I went through high school and college emphasizing science and mathematics. I finished up in law. I can say personally that the transition from thinking like an engineering to thinking like a lawyer was not an easy one for me. Too often would I let myself be caught up in processing minutiae, pedantry, and ideas that were really not the emphasis of the substance the authors would be trying to communicate. In short, I tended to miss out on the big picture.
I'm not the only one however. Having many friends and colleagues in the engineering field, I continue to see it day to day. I have also heard my friends in law characterize nerds in the same way.
They never see the big picture. My question is what are your thoughts? Valid/invalid?
What the "big picture" is happens to be subjective. Nothing is more closely associated with "fine print", "loopholes", "rules lawyering", "legalese" and "technicalities" than the legal profession.
I'm pretty sure that the only guys that can really claim to focus no the big picture are astronomers.
I think part of their short-sightedness is that nerds often don't obtain social validation, so for them to stubbornly ignore the bigger picture actually makes a lot of sense, to me. If people were to give a greater credibility to nerds as a whole, and nerds were able to cross the circuits in their brain that make them less socially inept, that we'd have a nice median where we see them understanding the larger machinations of things in general rather than dwelling on their idle, pedantic needs - that being, again, validation, albeit in a different manner than one might expect from a more socially adept individual.
Sorry if that was a bit rambly/incoherent - I had difficulty expressing what I meant in a way that was satisfying to me.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
I think part of their short-sightedness is that nerds often don't obtain social validation, so for them to stubbornly ignore the bigger picture actually makes a lot of sense, to me. If people were to give a greater credibility to nerds as a whole, and nerds were able to cross the circuits in their brain that make them less socially inept, that we'd have a nice median where we see them understanding the larger machinations of things in general rather than dwelling on their idle, pedantic needs - that being, again, validation, albeit in a different manner than one might expect from a more socially adept individual.
Sorry if that was a bit rambly/incoherent - I had difficulty expressing what I meant in a way that was satisfying to me.
It's just my subjective opinion based on my observations. But from what I see, nerds do themselves a great disservice by never really learning how to engage the big picture.
I can't think of any other group where people with so much intelligence and potential capability hold so little power.
Other people are constantly making decisions for nerds that decide their fate. Nerds grouch and bemoan the fact that others don't understand them internally, but really its because they dont speak the same language as the rest of the world. The long term consequence of this is that they cede their power in a society where speaking up is a must.
Let's take what you wrote because its a great point.
You said "If people were to give a greater credibility to nerds as a whole..."
Immediately that's a conditional that depends on the the non-nerd understanding the nerd. That's an example of ceding power. (it's passive in a way) Nerds have to wait until the non-nerd gets the nerd.
What if the non-nerd never gets the nerd? Does that mean the nerd waits a lifetime before he gets credibility?
I think emphasizing the pedantic in an attempt to gain some recognition is even worse. It lends credence to the idea that nerds simply are NOT worth paying attention to because they only care about the pedantic.
Nerds, as a group, are pretty well defined by an obsessive interest in things. That DOES tend to lead to tunnel vision.
Obsessive narrow interest seems to me to lead to tunnel vision in nerds. But there are plenty of non-nerds that obsess over their narrow agendas over a lifetime, while remaining capable in engaging the greater world effectively.
What the "big picture" is happens to be subjective. Nothing is more closely associated with "fine print", "loopholes", "rules lawyering", "legalese" and "technicalities" than the legal profession.
I'm pretty sure that the only guys that can really claim to focus no the big picture are astronomers.
I have found this to be dangerous thinking. As subjective as law can be, there is a great deal of rigidity or bright lines. Courts are not nearly as bound by fine print or technicalities as one would think. Judges are far from helpless in the wake of technical minutiae tying up their hands. They can and will resolve issues based on greater considerations if pushed sufficiently.
Essentially, the intent behind a law will carry weight when it needs to. There are cases where the intent--the point behind the law---will override even the direct text of the law.
What the "big picture" is happens to be subjective. Nothing is more closely associated with "fine print", "loopholes", "rules lawyering", "legalese" and "technicalities" than the legal profession.
I'm pretty sure that the only guys that can really claim to focus no the big picture are astronomers.
I have found this to be dangerous thinking. As subjective as law can be, there is a great deal of rigidity or bright lines. Courts are not nearly as bound by fine print or technicalities as one would think. Judges are far from helpless in the wake of technical minutiae tying up their hands. They can and will resolve issues based on greater considerations if pushed sufficiently.
Essentially, the intent behind a law will carry weight when it needs to. There are cases where the intent--the point behind the law---will override even the direct text of the law.
The intent behind the law certainly does carry weight. So does the intent behind a project, despite the engineer stereotype of obsessing over something that doesn't actually matter in the big picture. You brought up a stereotype for one group, so I brought up the stereotype for another group. You're now objecting tot he fact that the stereotype is neither universal nor overwhelmingly valid. The same can be said for engineers.
The whole "nerd" category is extremely broad and nigh-useless in this as well. Does the creative director for a game studio not focus on the big picture? That job is all about the big picture. Or are we only talking about the big picture on a social scale? Or a galactic one? In that case, most people and professions don't think about how their every action impacts society as a whole. Is a defensive tackle a nerd? They spend almost all their focus on one small part of a largely meaningless game.
I think part of their short-sightedness is that nerds often don't obtain social validation, so for them to stubbornly ignore the bigger picture actually makes a lot of sense, to me. If people were to give a greater credibility to nerds as a whole, and nerds were able to cross the circuits in their brain that make them less socially inept, that we'd have a nice median where we see them understanding the larger machinations of things in general rather than dwelling on their idle, pedantic needs - that being, again, validation, albeit in a different manner than one might expect from a more socially adept individual.
Sorry if that was a bit rambly/incoherent - I had difficulty expressing what I meant in a way that was satisfying to me.
It's just my subjective opinion based on my observations. But from what I see, nerds do themselves a great disservice by never really learning how to engage the big picture.
I can't think of any other group where people with so much intelligence and potential capability hold so little power.
Other people are constantly making decisions for nerds that decide their fate. Nerds grouch and bemoan the fact that others don't understand them internally, but really its because they dont speak the same language as the rest of the world. The long term consequence of this is that they cede their power in a society where speaking up is a must.
Let's take what you wrote because its a great point.
You said "If people were to give a greater credibility to nerds as a whole..."
Immediately that's a conditional that depends on the the non-nerd understanding the nerd. That's an example of ceding power. (it's passive in a way) Nerds have to wait until the non-nerd gets the nerd.
What if the non-nerd never gets the nerd? Does that mean the nerd waits a lifetime before he gets credibility?
