Can we try a thought experiment? Take the statements you just made and look for generalizations.
"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.
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."
I think the truth is closer to: "Nongeeks don't want to be geeks because geeks are perceived as lower status."
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.
Of course, then we wouldn't be geeks, would we? The message I read here (which might not at all be what you wanted to say, mind you!) is: "Geeks should stop liking what they like, and start liking what everyone else likes instead." ;)
More like, "People should like what's good and keep an open mind to things, even if it's outside their social sphere." That appeals to geeks and nongeeks alike. But point taken.
I have no opinion about energy drinks, but I think I can explain why Science Fiction and comics are more popular among geeks than general population. Sci-Fi and comic books are two examples of fields of art where the social perception is below the real value of the art. Science Fiction novels are no worse than mainstream contemporary fiction. (One could even argue that SF is now in its golden age, like say romantic poetry was in 200 years ago.) But the stereotypical notion is that SF is junk without artistic value. Similarly for comics.
Geeks have below average ability to conform with social norms and expectations. That's pretty much a definition of a geek. Therefore, a geek is more likely to enjoy a good novel which belongs to a genre without prestige. A person more receptive towards social expectations may be repelled from the same novel because they're aware of the lack of respect associated with the genre.
I always thought it was because comics and certain sci-fi novels are easier and more appealing to people at a younger age, and they've got enough depth to maintain you until you're older. Science fiction moves you from the simpler works of Asimov to multilayered literary pieces like Dune; unless you're actively curious about the rest of literature, you can evolve as a reader while staying in those bounds. Ditto the transition in comic books from early DC to modern Moore.
A person more receptive towards social expectations may be repelled from the same novel because they're aware of the lack of respect associated with the genre.
Partly, maybe, but I'm really insistent on this point that most people really don't worry as much about popularity as geeks do, and that a lot of what we might assume is driven by it is instead following a certain logic. I love science fiction, and my good friends read sci-fi, but if I came into a room and it was decorated by huge Star Trek posters, I'd still be turned off - not because Star Trek isn't popular, but because it doesn't strike me as being good enough to be worth such an intense love. It's like seeing a Titanic poster in a room. Or, if I see a copy of Watchmen in a bookcase, that's a good thing. If there're a bunch of comics scattered on the floor and no sign of any other form of literature, that's a little worrisome, and if there're energy drink cans and Star Trek posters, then there's an ugly stereotype in my mind, even when one of those things on its own might not trigger much.
I was using ignorance not in the pejorative sense of intelligence, but in the sense of lack of knowledge about a subject. Someone who would say that geeks don't shower is misinformed (or under-informed).
The point is that non-geeks don't want to be geeks because geeks have a lower social status (at least as perceived by non-geeks). It is perfectly reasonable for an in-group to perceive itself as superior to everyone else, and for everyone else to perceive it as inferior. (In fact, that is pretty much what always happens).
In admitting that there may be such a thing as a geek (which is actually presupposed by both the study and the author of the article, not me), we are also given license to define what it is to be geeky.
Focusing on comic books, energy drinks, and star-trek (or what have you), is focusing on geeky things. Things that geeks are likely to be interested in. This is the wrong thing to focus on, because clearly not every geek likes these things. (I hate energy drinks and comic books).
My whole point, therefore, is that this isn't about intelligence or anything else, rather it is about of set a personality traits that tend to make people interested in certain things.
From this perspective, being interested in Star Trek or enjoying energy drink is not in any way a different indicator than writing a lot of computer code.
What if the article had ended, 'Not only are non geeks missing out on star trek conventions, star trek conventions are missing out on a diversity of ideas and perspectives.'
It doesn't make any sense, as there is no obvious causative direction here. Geek ends up being a statistical clustering rather than a definable entity.
(If you go to a Star Trek convention, do you become a geek?
Or were you already a geek for wanting to go to a Star Trek convention? Can I be a geek without going to a Star Trek convention).
I also could just as easily say 'Not only are geeks missing out on people who are not interested in tech careers, the geek group is missing out on a diversity of ideas and perspectives.'
The entire conclusion stems from a solipsistic view that every person is going to be equally interested in a career in technology.
Hell, if I didn't have bad acne, a stutter, poor eyesight, an audible lisp, an addiction to MONSTERBAWLS energy drink, (as well as horrible BO and halitosis), I might quit my job as a programmer and go into marketing.
Or I might just be the most charismatic programmer ever.
"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.