When 'intellect' is a coping mechanism

And why it's extra upsetting when self-professed 'nerds' are actually just...arrogant jerks

Technically true. GIF from The Martian (2015) (source)

My obsession with houseplants continues. This has given me a renewed appreciation of The Martian, for making botany sexy again.¹

It is a trope as old as time that so-called “nerdy” interests generally render a person unlikeable and unattractive.² Even Paul Graham wrote an essay on it, and then he had to write an essay on why he wrote an essay on it. Most people who’ve developed some kind of in-depth obsession with something have felt, at some point in time, perhaps starting in high school, the tension between being likeable, and being true to their interests. You learn to hedge, to watch for signs that the other person is becoming bored of your tirades, and to pre-emptively apologize for being so interested in interesting things.

It’s a shame, because the world also deeply values passion and expertise. We go to a museum, and we want our tour to be led by someone who loves history. We read a book, and we want it to be written by an author who has decades of experience in the subject. Most well-paid professions nowadays require you to be incredibly good at doing something useful - and there’s no better way to become incredibly good than to be obsessive about something. Let’s be real: the idea that someone could be stranded on Mars and have such a excellent grip on science that they could grow potatoes in space and successfully feed themselves is…incredibly hot.

Successfully is the key word here: I was trying to figure out the difference between so-called “smart” people who are attractive, vs. ones who are off-putting, and I think it really just comes down to being effective. What makes Watney’s character attractive isn’t just the fact that he looks like Matt Damon; nor is it his credentials on paper, nor all that theoretical knowledge in his botanist head. It’s the fact that he actually grew the damn potatoes and fed himself, in the most impossible of all circumstances.

This is also why it’s so off-putting when a person who presents as “smart” (whether in formal credentials, way of speaking, vocabulary etc) is simultaneously ineffective - and ineffectiveness can come in many forms. The traditional tropes of being socially awkward, needing a shower, lacking confidence etc are common enough, but reality is usually not so cartoon-like. The failure to be effective is usually more subtle - i.e. an inability to assess when a conversation is going sideways, especially when there are things at stake other than the content of the conversation itself - such as trust, comfort, respect, or empathy.

It is true that children can be cruel, but I find it true just as often that the struggle of the so-called “nerd” is one that is self-imposed and self-enforced, though never intentionally, of course - and almost always as a coping mechanism.³ I saw a controversial Tweet once (I was never able to find it again) which essentially charged that most people who have an obsession with some kind of STEM discipline are basically doing it as a cope for lacking emotional skills, and that if they could press a button tomorrow to become emotionally competent at the expense of losing their expertise, they absolutely would, because the pain and the isolation of social struggle is not something that a person would ever voluntarily choose.

I don’t think this is quite correct because it discounts the fact that the world is genuinely really, really interesting, and worth learning about. (Plants are actually really fucking cool, and I will fight anyone who claims otherwise.) I do think the Tweet blew up, however, because it touched on a deep truth: that in many cases, the choice to turn towards so-called “intellectual” pursuits is really a cope for being otherwise unable to relate comfortably to others, and the more painful this discomfort is, the more likely that cope will turn into a nasty sort of arrogance - a devaluation of others in order to preserve the self. This is the trope of comic-book guy from the Simpsons, and unfortunately, we do get the sense that he…kind of deserves our contempt.

This is why I love movies that portray people with deep expertise, in some kind of technical field, as people who are also effective, emotionally competent, and deeply moral. The Martian scratches this itch, and so does Arrival.⁴ Sure, Matt Damon and Amy Adams are quite good-looking, but I think that’s small potatoes next to the thing that is really making their characters worthy of our respect. It’s the fact that they are truly, truly good at what they do, not just on paper or in theory - but in the context of the very real people and relationships around them.

---

Week 6 (of my bid to write one essay a week, for the rest of the year.)

1. This, of course, implies that botany wasn’t sexy in the first place, i.e. generally being the realm of little old ladies in their gardens and whatnot. I’ll leave the reader to draw their own conclusions here: all I will say is that I don’t understand why botanical gardens aren’t a more popular option for a first date.

2. Granted, if all botanists looked like Matt Damon, and if all high school biology teachers looked like Ryan Gosling, this trope definitely wouldn’t exist.

3. And I would be absolutely remiss if I didn’t add the obligatory disclaimer that I am so, so guilty of this very cope. Have been in the past, will almost certainly continue to be. Heck, I will probably do it tomorrow when someone leaves a perfectly reasonable comment on a PR.

4. And yeah you know what, we’ll even forgive these movies for their ridiculous sci-fi-for-the-masses-dumbed-down-overexposition and barely plausible plot points. In a world where people don’t even believe in vaccines anymore, if your first reaction to a popular movie that portrays scientists as dope human beings is “bUt It’S nOt sCienTIFcalLy aCcuRate!!” as opposed to “yessss this will make people like botany more”, YOU are part of the precipitate problem, not the solution