I think emphasizing the pedantic in an attempt to gain some recognition is even worse. It lends credence to the idea that nerds simply are NOT worth paying attention to because they only care about the pedantic.
That's what I'm saying - nerds seek validation. They don't get validation.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
What the "big picture" is happens to be subjective. Nothing is more closely associated with "fine print", "loopholes", "rules lawyering", "legalese" and "technicalities" than the legal profession.
I'm pretty sure that the only guys that can really claim to focus no the big picture are astronomers.
I have found this to be dangerous thinking. As subjective as law can be, there is a great deal of rigidity or bright lines. Courts are not nearly as bound by fine print or technicalities as one would think. Judges are far from helpless in the wake of technical minutiae tying up their hands. They can and will resolve issues based on greater considerations if pushed sufficiently.
Essentially, the intent behind a law will carry weight when it needs to. There are cases where the intent--the point behind the law---will override even the direct text of the law.
The intent behind the law certainly does carry weight. So does the intent behind a project, despite the engineer stereotype of obsessing over something that doesn't actually matter in the big picture. You brought up a stereotype for one group, so I brought up the stereotype for another group. You're now objecting tot he fact that the stereotype is neither universal nor overwhelmingly valid. The same can be said for engineers.
The whole "nerd" category is extremely broad and nigh-useless in this as well. Does the creative director for a game studio not focus on the big picture? That job is all about the big picture. Or are we only talking about the big picture on a social scale? Or a galactic one? In that case, most people and professions don't think about how their every action impacts society as a whole. Is a defensive tackle a nerd? They spend almost all their focus on one small part of a largely meaningless game.
I'm not talking about being a cog in a system. Everyone obviously plays a role in the big picture. What I mean is nerds don't focus on the big picture in that they do focus on the pedantic.
Nerds miss the point when it comes to communicating ideas. The other person is trying to communicate an idea and nerds run off in a different direction in a manner that interests them. I've seen that pattern over and over again.
What the "big picture" is happens to be subjective. Nothing is more closely associated with "fine print", "loopholes", "rules lawyering", "legalese" and "technicalities" than the legal profession.
I'm pretty sure that the only guys that can really claim to focus no the big picture are astronomers.
I have found this to be dangerous thinking. As subjective as law can be, there is a great deal of rigidity or bright lines. Courts are not nearly as bound by fine print or technicalities as one would think. Judges are far from helpless in the wake of technical minutiae tying up their hands. They can and will resolve issues based on greater considerations if pushed sufficiently.
Essentially, the intent behind a law will carry weight when it needs to. There are cases where the intent--the point behind the law---will override even the direct text of the law.
The intent behind the law certainly does carry weight. So does the intent behind a project, despite the engineer stereotype of obsessing over something that doesn't actually matter in the big picture. You brought up a stereotype for one group, so I brought up the stereotype for another group. You're now objecting tot he fact that the stereotype is neither universal nor overwhelmingly valid. The same can be said for engineers.
The whole "nerd" category is extremely broad and nigh-useless in this as well. Does the creative director for a game studio not focus on the big picture? That job is all about the big picture. Or are we only talking about the big picture on a social scale? Or a galactic one? In that case, most people and professions don't think about how their every action impacts society as a whole. Is a defensive tackle a nerd? They spend almost all their focus on one small part of a largely meaningless game.
I'm not talking about being a cog in a system. Everyone obviously plays a role in the big picture. What I mean is nerds don't focus on the big picture in that they do focus on the pedantic.
Nerds miss the point when it comes to communicating ideas. The other person is trying to communicate an idea and nerds run off in a different direction in a manner that interests them. I've seen that pattern over and over again.
I've seen that behavior in just about everyone, in every walk of life. Are you trying to suggest that people that are highly interested in something tend to gravitate back to things that interest them, the way a football fan tends to keep moving the conversation back to football or using football metaphors? If so, I don't see how this is a meaningful observation.
Are you talking about being easily distracted by tangents? Or are you talking about not being able to comprehend the main point of someone's argument? If so, people extremely good at mathematical thinking tend to be weaker when it comes to emotional thinking. I actually am an "interpersonal nerd" - all my game design work is based on communication and psychology rather than numbers or engineering. Any class that involved reading comprehension was a blowoff for me in college, it was absurdly easy to figure out the main points of the subject for me. Does that suddenly make me not a nerd, or am I an example of a nerd that has a different skill set than most engineers?
Either way, both are very narrow interpretations of what "the big picture" is.
I think part of their short-sightedness is that nerds often don't obtain social validation, so for them to stubbornly ignore the bigger picture actually makes a lot of sense, to me. If people were to give a greater credibility to nerds as a whole, and nerds were able to cross the circuits in their brain that make them less socially inept, that we'd have a nice median where we see them understanding the larger machinations of things in general rather than dwelling on their idle, pedantic needs - that being, again, validation, albeit in a different manner than one might expect from a more socially adept individual.
Sorry if that was a bit rambly/incoherent - I had difficulty expressing what I meant in a way that was satisfying to me.
It's just my subjective opinion based on my observations. But from what I see, nerds do themselves a great disservice by never really learning how to engage the big picture.
I can't think of any other group where people with so much intelligence and potential capability hold so little power.
Other people are constantly making decisions for nerds that decide their fate. Nerds grouch and bemoan the fact that others don't understand them internally, but really its because they dont speak the same language as the rest of the world. The long term consequence of this is that they cede their power in a society where speaking up is a must.
Let's take what you wrote because its a great point.
You said "If people were to give a greater credibility to nerds as a whole..."
Immediately that's a conditional that depends on the the non-nerd understanding the nerd. That's an example of ceding power. (it's passive in a way) Nerds have to wait until the non-nerd gets the nerd.
What if the non-nerd never gets the nerd? Does that mean the nerd waits a lifetime before he gets credibility?
I think emphasizing the pedantic in an attempt to gain some recognition is even worse. It lends credence to the idea that nerds simply are NOT worth paying attention to because they only care about the pedantic.
That's what I'm saying - nerds seek validation. They don't get validation.
The seeking of validation in this way is a very passive position, and in person to person interactions, non-nerds will pick up on that passivity. If you say my life won't get better until someone understand me/validates me, you're inherently saying my life won't get better unless someone else does something.
I'm sorry, but in any kind of competitive setting requiring people, passivity like that will cause one to get chewed up alive and spit out like trash. Depending on the validation of another person is the social equivalent of exposed in complete submission to the powers that be, depending on nothing but the mercy and kindness of others grant their validation whenever they feel like it.
