MANY TIMES when they warn you of another woman's shortcomings and what the outcomes will eventually and probably inevitably be. My attorney was, as usual, right as rain.

APK

P.S.=> I've also found another "weird thing" about women: The WORSE you treat them, the MORE THEY WANT YOU (this irks me & I'm not "good @ it" - it's NOT really me is why... I like treating my women well if possible) - this was told to me by my mother's deceased ex-husband (after my Dad & her split up) - I was like "you're nuts, nobody likes to be mistreated, especially in mind games etc." & he said "I know, doesn't make sense BUT IT WORKS & you're TOO NICE & being a whimp - you'll get stepped on"... he was right (experience trumped my inexperience) - Illogic logic, I know... but women can be FULL of that (hormonally driven more than men? I don't know) since what he said did work better but made NO sense... apk

And a recent paper showed the majority...

[Fragnet]

A recent paper shows the majority of psychological studies aren't replicable. So you know, jog on.

is this really slashdot

[ruir]

fuck you and your pseudo studies

Veeeery interesting

[fustakrakich]

What does it say about us who enjoy Solitaire and Pong?

Re:Veeeery interesting

[Opportunist]

That you're very lonely weirdos.

Re:Veeeery interesting

[fustakrakich]

Or that I don't spend much time on computer games. And Pong can be played with two people.

Re: Why are so many "geeks"

[prefec2]

Because every moron is called a geek nowadays. Star Wars fans are not geeks. They indulge in a fantasy story. There is no tech involved.

Only if your name...

[Unknown74]

...is Sheldon Cooper! 8-D

Re:Only if your name...

[Opportunist]

I am not, my mom had me tested!

Which of these is not like the other..

[Rick in China]

Sorry what?

"live action role playing games, Dungeons and Dragons, cosplaying, puppetry, robotics"

Robotics requires some level of scientific understanding and education beyond LARPing, dressing up in various themed outfits, putting socks on yer hands and pretending to speak on the sock's behalf, or playing D&D. That's not by any means apples and apples, those who are really into robotics are likely really into engineering, math, physics, etc - and as a result, probably feel somewhat superior to the masses because they've some sort of understanding of the workings of the universe - which the majority of our pleb cultures most definitely lack.

Also, when I clicked the "research" link in the article, it sent me to cars.com with some sort of cars comparison advertisement, what the fuck. Now I see - they randomly highlight words throughout the article with links to ads. Awesome source.

Re:We already know that Millennials are narcissist

[Opportunist]

Maybe, but they sure think they're ENTITLED to being narcissist!

Re:Why are so many "geeks"

[Opportunist]

Because they're humans. Ever taken a look at the human race lately?

Re:Newsflash: Subjects willing to take tests are..

[CrimsonAvenger]

and folks who self-label as 'geeky' in public are folks who project a willingness to focus and specialize on a small range of subjects that they admire

It should be noted that fly-fishermen are the same way.

Ditto pilots. And sailors. And computer programmers. And...

Different "small range of subjects" for each, of course....

Re:Yet people say particle physics research is was

[thinkwaitfast]

Because it's the people in the social sciences who are criticizing money in the physical sciences.

Re:Study was written by two women

[ArchieBunker]

What does the gender of the researchers have to do with anything? If all sources are cited and all numbers are correct, you really can't say much.

*sniff* that I would live to see the day...

[Opportunist]

It's heartwarming that geeks are finally considered human beings.

Re:*sniff* that I would live to see the day...

[gweihir]

Naaa, they are lying to you because they want to sell you something.

in related news...

[Gravis Zero]

A study from Georgia Institute of Technology find that students from University of Georgia are just jealous of their rad robo-bro who is so cool he's not even stoked about being on the cover of Popular Mechanics.

come on, do those University of Georgia people even lift? ;P

s/Star Wars/Star Trek/g; RepeatStudy();

[TheRealHocusLocus]

return(CleanBillOfHealth);

Re:Newsflash: Subjects willing to take tests are..

[PolygamousRanchKid]

. . . and silly me thought that politicians would reign as the Olympic Gold Medal champions in the Narcissism competition.

Re:Inflammatory article, study taken out-of-contex

[tommeke100]

I was thinking the same thing. Star Wars is breaking every box office record. All stores are filled with Star Wars toys and other merchandise. How discriminative is that?

Excuse me my good man...

[CCarrot]

It was found that those who scored highly on both scales were more likely to narcissists.

Ahem, shouldn't that be "more likely to narciss"?

</sarcastic_prick>

Sounds like: Stop liking what we don't like!

[BenJeremy]

Every few months, we get another one of these sort of questionable "studies" like "Your cat really doesn't love you" or "Your dog is really dumber than a pile of doornails". Somebody gets a wild hair up their ass to prove their pet theory that supports their own petty biased world view, looking to knock down someone or something a peg.

Psychological studies are the worst... they analyze a group of people and determine that they are somehow "defective" (in this case, narcissistic, by whatever measure they used). It's punditry, plain and simple, in the guise of pseudoscience backed by being "published".

