[dasil003]

It really depends on the school. In my high school there was no dominant clique, so the situation was somewhat as the author described. Sure people made fun of nerds, mostly because they left themselves open to it by being different and socially awkward, but there was definitely no strict hierarchy amongst cliques. I think there is some truth to the idea that certain nerds create a sense of superiority as a defense mechanism (think Comic Book Guy), but that is not the root cause of the nerd's social status.

After the opening section I think the rant goes completely off the deep end with a rapid succession of wrong-headed generalizations. It reads like an 18-year-old who just finished high school and now thinks he's got it all figured out. The idea that programmers define themselves by what they are not, or by nitpicking inconsequential details is laughable. Sure programmers may be a bit more prone to nasty protracted flamewars over subtle issues, but we don't define ourselves that way. Sure our communities form around tools moreso than ideas (though not exclusively), but that's simply a matter of necessity given the detail of using any particular tool well. Personally I find the notion that "I define myself as a programmer" offensive. Programming is something I do, and I do it reasonably well, but at the end of the day it's only one of many things I do, and it's certainly not "who I am."

[rorymarinich]

Personally I find the notion that "I define myself as a programmer" offensive. Programming is something I do, and I do it reasonably well, but at the end of the day it's only one of many things I do, and it's certainly not "who I am."

I agree. As I say, that's the sort of programmer I tend to like. The problem is, that's not the sort that aspiring programmers run into when they're first learning. I joined my first coding community at thirteen; for the last five years, I've seen no community that wasn't arrogant and hostile to a fault. The closest I got to nice was the Ubuntu community, who had a tendency to respond to bug reports with "You should look at the wiki page", where the wiki page was 50 pages long.

It reads like an 18-year-old who just finished high school and now thinks he's got it all figured out.

If I had it all figured out, I wouldn't write about it. As it stands, I'm aware of just how clueless I am. As I say here: I'm not a programmer. As I imply: I've been a part of this group of nerds for most of my life. I wrote this to engender a reaction amongst certain types of people, so I could get into a discussion with them about what's wrong with my statements here and what's right. The people I was expecting wasn't the Hacker News group. The fact that this post got rated this high makes me want to stop writing things with potentially ensnaring titles, because I don't want this on Hacker News.

I know I wrote it, and so I've got to own up to it here, but this wasn't the audience I wanted with this, and I regret that it's been put here.

[Psyonic]

I don't see what's so bad about identifying with your work. Would you be equally bothered by a doctor who considers himself a doctor, as opposed to saying "I do practice medicine, but that's only one of many things I do, and certainly not who I am?" Identification with profession is as old as time (last names anyone?) and often indicates someone who is passionate about their work.

[rorymarinich]

Perhaps it's that I think the vast majority of programmers are doing meaningless work, and so their use of the term has diluted what the word means for me. But then, I'd pick the term "designer" which some people think is just as meaningless.

[HalcyonMuse]

Judging by the rest of Mr. Marinich's content, I'd be surprised if you're very far off the mark. Here's what I found particularly ironic: most of the online stuff of his I read (well, skimmed) was pretty negative, hostile and generally involved lashing out at people.

After about five minutes I couldn't help but think of Maddox.

[rorymarinich]

That's not irony. Irony would be if this piece was telling people not to be negative and hostile. I'm merely informing people that their negativity stems from bad places.

I've written an explanation as to why I write the way I do before, but unfortunately with my "unalone" account noprocrasted for the next 2 months and my blog URL and theme changed it doesn't connect with how things were before. Here's a basic summary: on this blog, I write essentially everything that comes to mind. So yesterday, I wrote blurbs about passionate argument, the importance of efficient coding, misanthropy, Samuel Beckett, this particular piece, an update on my design progress. Two days ago it was on capitalism, pick-up artists (inspired by an HN post, actually), ADD, and the problems of young people dating?

I'm not a particularly negative person. I love the life I have and the people I know. At the same time, however, I made a pretty conscious decision a little while ago that I'm writing this blog for myself rather than for other people. Back in January I rather expected this blog to fade away and be ignored entirely, once I started basically writing lengthy pieces on impulse, several times a day. The fact that readers have increased makes me a little uncomfortable. It means that I find pieces like this one on web sites I'd rather they weren't. This is not a good piece. It's dashed out in 20 minutes and posted without a look back. And yes, it's a negative piece; yes, I find myself writing a lot of lashy things. It's by no means the majority of what I write - my average post tends to be more optimistic in nature. But those lashy things are a part of my existing, and I've learned through the last few months that a lot of people go through certain experiences I used to think were mine and mine alone.

So I write about things like young entrepreneurs in a way that could be seen as lashing out at them. I write about people with bad taste and people with no social skills and ugly people. That's a pretty big breach of polite writing, when I spend time talking about my dislike of people who aren't physically attractive. But that's kind of the point: I don't want this to be a polite blog. I'm in the process of creating a tech blog for my revised, good pieces, because I hate being put on Hacker News for shitty pieces. This is not a blog for hackers. It is a blog for myself and for every irrelevant thought that hits my head during the day, and the people who've assembled to read it are a ragtag bunch of personalities that I'd never expect to all center around a blog like mine. I'm grateful for that, and I love the people I've met through it, and I'm not going to be changing the format of the blog. Just keep in mind that what you're reading is written in a very specific style, one that leads to negativity and hostility, and that I'm very aware of the quality level of this stuff, which is why this didn't come as a link directly from me.