Rather than depending on the validation of others(for non-nerds to come to the nerd side), why don't nerds to try to understand the world at large.
What the "big picture" is happens to be subjective. Nothing is more closely associated with "fine print", "loopholes", "rules lawyering", "legalese" and "technicalities" than the legal profession.
I'm pretty sure that the only guys that can really claim to focus no the big picture are astronomers.
I have found this to be dangerous thinking. As subjective as law can be, there is a great deal of rigidity or bright lines. Courts are not nearly as bound by fine print or technicalities as one would think. Judges are far from helpless in the wake of technical minutiae tying up their hands. They can and will resolve issues based on greater considerations if pushed sufficiently.
Essentially, the intent behind a law will carry weight when it needs to. There are cases where the intent--the point behind the law---will override even the direct text of the law.
The intent behind the law certainly does carry weight. So does the intent behind a project, despite the engineer stereotype of obsessing over something that doesn't actually matter in the big picture. You brought up a stereotype for one group, so I brought up the stereotype for another group. You're now objecting tot he fact that the stereotype is neither universal nor overwhelmingly valid. The same can be said for engineers.
The whole "nerd" category is extremely broad and nigh-useless in this as well. Does the creative director for a game studio not focus on the big picture? That job is all about the big picture. Or are we only talking about the big picture on a social scale? Or a galactic one? In that case, most people and professions don't think about how their every action impacts society as a whole. Is a defensive tackle a nerd? They spend almost all their focus on one small part of a largely meaningless game.
I'm not talking about being a cog in a system. Everyone obviously plays a role in the big picture. What I mean is nerds don't focus on the big picture in that they do focus on the pedantic.
Nerds miss the point when it comes to communicating ideas. The other person is trying to communicate an idea and nerds run off in a different direction in a manner that interests them. I've seen that pattern over and over again.
I've seen that behavior in just about everyone, in every walk of life. Are you trying to suggest that people that are highly interested in something tend to gravitate back to things that interest them, the way a football fan tends to keep moving the conversation back to football or using football metaphors? If so, I don't see how this is a meaningful observation.
Are you talking about being easily distracted by tangents? Or are you talking about not being able to comprehend the main point of someone's argument? If so, people extremely good at mathematical thinking tend to be weaker when it comes to emotional thinking. I actually am an "interpersonal nerd" - all my game design work is based on communication and psychology rather than numbers or engineering. Any class that involved reading comprehension was a blowoff for me in college, it was absurdly easy to figure out the main points of the subject for me. Does that suddenly make me not a nerd, or am I an example of a nerd that has a different skill set than most engineers?
Either way, both are very narrow interpretations of what "the big picture" is.
I would say that would make you a nerd with a very different skill set from other engineers. I'd say most engineers work day by day with numbers as their source material, notwithstanding the usual meeting or 'TPS report'. The ability to comprehend the main point of arguments and communication in general is what I'm getting at. That is why I used the word pedantic. Emphasizing, spelling or grammatical issues will cause a loss of focus on the fact that there is written communication with actual content an author tried to convey.
At the end of the day, an author who writes a paper does not do it to get chewed out for grammatical errors, or because they used "million" when they meant "billion"
The author writes a paper seeking to convey an idea. They are looking for responses to that idea, even if the attempted expression of that idea maybe in artful.
I would say that would make you a nerd with a very different skill set from other engineers. I'd say most engineers work day by day with numbers as their source material, notwithstanding the usual meeting or 'TPS report'. The ability to comprehend the main point of arguments and communication in general is what I'm getting at
It seems we've gone from, "Nerds miss the big picture" to, "Engineers have trouble easily communicating with non-engineers."
I think part of their short-sightedness is that nerds often don't obtain social validation, so for them to stubbornly ignore the bigger picture actually makes a lot of sense, to me. If people were to give a greater credibility to nerds as a whole, and nerds were able to cross the circuits in their brain that make them less socially inept, that we'd have a nice median where we see them understanding the larger machinations of things in general rather than dwelling on their idle, pedantic needs - that being, again, validation, albeit in a different manner than one might expect from a more socially adept individual.
Sorry if that was a bit rambly/incoherent - I had difficulty expressing what I meant in a way that was satisfying to me.
It's just my subjective opinion based on my observations. But from what I see, nerds do themselves a great disservice by never really learning how to engage the big picture.
I can't think of any other group where people with so much intelligence and potential capability hold so little power.
Other people are constantly making decisions for nerds that decide their fate. Nerds grouch and bemoan the fact that others don't understand them internally, but really its because they dont speak the same language as the rest of the world. The long term consequence of this is that they cede their power in a society where speaking up is a must.
Let's take what you wrote because its a great point.
You said "If people were to give a greater credibility to nerds as a whole..."
Immediately that's a conditional that depends on the the non-nerd understanding the nerd. That's an example of ceding power. (it's passive in a way) Nerds have to wait until the non-nerd gets the nerd.
What if the non-nerd never gets the nerd? Does that mean the nerd waits a lifetime before he gets credibility?
I think emphasizing the pedantic in an attempt to gain some recognition is even worse. It lends credence to the idea that nerds simply are NOT worth paying attention to because they only care about the pedantic.
That's what I'm saying - nerds seek validation. They don't get validation.
The seeking of validation in this way is a very passive position, and in person to person interactions, non-nerds will pick up on that passivity. If you say my life won't get better until someone understand me/validates me, you're inherently saying my life won't get better unless someone else does something.
I'm sorry, but in any kind of competitive setting requiring people, passivity like that will cause one to get chewed up alive and spit out like trash. Depending on the validation of another person is the social equivalent of exposed in complete submission to the powers that be, depending on nothing but the mercy and kindness of others grant their validation whenever they feel like it.
Rather than depending on the validation of others(for non-nerds to come to the nerd side), why don't nerds to try to understand the world at large.
I feel like you think I'm defending the standpoint of nerds. I'm not. I'm in total agreement with you - they need to wake up and smell the coffee, and change whatever aspect of their personality is blocking them from becoming socially adept. "But I hate people! The plebs suck!" Boo-*******-hoo. I hate people, too. I'm a misanthrope and a cynic. But I'm fantastic at pretending that's not the case for the sake of improving my own social and economical standing. And I'm posting on a forum for MtG - I'm definitely a nerd, to some degree. I'm sure most of us are. But I'd also like to think that the people who are seeing my side of this debate as correct are in a similar boat to my own.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
I think part of their short-sightedness is that nerds often don't obtain social validation, so for them to stubbornly ignore the bigger picture actually makes a lot of sense, to me. If people were to give a greater credibility to nerds as a whole, and nerds were able to cross the circuits in their brain that make them less socially inept, that we'd have a nice median where we see them understanding the larger machinations of things in general rather than dwelling on their idle, pedantic needs - that being, again, validation, albeit in a different manner than one might expect from a more socially adept individual.
