> It's not like being socially awkward has to be an innate thing; they're called social skills for a reason, you can learn them.
It doesn't have to be, true. But in the same way that a tone-deaf or rhythmically-challenged individual can probably never be even a decent musician, there are plenty of people who can probably never become 'socially skilled'. Consider autism, for example (in all it's degrees), and also the fact that it's probably quite a bit more prevalent in our profession.
> I get what you're saying, but I also tend to think: if they're so smart, why not learn some social skills?
Why are so many very intelligent people alcoholics? Why are so many doctors smokers? Why do so many psychologists have psychological issues?
There's a massive gap between knowledge and practice, and I've become increasingly convinced that not being aware of that gap is one of the primary reasons people have trouble turning 'saying/thinking' into 'doing'. We underestimate the difficulty.
For example. As a student, me and a friend of mine were living rather unhealthy lifestyles. Then a few years ago she suddenly 'got serious'. She started working out, implemented a healthy diet, and applied herself more to her studies.
A month ago I remarked that I really admired her strength, as I still struggle with these things (to a degree). Her answer? She'd been raised with a strong emphasis on health, her family was always into sports and they're all over-achievers. From her perspective, she merely 'dropped' a habit that was deeply instilled in her, and had little trouble picking it up.
I've found that most of the 'changes' and personal development that I see are not a result of mind of matter, but more a result of upbringing, social environment, and being in the right place at the right time. It's not just that, and I think it should't ever be used as an excuse, but it's much more that case than we often suspect.
A socially awkward person who doesn't 'value' time spent with others more often than not 1) just hasn't proper experienced the value of this, 2) has been actively shunned or bullied socially, or 3) just hasn't found the particular people that they can enjoy time with.
tl;dr: the value we place on things is often a result, not a cause. Or at least it goes in both directions.
So your post kind of resonates with me, but if I were to boil it down I think your point is "Smart people frequently do dumb things, but that doesn't mean they're not smart". Agreed!
I just think a lot of what we call social skills really comes down to, frankly, giving a shit about the person in front of you.
For exceptionally smart people sometimes this is hard.
Interacting with average people can be mind numbing. I mean the average person is.. well, average. But I think 90% of social skills is finding a way to be interested in the people around you. Finding what's interesting about them. As annoying as the phrase is, I think "if you're bored than you're boring" is pretty much true.
Charismatic people don't have some fundamental gift, for the most part, charismatic people are charismatic because they seem to find a way to be interested in all the people around them. Or at least they can fake it.
Sometimes I think about 18 year old me versus 28 year old me. 18 year old me was undeniably smart, but shy and awkward. 28 year old me is (reasonably) socially skilled. The only particular difference between the two is 18 year old me only really wanted to talk about myself, or things I liked. 18 year old me was a total fucking narcissist. 28 year old me tries to figure out what other people are about, and engage them on their terms. It sounds small, but actually caring about other people is a thing some people have to learn, and it makes most social situations about 200% more interesting.
> I just think a lot of what we call social skills really comes down to, frankly, giving a shit about the person in front of you.
Very true. But first of all I'd argue that 'giving a shit' in itself is a skill. We are, to a large degree, taught to be nice. Watching the average eight-year-old in a school yard is a clear example of that. They're practically psychopathic: developed enough to understand the concept of 'the other', but they haven't necessarily learned how to empathize.
I suspect there's a strong correlation between being socially outcast or awkward (whether biological, developmental or contextual in nature) and taking up programming and computers as a hobby. For me that was the case, and for most geeks I know it was too. In fact, the very definition of a nerd is someone who focuses unusually a lot on one thing, at the detriment of other things (usually social).
Plus, it's a relatively recent development that 'social' kids are also into computers, on account of wanting to make games, or emulating 'skater geeks' like Kevin Rose. I still remember that it was rather 'uncool' to be in chat rooms, for example. Or reddit being the nerd version of digg.
And finally, people have a tendency to conform their views to their experiences (more than the other way around, I suspect). So it kind of makes sense that a person with few friends, or a history of no partners, will conclude that 'people are shit'. Misanthropy is usually not innate. I've met a shocking amount of people who are eerily similar in their deeply negative view of society with no real experience of friendship. Some of them, in their late twenties or thirties, seem beyond help.
> But first of all I'd argue that 'giving a shit' in itself is a skill.
Yes. No doubt. I think for intellectual people, the tendency is always to move to a higher level of abstraction and generalize. Works well for ideas, but not for people. A lot of times, the interesting thing about people or situations is in exploring the details.
(That's probably not going to make it on a motivational poster any time soon.)
Great point, because it highlights how 'not giving a shit' is not necessarily a result of an inherent lack of empathy or caring.
I've definitely noticed this in myself. By constantly abstracting things (perhaps exacerbated by my work), I lose the human connection sometimes and only later realize that I wasn't as empathic or caring as I wanted to be, simply because I got caught up in the abstractions.
"I just think a lot of what we call social skills really comes down to, frankly, giving a shit about the person in front of you."
Honestly, I don't think that that is always true. It's possible to have great social skills and not care about people at all. We sometimes call people like that sociopaths. And on the contrary, some people can care greatly but not understand how to express their care/interest.
It doesn't have to be, true. But in the same way that a tone-deaf or rhythmically-challenged individual can probably never be even a decent musician, there are plenty of people who can probably never become 'socially skilled'. Consider autism, for example (in all it's degrees), and also the fact that it's probably quite a bit more prevalent in our profession.
> I get what you're saying, but I also tend to think: if they're so smart, why not learn some social skills?
Why are so many very intelligent people alcoholics? Why are so many doctors smokers? Why do so many psychologists have psychological issues?
There's a massive gap between knowledge and practice, and I've become increasingly convinced that not being aware of that gap is one of the primary reasons people have trouble turning 'saying/thinking' into 'doing'. We underestimate the difficulty.
For example. As a student, me and a friend of mine were living rather unhealthy lifestyles. Then a few years ago she suddenly 'got serious'. She started working out, implemented a healthy diet, and applied herself more to her studies.
A month ago I remarked that I really admired her strength, as I still struggle with these things (to a degree). Her answer? She'd been raised with a strong emphasis on health, her family was always into sports and they're all over-achievers. From her perspective, she merely 'dropped' a habit that was deeply instilled in her, and had little trouble picking it up.
I've found that most of the 'changes' and personal development that I see are not a result of mind of matter, but more a result of upbringing, social environment, and being in the right place at the right time. It's not just that, and I think it should't ever be used as an excuse, but it's much more that case than we often suspect.
A socially awkward person who doesn't 'value' time spent with others more often than not 1) just hasn't proper experienced the value of this, 2) has been actively shunned or bullied socially, or 3) just hasn't found the particular people that they can enjoy time with.
tl;dr: the value we place on things is often a result, not a cause. Or at least it goes in both directions.