Geek Relations

[42]

[rant]

So after have spent the last couple of weeks with my older brothers and then spent time at work with a bunch of computer people, I've decided that people in the fields of technology completely lack social skills. Sure they are nice people, but they just lack common sense when it comes to dealing and negotiating with people.

According to my brother, who moved to Oganizational Behavior after being an engineer, it is a result of science people dealing definitive answers all day. When working with people there are no definitive answers, so most science geeks either create there own definitve answers or simply don't try at all. Yes, this is a problem particularly, when you have to work with these people.

For example, I (and about everyone of my co-workers) got chewed out my a socially-illiterate computer programmer yesterday. Now apparently, in her deluded mind, being told to "calm down" actually meant " go into a raving state of panic." Eventually, she calmed down after being told that she was going to be arrested if she didn't cease immediately. I still think we should have just had her arrested anyways.

Now from speaking with my brothers, apparently this problem gets worse when you put a lot of geek minded people together. At Bell Helicopters, there a lot of engineers. Engineers don't work well together. Each has their own answers as to how work with people. According two of my brothers who have worked for the company at seperate times, these answers include childish back-biting, buck-passing, and general gossiping. I'm amazed the company hasn't imploded, though there are many rumors that is will soon.

So I now have a new found respect for psychologist, sociologist and other people who choose to work with people. Sure, psychology and sociology don't have any answers, which is something they willingly admit. But at least they mostly try and try again, instead of making up their minds early with insufficient evidence.

[/rant]

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

childish back-biting, buck-passing, and general gossiping

oh come now. I know thihs is a rant, but that's entirely unfair. I've worked in a lot of non-geek-centric environments, and this is typical OFFICE behavior. It has not hing to do with geek/nerd/engineer behavior.

I also think it's VERY unfair to say that because your computer programmer is clearly mentally unstable that it's representative.

However, it's most unfair to group all geeks into one pat answer. Programmers don't have "definitive" answers. Some answers work, others don't, but you can reach a multitude approaches that all work. Mathematicians, however, appear to have a smaller restriction on potential approaches to problem solving. Thus you shee there is a broad difference in geek types. So I feel that behavior answer is specious.

The problem, it seems to me, is self-centeredness and inflexible opinions. This hardly seems limited to geeks and technologists.

[Tage]

I was going to make up some refutation because I'm a computer person, but really, you're right. I like your reasoning, too. I know that my constant search for a simple, definitive answer to everything annoys EUOL, if not everyone else around me.

But hey, if he can like living in a world of blissful absent-mindedness, I can live in my world of clear-cut quanitative answers.

[42]

But apparently, it gravitates to geeks and technologists.

Actually, "artists" (pronounced with snobbish accent) have the same problem. I've just been working a lot with customer service people lately, who generally are more socially adapatable.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I disagree that geeks and techies are central to the problem. I mean, Dang, look at me. I'm a Comparative Literature major and I'm arguing with you, while the computer career person is lazily letting you hold your opinion.

[42]

I think the problem is that many computer carreer people don't argue about these things. They simply never question opinions when they should.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

yes, they don't appreciate that any expressed opinion is an opportunity -- nay, an invitation, to argue.

[House of Mustard]

Tage is accepting it, possibly, because 42's theory offers a simple answer to the problem.  SE, you're arguing it on the grounds that the answer can't be that simple.  It kind of proves 42's point.

[42]

You now understand my point. Opinions carry responsibility and consequences, and are not to be taken lightly.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

quiet, you.

[42]

Oh, shut up.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

actually, my "quiet, you" was targeted to HoM.


Anyway, HoM, it doesn't prove his point. He accepted that the problem was opinion, not accepting pat answers. what was at contention was whether that problem was limited, even in a stereotypical sense, to geeks.

But there are a host of stereotypes that are opinionated and favor the simple opinion. Religious people, Southerners, blondes, and the poor, for example. Now, I'm not saying the stereotypes are true, but it does indicate that even the general public believes this problem to be more widespread as I do.

[Tage]

I'm with HoM, I think this entire thread basically proves 42 to be basically correct.

[House of Mustard]

what was at contention was whether that problem was limited, even in a stereotypical sense, to geeks

That's only what is at contention in your argument.  I'm not even addressing that.  I'm just saying that the computer guy accepts simple straight-forward answers, and the Comp Lit guy does not.  That (for the most part) proves 42 right.

[Maxwell]

wait wait, how do artists come into play here? I'm just asking cuz I want to know If I should be offended and angry or not.