Sorry if that was a bit rambly/incoherent - I had difficulty expressing what I meant in a way that was satisfying to me.
It's just my subjective opinion based on my observations. But from what I see, nerds do themselves a great disservice by never really learning how to engage the big picture.
I can't think of any other group where people with so much intelligence and potential capability hold so little power.
Other people are constantly making decisions for nerds that decide their fate. Nerds grouch and bemoan the fact that others don't understand them internally, but really its because they dont speak the same language as the rest of the world. The long term consequence of this is that they cede their power in a society where speaking up is a must.
Let's take what you wrote because its a great point.
You said "If people were to give a greater credibility to nerds as a whole..."
Immediately that's a conditional that depends on the the non-nerd understanding the nerd. That's an example of ceding power. (it's passive in a way) Nerds have to wait until the non-nerd gets the nerd.
What if the non-nerd never gets the nerd? Does that mean the nerd waits a lifetime before he gets credibility?
I think emphasizing the pedantic in an attempt to gain some recognition is even worse. It lends credence to the idea that nerds simply are NOT worth paying attention to because they only care about the pedantic.
That's what I'm saying - nerds seek validation. They don't get validation.
The seeking of validation in this way is a very passive position, and in person to person interactions, non-nerds will pick up on that passivity. If you say my life won't get better until someone understand me/validates me, you're inherently saying my life won't get better unless someone else does something.
I'm sorry, but in any kind of competitive setting requiring people, passivity like that will cause one to get chewed up alive and spit out like trash. Depending on the validation of another person is the social equivalent of exposed in complete submission to the powers that be, depending on nothing but the mercy and kindness of others grant their validation whenever they feel like it.
Rather than depending on the validation of others(for non-nerds to come to the nerd side), why don't nerds to try to understand the world at large.
I feel like you think I'm defending the standpoint of nerds. I'm not. I'm in total agreement with you - they need to wake up and smell the coffee, and change whatever aspect of their personality is blocking them from becoming socially adept. "But I hate people! The plebs suck!" Boo-*******-hoo. I hate people, too. I'm a misanthrope and a cynic. But I'm fantastic at pretending that's not the case for the sake of improving my own social and economical standing. And I'm posting on a forum for MtG - I'm definitely a nerd, to some degree. I'm
sure most of us are. But I'd also like to think that the people who are seeing my side of this debate as correct are in a similar boat to my own.
This being the debate forum, I'm not going to assume that whatever you write here is necessarily your personal view. I play devils advocate all the time.
But I did want to engage the point you raised. I thank you for introducing the nerd's perspective because it gives a conceptual framework to work with, and I think the points you raised were good ones.
You showed that nerds think a certain way. I'm here to critique that line of thinking by showing it is inherently passive and results in the long run in nerds being chewed up and spit out by society.
If nerds do not make the effort to reach out to other people, then once again they depend on others to reach out on their behalf.
That equivalency may seem harder to show. But I'll stand by it. Failure to make the effort to reach out to other people inherently means depending on others to reach out on their behalf.
Take for example a congressman. He has to decide what set of issues to present and which battles to fight. There are many interest groups vying for his attention.
If nerds choose not to engage the congressman, then it's not that the congressman will refuse to pick up nerd issues (after all some things nerds care about ARE important), its that they now depend passively
on the congressman to reach into the nerd's collective conciousness and fight battles for the nerds. There is no guarantee this will ever occur. Indeed, it rarely does.
The tragedy in all this is that nerds are more than capable enough of making a voice for themselves. They possess the intelligence, and they certainly have plenty of opinions.
I would say that would make you a nerd with a very different skill set from other engineers. I'd say most engineers work day by day with numbers as their source material, notwithstanding the usual meeting or 'TPS report'. The ability to comprehend the main point of arguments and communication in general is what I'm getting at
It seems we've gone from, "Nerds miss the big picture" to, "Engineers have trouble easily communicating with non-engineers."
Okay then.
This is precisely what I mean by missing the big picture. Let's take a look at what happened.
Let's say you win at making your point ok?
You managed to show Tomcat is dumb. He went from nerds miss the big picture to engineers have trouble communicating with non-engineers. You nit picked at something definition based, and there has been no substantive advancement on any point of particular merit.
I'm showing this to you because even if you are correct, even if I choose to stand down, all you have shown is that you object to the ambiguity of the term "big picture".
Do you think I opened this thread because I wanted to do nothing more than argue about the breadth of the term "big picture"?
Probably not.
That's what I mean when nerds miss out on the big picture. I had an intent to try to communicate an idea. You however are critiquing the form in how I broached the topic.
It's pedantic, and if you win, you still win nothing.
If I concede, all you win is a me opening another thread this time worded in a way that is more satisfying to you.
It just completely misses the point.
Ask yourself this: In your opinion, what is the most valuable subject matter or content exchanged between you and I in the last few responses?
In my opinion, there is almost no value, because like I said, even if you win, you might get me to use another term besides 'big picture'. You might get me to word something differently.
Now Take a look at my exchange with Iso. What value was exchanged there? Alot. We didn't necessarily agree, but he laid forth an outline for how nerds generally think, and I critiqued the consequences of that pattern of thinking. This is substantive content. This is an example of engaging the authors point and purpose. One doesn't have to agree, but at least there is substance exchanged.
This is precisely what I mean by missing the big picture. Let's take a look at what happened.
Let's say you win at making your point ok?
I didn't know I was trying to win anything. But okay.
You managed to show Tomcat is dumb.
No, I've managed to show that your initial terms were misleading and vague - and that with clarification your points have lost the initial wide impact they initially seemed to.
He went from nerds miss the big picture to engineers have trouble communicating with non-engineers. You nit picked at something definition based, and there has been no substantive advancement on any point of particular merit.
It seems your problem communicating with engineers might be more based around the fact that you aren't taking your time to clarify your thoughts ahead of time, and be specific, then getting upset when someone doesn't respond to what you were thinking rather than what you were saying.
I'm showing this to you because even if you are correct, even if I choose to stand down, all you have shown is that you object to the ambiguity of the term "big picture".
Do you think I opened this thread because I wanted to do nothing more than argue about the breadth of the term "big picture"?
Probably not.
That's what I mean when nerds miss out on the big picture. I had an intent to try to communicate an idea. You however are critiquing the form in how I broached the topic.
It's pedantic, and if you win, you still win nothing.
