Too much of a geek to die

[mdlbear]

Mulling over my response to artbeco's post about a young suicide victim I realized with a bit of a shock that if I'd had a "normal" person's ability to feel emotion, I might very well have killed myself a long time ago in one of my depressions.

I find this both oddly reassuring and disturbing.

Comments

Nah

[capplor.livejournal.com]

It just means "normal" isn't necesarily something to aspire to.

Re: Nah

[mdlbear]

That's part of why it's reassuring.

Re: Nah

[brmj.livejournal.com]

Shouldn't American Idol's popularity, for example, have already made that obvious?

Re: Nah

[capplor.livejournal.com]

Apparently not if you are "normal."

Re: Nah

[mdlbear]

I'm speaking of normality in the psychological, not the cultural, sense. Asperger syndrome/blunted affect/whatever.

Re: Nah

[brmj.livejournal.com]

I know. Humor (of the sort that works in spite of or partially because of errors in dealing with such distinctions) was the primary intent of my comment. Sorry it wasn't more obvious. It is also possible my attempt at humor was seriously out of place. I am not always correct in my judgments of such things.

On another note, there appears to be a correlation between cultural and psychological normality, at least at first glance. People who aren't psychologically normal seem to rarely fit in perfectly in mainstream culture, instead often gravitating towards one subculture or another or going through life never quite fitting in. However, the reverse (psychologically normal people not fitting in in various subcultures) might not be as true

Of course, all of this is just off of the top of my head and may be entirely wrong on any and/or every point, as is too often the case.

Re: Nah

[mdlbear]

Not out of place, but since I don't watch TV I only recognized that it was a cultural reference to something I wasn't familiar with.

There's a correlation, certainly, but fandom (for example) has plenty of psychologically normal people. So does computer science, for that matter.

Re: Nah

[brmj.livejournal.com]

Good for you, not watching TV. I personally attempt to limit my intake to CSPAN and Firefly reruns, with the internet now mostly but not entirely taking CSPAN's place.

As for the other thing, you would seem to be right about fandom and computer science in general, but I'm not sure about the highest levels of computer science, now that I think about it. Of the (very) few hackers I know, none seem to be quite psychologically normal, although one comes fairly close. Is this a general trend, or just a coincidence?

Re: Nah

[mdlbear]

There's certainly a high correlation; fandom and CS are both very attractive for geeks. Still, many of the CS researchers I work with appear to be entirely "normal" in the psychological sense, though I don't know most of them well enough on a personal level to be sure.

Similarly, my wife is both fanish and entirely normal -- and highly extroverted -- psychologically. So are many of her friends.

I full week later, I think I finally get it!

[brmj.livejournal.com]

Today I had an insight relating to my series of comments in this thread: there seems to be something a little unusual about the way those involved in fandom think on average, but of an entirely different sort and generally within the "normal" range. Fannish people seem to be a bit more intelligent than normal, on average, and, more importantly, have significantly more flexible minds than is average. There is probably a better way to phrase that last part, but I don't know what it would be. It is more than simple open-mindedness, though it may be related. Perhaps the difference is related to how "normal" people are often mentally stuck in our reality and perhaps a handful of well defined fiction universes or sets of related cliches, while many members of fandom can operate well in a large number of mental "universes" and can quickly learn to think with the premises of more once they have learned them. To further extend that hypothesis, it might be a better ability to adapt, mentally, to changing or different information and ways of thinking. This might very well be a trait that is developed by reading SF and Fantasy and participating in certain fannish activities, among other things. I wouldn't be at all surprised if eduction (formal or otherwise) in a wide variety of unrelated topics also helps develop this trait. In any case, once someone has developed that sort of mental flexibility, it seems to (positively) affect the way they think in general, to varying degrees.

I think what had first given me the idea that fannish people aren't quite normal on average was my ability to tell if someone is likely to be involved in fandom. I can often make a pretty good guess, once I have met someone, as to whether or not they are likely to be involved in fandom. I am right maybe 60% of the time (best guess), with relatively few false positives. Up until now, I couldn't quite put my finger on what I was using to decide, but I may have finally figured it out.

Any thoughts on this? Does it make sense at all? I am cautiously optimistic that I might finally be on to something here, but I wouldn't be all that surprised if I turned out to be wrong again. I can also pretty much guarantee that this is poorly articulated, inadequately edited, and probably logically flawed in one or more spots.

Re: I full week later, I think I finally get it!

[mdlbear]

The intelligence and flexibility are there, certainly, but fandom is also a safe place in which to be different; many fans are well outside the "normal" range, mostly toward the Asperger's end of the autistic spectrum. It's a place where people who are not comfortable interacting with other people can be treated with tolerance and respect, and even affection.

Many fans probably are "normal" -- my wife certainly is, for example -- but many, including me, are not.

Re: I full week later, I think I finally get it!

[brmj.livejournal.com]

Thanks. As I may have previously stated, I am fairly new to organized fandom as such. I genuinely appreciate the help figuring it out. I guess I probably have a tendency to over-generalize complex things, which may have been getting in my way in this particular case.