Ultimately, these sort of "studies" are almost always tweaked in some fashion (demographics, location, etc...) to inevitably come to the desired conclusion.

kernel of truth

[AngelFrog]

i can see a kernel of truth in this. Many geeks, nerds and other various "outside the norm" kids will get rejected as youngsters. They get attacked because they are different. Nothing new here. Now if you get rejected by the main stream, you will take refuge in your own world/subculture where you are accepted. You can be as much of a big shot in the puppetry world as you are not in the general population. What looks to an insider like confidence acquired from knowledge and experience might look like "damn that dude is full of him self and for what? cause he knows all the squadrons involved in the attack on the first death star? Get over your self nerd!" to an outsider. When you have been rejected most of your life and you finally have people that recognize your worth, it is normal to look at your self a little more and like your self a little more. Then again, there are self centered assholes in all walks of life, geeks included.

Don't ever trust a newspaper's science coverage

[martinux]

One should never trust a newspaper's coverage of science. Some journalists don't care about the quality of studies and will often erroneously or intentionally oversimplify (or misrepresent) the implications of a study to suit a narrative they're invested in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

There's an additional problem that comes as a consequence of this: wikipedia editors routinely categorise publications that align with their politics and ideology as reliable sources while discounting those who do not as unreliable. The result, particularly in "hot" topics is that you get a non-expert, politicised view of the science rather than a link to the study.

Its the midichlorians ...

[perpenso]

You mean geeks think they're better than everyone? I can't believe it. This figuratively blows my mind.

Such thoughts are a side effect of elevated midichlorian levels. Extremely high levels lead to one thinking they are near god-like individuals who should run the universe.

You can't take a psychological survey

[Karmashock]

One on ONE you can... but if you know nothing about someone then you can't trust them to just fill this out accurately. People interpret questions differently than the author all the time. Then you have people that lie because they find a question aspirational or shameful. And then you have people not taking things seriously... And there are issues beyond that.

But the point is that you MUST conduct psychological evaluations one on one. You can't just hand some forms out and understand what is going on in everyone's minds... that fucking stupid. You're going to get back crap.

What is more, they're defining "Narcissism" as "wanting to be at the center of attention"... That's like defining "pathological greed" as "liking money".

Another bullshit study from our psychology departments.

*slow clap*

Re:Why are so many "geeks"

[hey!]

Because so many people are absolute morons. Geeks are somewhat different from people in general, but they're still people, after all.

Re:Inflammatory article, study taken out-of-contex

[dinfinity]

Exactly. From the abstract:
"Geek engagement is found to be associated with elevated grandiose narcissism, extraversion, openness to experience, depression, and subjective well-being across multiple samples."

They really went out of their way to find the most inflammatory 'interpretation' of the study they could come up with.

WHAaaaaaaaa????!

[TiggertheMad]

Did anyone catch the last bit there in the synopsis? Puppetry? WTF?

I am a beautiful, amazing person who is totally into D&D, video games and robotics. However, I have never heard of this puppetry thing before. I find your ideas interesting and I wish to subscribe. Also, while I am a sexy hunk of Dungeon Master man-beast, this article look like it holds about as much water as a sieve.

Re:WHAaaaaaaaa????!

[TWX]

What level is your Dungeon Master?

Re:WHAaaaaaaaa????!

[pla]

Did anyone catch the last bit there in the synopsis? Puppetry? WTF?

Yeah, I kinda wondered about that myself. Of all the useless skills we geeks have an interest in, I can't say I've ever met one into puppetry.

/ No, RealDolls don't count.

Why?

[bellboa45]

All the wonders of the Universe, and this is what we are studying.

Re: Yet people say particle physics research is wa

[BouncingBob]

Actually, social scientists are constantly told their research is useless - maybe you haven't noticed because it's not your ox being gored.

It's hard not to be one

[backslashdot]

How can one not be a narcissist when surrounded by idiots?

Just saying... not that I'm one. Unlike other people, I'm superior in my abilities to suppress narcissism.

Re: Why are so many "geeks"

[TWX]

Not all science fiction requires the explanation of technology. Campbellian sci-fi does, but most dystopian sci-fi is about setting and theme.

Additionally, fantasy as a genre is also popular among geeks.

Re:Inflammatory article, study taken out-of-contex

[UnderCoverPenguin]

"Geek engagement is found to be associated with elevated grandiose narcissism, extraversion, ...."

Most geeks I know are somewhat introverted.

"Video Game Geeks"?

[schitso]

So, gamers?

I come here for the comments...

[TapeCutter]

The comments have been skeptical and informative (eg: "star wars" was not mentioned in the paper). I haven't read TFA, it's from the Telegraph so it's very doubtful it's an accurate report.

Not a geek

[Oligonicella]

Never bitten the head off of any animal.

Re:Newsflash: Subjects willing to take tests are..

[Krishnoid]

BREAKING NEWS: DJs and Rap Artists also found to be frequently narcisistic! ...

FURTHER BREAKING NEWS: 'Profesional'-style wrestlers and independent entertainment wrestling groups also found to be overwhelmingly narcissistic, in a fascinating dual dynamic! ...