If you don't think getting a clear understanding of what the other person is saying matters in a discussion, I'm not sure how to respond to that.
How about if I go...
Me: Dogs are clearly superior pets to cats.
Other: Why? You have to take care of dogs a lot more and--
Me: Dude, you're missing my point. I just meant cats don't play fetch much and fetch is a good way of getting a pet exercise.
Other: Okay, so what you meant was "Dogs are easier pets to exercise than cats".
Me: Man, stop nitpicking my points. This is such a problem with you nerds. Do you really think I meant dogs are universally better than cats? Critique my ACTUAL argument please, not the form I make it in.
I would say that would make you a nerd with a very different skill set from other engineers. I'd say most engineers work day by day with numbers as their source material, notwithstanding the usual meeting or 'TPS report'. The ability to comprehend the main point of arguments and communication in general is what I'm getting at
It seems we've gone from, "Nerds miss the big picture" to, "Engineers have trouble easily communicating with non-engineers."
Okay then.
This is precisely what I mean by missing the big picture. Let's take a look at what happened.
Let's say you win at making your point ok?
You managed to show Tomcat is dumb. He went from nerds miss the big picture to engineers have trouble communicating with non-engineers. You nit picked at something definition based, and there has been no substantive advancement on any point of particular merit.
I'm showing this to you because even if you are correct, even if I choose to stand down, all you have shown is that you object to the ambiguity of the term "big picture".
Do you think I opened this thread because I wanted to do nothing more than argue about the breadth of the term "big picture"?
Probably not.
That's what I mean when nerds miss out on the big picture. I had an intent to try to communicate an idea. You however are critiquing the form in how I broached the topic.
It's pedantic, and if you win, you still win nothing.
If I concede, all you win is a me opening another thread this time worded in a way that is more satisfying to you.
It just completely misses the point.
Ask yourself this: In your opinion, what is the most valuable subject matter or content exchanged between you and I in the last few responses?
In my opinion, there is almost no value, because like I said, even if you win, you might get me to use another term besides 'big picture'. You might get me to word something differently.
Now Take a look at my exchange with Iso. What value was exchanged there? Alot. We didn't necessarily agree, but he laid forth an outline for how nerds generally think, and I critiqued the consequences of that pattern of thinking. This is substantive content. This is an example of engaging the authors point and purpose. One doesn't have to agree, but at least there is substance exchanged.
It looks like you're missing the point behind what Staric is saying. You're not seeing the big picture.
It looks to me like he disagrees with your core observation that nerds tend not to see the big picture.
He also looks like he's saying that your entire thesis is unclear, since "nerds" and "big picture" can mean different things depending on the specific context.
I kinda agree with him. I haven't known nerds to fail to see the big picture any more than other people, and you really shown me anything that can convince me that your observation is the correct one
I'd feel more comfortable sticking my oar in this argument if the thread included a coherent definition of 'nerd'. Jay13x came closest with 'an obsessive interest in things', but I'm not sure how that necessarily translates to social inadequacy, idle pedantry and passivity.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
This is precisely what I mean by missing the big picture. Let's take a look at what happened.
Let's say you win at making your point ok?
I didn't know I was trying to win anything. But okay.
You managed to show Tomcat is dumb.
No, I've managed to show that your initial terms were misleading and vague - and that with clarification your points have lost the initial wide impact they initially seemed to.
He went from nerds miss the big picture to engineers have trouble communicating with non-engineers. You nit picked at something definition based, and there has been no substantive advancement on any point of particular merit.
It seems your problem communicating with engineers might be more based around the fact that you aren't taking your time to clarify your thoughts ahead of time, and be specific, then getting upset when someone doesn't respond to what you were thinking rather than what you were saying.
I'm showing this to you because even if you are correct, even if I choose to stand down, all you have shown is that you object to the ambiguity of the term "big picture".
Do you think I opened this thread because I wanted to do nothing more than argue about the breadth of the term "big picture"?
Probably not.
That's what I mean when nerds miss out on the big picture. I had an intent to try to communicate an idea. You however are critiquing the form in how I broached the topic.
It's pedantic, and if you win, you still win nothing.
If you don't think getting a clear understanding of what the other person is saying matters in a discussion, I'm not sure how to respond to that.
How about if I go...
Me: Dogs are clearly superior pets to cats.
Other: Why? You have to take care of dogs a lot more and--
Me: Dude, you're missing my point. I just meant cats don't play fetch much and fetch is a good way of getting a pet exercise.
Other: Okay, so what you meant was "Dogs are easier pets to exercise than cats".
Me: Man, stop nitpicking my points. This is such a problem with you nerds. Do you really think I meant dogs are universally better than cats? Critique my ACTUAL argument please, not the form I make it in.
Let's take a look at what you wrote.
It seems we've gone from, "Nerds miss the big picture" to, "Engineers have trouble easily communicating with non-engineers."
Okay then.
What substance did that contribute at all? It's nothing more than sass and attitude. It is a response utterly devoid of any substance whatsoever.
If you really were able to extract "Engineers have trouble easily communicating with non-engineers." out of what I was saying, why didn't you respond to that?
Tell me, what was the purpose behind those words? You were the author. What content were you trying to convey?
Because if you were merely trying to tell me that your initial premise was unclear, this:
It seems we've gone from, "Nerds miss the big picture" to, "Engineers have trouble easily communicating with non-engineers."
Okay then.
is a poor way of communicating that idea. It's nothing more than derisive sass. It is well within my capabilities to write like that too.
It seems we've gone from, "Nerds miss the big picture" to, "Engineers have trouble easily communicating with non-engineers."
Okay then.
What substance did that contribute at all? It's nothing more than sass and attitude. It is a response utterly devoid of any substance whatsoever.
If you really were able to extract "Engineers have trouble easily communicating with non-engineers." out of what I was saying, why didn't you respond to that?
Tell me, what was the purpose behind those words? You were the author. What content were you trying to convey?
Because if you were merely trying to tell me that your initial premise was unclear, this:
It seems we've gone from, "Nerds miss the big picture" to, "Engineers have trouble easily communicating with non-engineers."
Okay then.
is a poor way of communicating that idea. It's nothing more than dismissive sass. It is well within my capabilities to write like that too.
You're missing the big picture. Critique my main point please, not the form I make it in. After all, clarifying what someone is trying to say is pointless nitpicking.