[Hexstream]

No, Maddox is fun to read and oftentimes insightful.

[chairface]

> After the opening section I think the rant goes completely off the deep end with a rapid succession of wrong-headed generalizations.

Hang on - there was a part without wrong-headed generalizations? The way I read it, the first two sentences tripped my generalization alarm. The guy constantly extrapolates from his tiny sample and says that the whole world is that way.

[rorymarinich]

This is the world that I know. I write about it. Very often I find that I'm wrong about something, and when I do I write about that as well.

Are you saying that a young, bright 18-year-old shouldn't write at all because he knows that most of what he says is wrong? Because that sounds kind of stupid. I'd rather more people my age write and be entirely wrong and start talking back and forth amongst one another, so they all mature and get wiser. This is merely my contribution to that.

[chairface]

> This is the world that I know. I write about it.

Except you didn't limit yourself to that. You wrote about the world that everyone experiences, and essentially told a bunch of other people that they are wrong about their own experiences.

> Are you saying that a young, bright 18-year-old shouldn't write at all because he knows that most of what he says is wrong?

I'm saying that anyone, regardless of age or intelligence, should try to avoid generalizing from their almost certainly narrow experience.

Also, the tone of your comment has certain elements of the martyr mentality that you have criticized in your essay and in these comments.

[rorymarinich]

You wrote about the world that everyone experiences, and essentially told a bunch of other people that they are wrong about their own experiences.

Is it wrong to say that when they are?

I don't know everything. I only know my specific narrow field. But I do know that everybody I know who is actually unpopular - that is to say, not somebody who lacks friends due to lack of social skills, but somebody who people actively dislike in the way that nerds seem to think happens - is counterhostile in a way that turns people off, and that that usually is the reason why they are disliked.

I'm saying that anyone, regardless of age or intelligence, should try to avoid generalizing from their almost certainly narrow experience.

But everybody does that. Paul Graham does that in his essays. The great writers of fiction wrote from their own experience. It's why they were good. Most of them also generalized: look at Steinbeck and the way he turns entire groups of people into black-and-white heroes and villains.

I'm not saying this essay is as good as Why Nerds Are Unpopular. PG put a lot of time and effort into that essay; this piece was dashed out. But I'll also point out that among the people I've shown this to that aren't the sort of people who use HN, there's a much more widespread agreement that what I'm talking about makes sense, and that I've nailed an element of nerd/programmer that's given the whole subset of people a bad name. That doesn't make me instantly correct about it - I certainly overgeneralize - but to say that generalization is a bad thing because it's generalization ignores the fact that you almost certainly like and agree with and think in generalities. Just because this one is not one you agree with doesn't make generalities in writing wholly bad.

Also, the tone of your comment has certain elements of the martyr mentality that you have criticized in your essay and in these comments.

Martyr? I'm saying that I have a right to write what I think is right, and that a lot of this criticism that's aimed at me rather than at this piece simply because this piece is a poor one offends me. I'm not defending its being on Hacker News. I wish you all would flag it and remove it. It's not worthy of this site. Criticizing that is fine. But the criticism against me for writing this piece in the first place offends me, and I don't think I'm being an asshole martyr for saying that.

[jimbokun]

"Paul Graham does that in his essays."

Paul writes brilliant essays, but I find that if he has a weakness as an essayist, it is probably in over generalization. Many of his essays have pretty sweeping generalizations, but a dearth of data justifying them. His brilliance is that he usually overcomes this by appealing to his reader's intuitions, and it usually works. But there are times when I find myself wondering if he is just extrapolating from his own experience to a larger scale than is warranted.

[rorymarinich]

In his Why Nerds Are Unpopular essay, I think he absolutely is extrapolating. I've read that essay many times. I guess in some ways this could be called a response, but it wasn't directly inspired by his writing.

[chairface]

> Is it wrong to say that when they are?

No. But your essay reads like they _all_ are.

> But everybody does that.

That's no excuse.

> Martyr?

Yes. Here's another example: "I'm saying that I have a right to write what I think is right". Nobody ever tried to take that right away from you, least of all me. All I did was say that you were wrong, but you have decided to carry on like I am persecuting you by attempting to take away your rights. Martyr.

> But the criticism against me for writing this piece in the first place offends me, and I don't think I'm being an asshole martyr for saying that.

Again, I never called you an asshole or criticized you as a person, as opposed to something specific that you said. Now you're being a martyr in response to me saying that you are writing with a martyr mentality.

[jibiki]

> I'm saying that anyone, regardless of age or intelligence, should try to avoid generalizing from their almost certainly narrow experience.

The correct response to such a generalization is just to present counterexamples. Your comments seem to express the idea that it's wrong to present a generalization in public. That's just silly.

[chairface]

At the time I posted this, plenty of others had posted their counterexamples. Mine would have just added to the noise.

Further, I would submit that it _is_ wrong to let a generalization masquerade as a general truth in public.