OMG BREAKING NEWS GUYS: Actors and many others found to be narcissistic! ...

Please, take it easy on me! Narcissism is one thing, but to be a rapper, wrestler, *and* actor all at same time? I'm. Only. One. Man!

Although I bet The Rock could pull that off -- good for him.

Re:So who is Rey?

[Krishnoid]

Speculation is she will turn out to be a daughter of Luke Skywalker. Some suggest may be a grand daughter of Ben Kenobi. But given that Star Wars stretches the boundaries "age", you know Anakin would have been all of ten years old when he married Queen Amydala... Rey could even be a daughter of Kylo Ren.

I bet she thinks she's so great. And she's not even a Star Wars fan!

We all know the truth..

[martiniturbide]

..that's why we need Wil's words from time to time: https://dontbeadickday.com/wil...

Re: Why are so many "geeks"

[William Baric]

Most dystopian sci-fi are a result of scientific progress. I'd categorize Star Wars as Space Fantasy, not as science-fiction. Saying Star Wars is science-fiction is like saying creationism or gender studies are science.

Re:Why are so many "geeks"

[gweihir]

To make the problem worse, most people today do not realize that they are not very smart. Dunning-Kruger effect at work. It is amazing how many times actual experts get told these days that they are wrong by complete amateurs that do not even understand the basics.

Narcissism Def [Re:Inflammatory article, study tak

[Tablizer]

It even explains how the term "narcissism" is used differently in the clinical context and might be misinterpreted when used without the relevant context...

A rough synonym of "narcissistic" is "competitive". That's not necessarily a bad thing. While most people tend to be "socially competitive" or "financially competitive", geeks tend to compete with games and "lab" or tech projects.

Males tend to be competitive whether the subject matter is social, financial, or technical. (Different people will select different areas to compete in). It's in our biological wiring. Women are competitive also, but tend to avoid direct confrontation, or at least the appearance of direct confrontation. If you are playing a video game with your buddy and blow up his ship, you just may say, "In your face!". Women tend to avoid "rubbing it in" directly.

Re:Inflammatory article, study taken out-of-contex

[gweihir]

Well, almost no "journalist" these days has the discipline, education and smarts to actually understand a study like this. Not that the study sets a high bar, but journalism used to be something smart people with ideals went for. Not anymore.

Re:Study was written by two women

[gweihir]

Research can be correct and still heavily biased. The trick to do it is to not document failed research directions and to just look for things you want to find. Some of these you will actually find and then you can project a completely skewed picture without stating a single untruth. Lying by omission is rampart in the social sciences. In the STEM field, people are a bit smarter and it is harder to do. Still often possible to get away with it even in STEM.

Re:So who is Rey?

[gweihir]

But given that Star Wars stretches the boundaries "age", you know Anakin would have been all of ten years old when he married Queen Amydala

Yikes, so Amydala is a pedo?

Another BS pyche study, Here Is Why

[johncandale]

Note they didn't even say how much more, just that they were "more likely to be narcissist".

Also note, from the paper "Separate from Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), narcissism is a normal personality trait characterized by a grandiose sense of self as well as efforts to maintain that sense of self in the face of reality "

----- "narcissism is a normal personality trait ", -study

That is the problem with psyche studies, loose inter-definable terms like narcissism. They didn't find people with a NPD (even if they did, that diagnosis tool is highly suspect). You could rename the study "people with higher self esteem go to geek events" if you just use a few different words with different connotation but same measurably.

Another problem with psyche studies is they relay on self reported feelings, which are highly suspect (people don't say truth, they say what they think they should say or what they think of themselves)

It's like when shyness is renamed "anxiety" so they can sale you pills.

I could go on, one of their data points is "Real Life." Apparently DnD with friends is not real life. But is watching sports on TV real life?

From Study "(the great fantasy migration hypothesis), to fulfill belongingness needs (the belongingness hypothesis), and to satisfy needs for creative expression (the need for engagement hypothesis)."

So the study found people do normal things to fill normal needs and the people that do them correlate with a sightly higher scale of something also normal (narcissism) within normal ranges that has a negative Connotation outside of psych research.

Do you get my point yet about the problems with psych research?

Re: Why are so many "geeks"

[prefec2]

You misunderstood my argument on the use of the word geek. It looks like it is used nowadays for everyone who is into something. However, I would define it more like the forth definition of geek in the urban dict http://www.urbandictionary.com...

The thing is. The more inprecise the term becomes the less meaningful it is. In the article it could easily be replaced by fan.

Re:#1 Fan

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not a study. It is a meta-study of seven other studies, written by experts in finding narcissism everywhere.

Re:#1 Fan

[thoughtlover]

So would that make Star Trek fans more empathetic?

While Star Trek fans...

[JohnStock]

Are likely to be social leaders, scientists, engineers, astronauts, science fiction writers and philosophers.

Re:Inflammatory article, study taken out-of-contex

[ToddInSF]

Slashdot articles are shit, thanks to Dice.