The reason I didn't bother responding to your clarified argument is that I don't find it to be an interesting observation. I was interested in your initial sweeping statement "nerds miss the big picture" and I'm not interested in a narrow cultural stereotype like, "engineers have trouble communicating with non-engineers". Communication difficulties between professionals and non-professionals are well understood, and the reasons behind it are well documented. Additionally, there's extensive science that suggests people that are good at math and technical thinking often are weaker when it comes to emotional intelligence and vice versa. The matter is largely settled and I have no obligation to engage in a topic I find uninteresting. If you had been clear originally in the point you were trying to make, I wouldn't have stepped into the thread at all.
It seems possible that your problems communicating with people might actually stem significantly from your own vaguery, and your frustrated reaction when people try to figure out what you're actually talking about.
My situation is very similar to TomCat26 in that I studied math and science in college, then went to law school, and now practice patent law. I think bLatch also has a similar background so I'd be interested to hear his take on this too.
I have to totally disagree with the idea that "thinking like a lawyer" means seeing the big picture. The law, sometimes more so than science and math, is obsessed with minutiae and doctrinal consistency at the expense of the "big picture." This isn't all bad, it has advantages and disadvantages, but to say that law looks at the world in a non-nerdy way is not true at all.
Let's take the example of a doctrine called "venue." Venue, to simplify greatly, is the way a court decides whether it's appropriate to sue a particular person or company in a particular place. For example, if someone sues Apple Computer in a Federal Court in Texas, Apple might try to argue that the case should be transferred to a Federal Court in California. The way a court figures out venue is to apply a complicated series of balancing factors and decide whether those factors weigh more in favor of transfer or not. These factors come from the pre-computer age, and many make basically zero sense today. One factor is where relevant documents are located. Fifty years ago, that might have been important. Today, everyone scans all the important documents and produces them electronically, so it's irrelevant whether the documents are next door or in Antarctica. Another factor is where the witnesses are located. You would think that would matter, since it affects whether you need to buy a plane ticket for the witness, but when you're talking about a huge company this is usually irrelevant. The company will typically have hired attorneys from all over the country, including places like New York and Chicago. These attorneys are flying to trial and hearings far more than the witnesses will be, and are billing hundreds or thousands of dollars an hour. The cost of a few extra plane tickets for witnesses is an almost infinitesimally small fraction of the total commercial litigation costs. Something like "where are the attorneys located" is more likely to be relevant than "where are the witnesses located," but the court considers only the latter.
When considering venue, the court is entirely focused on these specific obscure doctrines. What the court doesn't care about, and in fact isn't allowed to care about are all the big picture questions: Which court has a busier case load, California or Texas? Which court has more expertise in this type of lawsuit? Would it actually save money to have the trial in one place versus the other? All of that is off limits.
Now, one could argue that the way we do things now is better. Having highly structured, "nerdy" rules promotes consistency in the judicial system and cuts down on corruption because there is less flexibility for the judge to just decide things however he or she wants. But good or bad, this type of minutiae-focused framework is very widespread across the legal system, it's not just the venue example.
So to nerd this out, you started with the Sharingan. Then you upgraded to the Mangekyo Sharingan, which ultimately leads to blindness, siding into an Eternal Mangekyo Sharingan, and have now finally upgraded to a Rinnegan seeing the world the way it truly.
In other words your life choices and experiences and education have enlightened your world view. It's a normal thing for any person.
If you want to think big, try playing with grand strategy and foreign policy a bit.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
A way of looking into the situation is taking into account the linear-Active, multi-Active and reactive traits of cultures (Lewis 2006). While his categorization is aimed towards categorizing cultures rather than individuals, it is pretty easy to argue that since cultures are built out of individuals the categorizations are adept at describing individuals as well, or more precisely the average individual within a certain culture - Lewis himself hints at this by claiming certain fields are predominantly built out of certain kinds of individuals. Lewis argues that at least in terms of business practices, the reactive cultures tend to be the best at taking the view of the whole picture - in contrast linear-active people tend to compartmentalize the projects and problems and multi-active people tend to let the projects and problems influence one another (p34).
In light of that categorization the question to ask becomes whether or not geeks/nerds are predominantly linear-active, multi-active, or reactive. Considering the traits of linear-active people: Direct, primarily introverted, result-oriented, data-oriented, tendency to stick to plans and doing one thing at a time (p39) that could very well be argued to be the predominant type. Often these traits are beneficial in academic fields of research and especially engineering-related fields. Especially in contrast to multi-active cultures and people, which tend to be characterized as multitasking, extroverted, emotional, with the tendency towards unrestricted body language and desire to complete human transactions. Not only do we therefore have an answer to the question, but we are also able to show a correlation between personality traits and nerd/geekdom: Things that we refer to as geeky/nerdy tend to reward compartmentalization and task-oriented approach.
Going back to the level of cultures, it might be worth noting that the United States, Germany and UK are predominantly linear-active and thus bad at seeing the big picture. In stark contrast reactive Japanese and Chinese are adept at seeing it, and linear-active Italians and Spaniards are capable of interrelating the multiple aspects. At least according to Lewis, that is.
Richard D. Lewis. (2006) When Cultures Collide - Leading across cultures Brealey Publishing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm not the only one however. Having many friends and colleagues in the engineering field, I continue to see it day to day. I have also heard my friends in law characterize nerds in the same way.
They never see the big picture. My question is what are your thoughts? Valid/invalid?
I'm pretty sure that the only guys that can really claim to focus no the big picture are astronomers.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Sorry if that was a bit rambly/incoherent - I had difficulty expressing what I meant in a way that was satisfying to me.
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
It's just my subjective opinion based on my observations. But from what I see, nerds do themselves a great disservice by never really learning how to engage the big picture.
I can't think of any other group where people with so much intelligence and potential capability hold so little power.
Other people are constantly making decisions for nerds that decide their fate. Nerds grouch and bemoan the fact that others don't understand them internally, but really its because they dont speak the same language as the rest of the world. The long term consequence of this is that they cede their power in a society where speaking up is a must.
Let's take what you wrote because its a great point.
You said "If people were to give a greater credibility to nerds as a whole..."
Immediately that's a conditional that depends on the the non-nerd understanding the nerd. That's an example of ceding power. (it's passive in a way) Nerds have to wait until the non-nerd gets the nerd.
What if the non-nerd never gets the nerd? Does that mean the nerd waits a lifetime before he gets credibility?
I think emphasizing the pedantic in an attempt to gain some recognition is even worse. It lends credence to the idea that nerds simply are NOT worth paying attention to because they only care about the pedantic.
Obsessive narrow interest seems to me to lead to tunnel vision in nerds. But there are plenty of non-nerds that obsess over their narrow agendas over a lifetime, while remaining capable in engaging the greater world effectively.
I have found this to be dangerous thinking. As subjective as law can be, there is a great deal of rigidity or bright lines. Courts are not nearly as bound by fine print or technicalities as one would think. Judges are far from helpless in the wake of technical minutiae tying up their hands. They can and will resolve issues based on greater considerations if pushed sufficiently.
Essentially, the intent behind a law will carry weight when it needs to. There are cases where the intent--the point behind the law---will override even the direct text of the law.
The intent behind the law certainly does carry weight. So does the intent behind a project, despite the engineer stereotype of obsessing over something that doesn't actually matter in the big picture. You brought up a stereotype for one group, so I brought up the stereotype for another group. You're now objecting tot he fact that the stereotype is neither universal nor overwhelmingly valid. The same can be said for engineers.
The whole "nerd" category is extremely broad and nigh-useless in this as well. Does the creative director for a game studio not focus on the big picture? That job is all about the big picture. Or are we only talking about the big picture on a social scale? Or a galactic one? In that case, most people and professions don't think about how their every action impacts society as a whole. Is a defensive tackle a nerd? They spend almost all their focus on one small part of a largely meaningless game.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
That's what I'm saying - nerds seek validation. They don't get validation.
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
I'm not talking about being a cog in a system. Everyone obviously plays a role in the big picture. What I mean is nerds don't focus on the big picture in that they do focus on the pedantic.
Nerds miss the point when it comes to communicating ideas. The other person is trying to communicate an idea and nerds run off in a different direction in a manner that interests them. I've seen that pattern over and over again.
I've seen that behavior in just about everyone, in every walk of life. Are you trying to suggest that people that are highly interested in something tend to gravitate back to things that interest them, the way a football fan tends to keep moving the conversation back to football or using football metaphors? If so, I don't see how this is a meaningful observation.
Are you talking about being easily distracted by tangents? Or are you talking about not being able to comprehend the main point of someone's argument? If so, people extremely good at mathematical thinking tend to be weaker when it comes to emotional thinking. I actually am an "interpersonal nerd" - all my game design work is based on communication and psychology rather than numbers or engineering. Any class that involved reading comprehension was a blowoff for me in college, it was absurdly easy to figure out the main points of the subject for me. Does that suddenly make me not a nerd, or am I an example of a nerd that has a different skill set than most engineers?
Either way, both are very narrow interpretations of what "the big picture" is.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
The seeking of validation in this way is a very passive position, and in person to person interactions, non-nerds will pick up on that passivity. If you say my life won't get better until someone understand me/validates me, you're inherently saying my life won't get better unless someone else does something.
I'm sorry, but in any kind of competitive setting requiring people, passivity like that will cause one to get chewed up alive and spit out like trash. Depending on the validation of another person is the social equivalent of exposed in complete submission to the powers that be, depending on nothing but the mercy and kindness of others grant their validation whenever they feel like it.
Rather than depending on the validation of others(for non-nerds to come to the nerd side), why don't nerds to try to understand the world at large.
I would say that would make you a nerd with a very different skill set from other engineers. I'd say most engineers work day by day with numbers as their source material, notwithstanding the usual meeting or 'TPS report'. The ability to comprehend the main point of arguments and communication in general is what I'm getting at. That is why I used the word pedantic. Emphasizing, spelling or grammatical issues will cause a loss of focus on the fact that there is written communication with actual content an author tried to convey.
At the end of the day, an author who writes a paper does not do it to get chewed out for grammatical errors, or because they used "million" when they meant "billion"
The author writes a paper seeking to convey an idea. They are looking for responses to that idea, even if the attempted expression of that idea maybe in artful.
It seems we've gone from, "Nerds miss the big picture" to, "Engineers have trouble easily communicating with non-engineers."
Okay then.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
I feel like you think I'm defending the standpoint of nerds. I'm not. I'm in total agreement with you - they need to wake up and smell the coffee, and change whatever aspect of their personality is blocking them from becoming socially adept. "But I hate people! The plebs suck!" Boo-*******-hoo. I hate people, too. I'm a misanthrope and a cynic. But I'm fantastic at pretending that's not the case for the sake of improving my own social and economical standing. And I'm posting on a forum for MtG - I'm definitely a nerd, to some degree. I'm sure most of us are. But I'd also like to think that the people who are seeing my side of this debate as correct are in a similar boat to my own.
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
This being the debate forum, I'm not going to assume that whatever you write here is necessarily your personal view. I play devils advocate all the time.
But I did want to engage the point you raised. I thank you for introducing the nerd's perspective because it gives a conceptual framework to work with, and I think the points you raised were good ones.
You showed that nerds think a certain way. I'm here to critique that line of thinking by showing it is inherently passive and results in the long run in nerds being chewed up and spit out by society.
If nerds do not make the effort to reach out to other people, then once again they depend on others to reach out on their behalf.
That equivalency may seem harder to show. But I'll stand by it. Failure to make the effort to reach out to other people inherently means depending on others to reach out on their behalf.
Take for example a congressman. He has to decide what set of issues to present and which battles to fight. There are many interest groups vying for his attention.
If nerds choose not to engage the congressman, then it's not that the congressman will refuse to pick up nerd issues (after all some things nerds care about ARE important), its that they now depend passively
on the congressman to reach into the nerd's collective conciousness and fight battles for the nerds. There is no guarantee this will ever occur. Indeed, it rarely does.
The tragedy in all this is that nerds are more than capable enough of making a voice for themselves. They possess the intelligence, and they certainly have plenty of opinions.
This is precisely what I mean by missing the big picture. Let's take a look at what happened.
Let's say you win at making your point ok?
You managed to show Tomcat is dumb. He went from nerds miss the big picture to engineers have trouble communicating with non-engineers. You nit picked at something definition based, and there has been no substantive advancement on any point of particular merit.
I'm showing this to you because even if you are correct, even if I choose to stand down, all you have shown is that you object to the ambiguity of the term "big picture".
Do you think I opened this thread because I wanted to do nothing more than argue about the breadth of the term "big picture"?
Probably not.
That's what I mean when nerds miss out on the big picture. I had an intent to try to communicate an idea. You however are critiquing the form in how I broached the topic.
It's pedantic, and if you win, you still win nothing.
If I concede, all you win is a me opening another thread this time worded in a way that is more satisfying to you.
It just completely misses the point.
Ask yourself this: In your opinion, what is the most valuable subject matter or content exchanged between you and I in the last few responses?
In my opinion, there is almost no value, because like I said, even if you win, you might get me to use another term besides 'big picture'. You might get me to word something differently.
Now Take a look at my exchange with Iso. What value was exchanged there? Alot. We didn't necessarily agree, but he laid forth an outline for how nerds generally think, and I critiqued the consequences of that pattern of thinking. This is substantive content. This is an example of engaging the authors point and purpose. One doesn't have to agree, but at least there is substance exchanged.
I didn't know I was trying to win anything. But okay.
No, I've managed to show that your initial terms were misleading and vague - and that with clarification your points have lost the initial wide impact they initially seemed to.
It seems your problem communicating with engineers might be more based around the fact that you aren't taking your time to clarify your thoughts ahead of time, and be specific, then getting upset when someone doesn't respond to what you were thinking rather than what you were saying.
If you don't think getting a clear understanding of what the other person is saying matters in a discussion, I'm not sure how to respond to that.
How about if I go...
Me: Dogs are clearly superior pets to cats.
Other: Why? You have to take care of dogs a lot more and--
Me: Dude, you're missing my point. I just meant cats don't play fetch much and fetch is a good way of getting a pet exercise.
Other: Okay, so what you meant was "Dogs are easier pets to exercise than cats".
Me: Man, stop nitpicking my points. This is such a problem with you nerds. Do you really think I meant dogs are universally better than cats? Critique my ACTUAL argument please, not the form I make it in.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
It looks like you're missing the point behind what Staric is saying. You're not seeing the big picture.
It looks to me like he disagrees with your core observation that nerds tend not to see the big picture.
He also looks like he's saying that your entire thesis is unclear, since "nerds" and "big picture" can mean different things depending on the specific context.
I kinda agree with him. I haven't known nerds to fail to see the big picture any more than other people, and you really shown me anything that can convince me that your observation is the correct one
Let's take a look at what you wrote.
It seems we've gone from, "Nerds miss the big picture" to, "Engineers have trouble easily communicating with non-engineers."
Okay then.
What substance did that contribute at all? It's nothing more than sass and attitude. It is a response utterly devoid of any substance whatsoever.
If you really were able to extract "Engineers have trouble easily communicating with non-engineers." out of what I was saying, why didn't you respond to that?
Tell me, what was the purpose behind those words? You were the author. What content were you trying to convey?
Because if you were merely trying to tell me that your initial premise was unclear, this:
It seems we've gone from, "Nerds miss the big picture" to, "Engineers have trouble easily communicating with non-engineers."
Okay then.
is a poor way of communicating that idea. It's nothing more than derisive sass. It is well within my capabilities to write like that too.
You're missing the big picture. Critique my main point please, not the form I make it in. After all, clarifying what someone is trying to say is pointless nitpicking.
The reason I didn't bother responding to your clarified argument is that I don't find it to be an interesting observation. I was interested in your initial sweeping statement "nerds miss the big picture" and I'm not interested in a narrow cultural stereotype like, "engineers have trouble communicating with non-engineers". Communication difficulties between professionals and non-professionals are well understood, and the reasons behind it are well documented. Additionally, there's extensive science that suggests people that are good at math and technical thinking often are weaker when it comes to emotional intelligence and vice versa. The matter is largely settled and I have no obligation to engage in a topic I find uninteresting. If you had been clear originally in the point you were trying to make, I wouldn't have stepped into the thread at all.
It seems possible that your problems communicating with people might actually stem significantly from your own vaguery, and your frustrated reaction when people try to figure out what you're actually talking about.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
I have to totally disagree with the idea that "thinking like a lawyer" means seeing the big picture. The law, sometimes more so than science and math, is obsessed with minutiae and doctrinal consistency at the expense of the "big picture." This isn't all bad, it has advantages and disadvantages, but to say that law looks at the world in a non-nerdy way is not true at all.
Let's take the example of a doctrine called "venue." Venue, to simplify greatly, is the way a court decides whether it's appropriate to sue a particular person or company in a particular place. For example, if someone sues Apple Computer in a Federal Court in Texas, Apple might try to argue that the case should be transferred to a Federal Court in California. The way a court figures out venue is to apply a complicated series of balancing factors and decide whether those factors weigh more in favor of transfer or not. These factors come from the pre-computer age, and many make basically zero sense today. One factor is where relevant documents are located. Fifty years ago, that might have been important. Today, everyone scans all the important documents and produces them electronically, so it's irrelevant whether the documents are next door or in Antarctica. Another factor is where the witnesses are located. You would think that would matter, since it affects whether you need to buy a plane ticket for the witness, but when you're talking about a huge company this is usually irrelevant. The company will typically have hired attorneys from all over the country, including places like New York and Chicago. These attorneys are flying to trial and hearings far more than the witnesses will be, and are billing hundreds or thousands of dollars an hour. The cost of a few extra plane tickets for witnesses is an almost infinitesimally small fraction of the total commercial litigation costs. Something like "where are the attorneys located" is more likely to be relevant than "where are the witnesses located," but the court considers only the latter.
When considering venue, the court is entirely focused on these specific obscure doctrines. What the court doesn't care about, and in fact isn't allowed to care about are all the big picture questions: Which court has a busier case load, California or Texas? Which court has more expertise in this type of lawsuit? Would it actually save money to have the trial in one place versus the other? All of that is off limits.
Now, one could argue that the way we do things now is better. Having highly structured, "nerdy" rules promotes consistency in the judicial system and cuts down on corruption because there is less flexibility for the judge to just decide things however he or she wants. But good or bad, this type of minutiae-focused framework is very widespread across the legal system, it's not just the venue example.
In other words your life choices and experiences and education have enlightened your world view. It's a normal thing for any person.
If you want to think big, try playing with grand strategy and foreign policy a bit.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
In light of that categorization the question to ask becomes whether or not geeks/nerds are predominantly linear-active, multi-active, or reactive. Considering the traits of linear-active people: Direct, primarily introverted, result-oriented, data-oriented, tendency to stick to plans and doing one thing at a time (p39) that could very well be argued to be the predominant type. Often these traits are beneficial in academic fields of research and especially engineering-related fields. Especially in contrast to multi-active cultures and people, which tend to be characterized as multitasking, extroverted, emotional, with the tendency towards unrestricted body language and desire to complete human transactions. Not only do we therefore have an answer to the question, but we are also able to show a correlation between personality traits and nerd/geekdom: Things that we refer to as geeky/nerdy tend to reward compartmentalization and task-oriented approach.
Going back to the level of cultures, it might be worth noting that the United States, Germany and UK are predominantly linear-active and thus bad at seeing the big picture. In stark contrast reactive Japanese and Chinese are adept at seeing it, and linear-active Italians and Spaniards are capable of interrelating the multiple aspects. At least according to Lewis, that is.
Richard D. Lewis. (2006) When Cultures Collide - Leading across cultures Brealey Publishing.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.