Musing

[osprey_archer]

One odd thing I've noticed about geeks: we take pride in our lack of social skills. On LJ profiles, in the halls of my very geeky school, people use variants of "I have no social skills" as an overture for friendship.

This is exceedingly odd. First, it seems like social skills are something you'd want in a friend - because who doesn't want friends who know how to compromise, when to apologize, and what to do to cheer you up? Who will notice when you need cheering up, as someone without social skills will not?

There's a kid in my Russian class who has no social skills. He interrupts everyone and he laughs whenever people make mistakes. He doesn't strike me as good friend material.

Second, it's not true that geeks lack social skills. Most of the geeks I know have at least as many social skills as the average person; possibly more, given the amount of interpersonal drama average people seem to pack into their lives.

Of course, if interpersonal drama as the norm by which to measure social skills - then definitely, you want friends who have none, who don't know how to lie, cheat, back stab, play stupid status games, or steal your significant other for petty revenge.

It's just awfully unfortunate that we've defined social skills as antisocial behavior.

Comments

[goldjadeocean.livejournal.com]

It makes sense in my world, kinda.

When geeks say "social skills" they don't mean "the ability to meaningfully interact with other people". They mean "the ability to pass for normal." This is because how it was used for them--many geeks, being very intelligent and driven, didn't get along as children, which was blamed on their "poor social skills".

When I was a child, I wanted to talk about celtic mythology and horses and the fifty books I'd read last week, which none of the other children did (or, if so, not to the extent I did); instead, I had great conversations with adults. I had "no social skills" not because I couldn't meaningfully interact with others but because I couldn't "act my age".

So the "I have no social skills" opening line doesn't actually mean that; it says "I'm not pretending to be normal, so neither do you" which has real social currency among geeks.

[osprey-archer.livejournal.com]

Adults who blame children for their "poor social skills" irritate me. Do they think that if only they can make the children understand hard enough about their lack of social skills, social skills will pop out of the kids' pores?

Which is a different problem than adults blaming intelligent kids for wanting to talk celtic mythology when their classmates want to discuss stickers, although that's also exasperating. Really, blaming kids for being picked on just doesn't help.

I think what bothers me about the "no social skills" line is that I used it for years, and believed it literally, not in a "I'm not pretending to be normal" sense. So I approached every social situation in the dire certainty that I was going to say something stupid and create a fiasco and didn't realize for years that this never happened, mostly because I rarely said anything.

Or rather, I thought it was because I didn't say anything, because obviously if I opened my mouth the world as I knew it would end.

It's possible that my thinking was idiosyncratic, and most people do hear "I have no social skills" as a geek secret handshake, but it makes me sad to think of it becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy of social anxiety for other people, too.

[novangla.livejournal.com]

i <3 social skills

I think there are a lot of dorky/geeky people who do have social skills, but some don't, and the problem I've seen is that they don't encourage them. So behavior that would land you ostracized by another group just wins laughter and encouragement from some geekier groups (I don't know if this makes sense-- there are a few people in my school's anime/tabletop-rpg group that are like this).

I see social skills as like, knowing how to interact with other people to put them at ease and how to effectively communicate and make friends, I guess. It requires being polite, but also a knowledge of when/where to say what and to whom.

[osprey-archer.livejournal.com]

Yes. I think your definition of social skills is spot on.

Your point about the ostracism does make sense - I've met people and groups like that. I don't think its necessarily a problem, because different groups will have different tolerances for different things (just try to obsess about painting your nails in a geek group) - but sometimes geeks will let behavior motivated by malice slide, and I always wince.

It's not like "normal" people generally go out of their way to tamp down malice either, but dammit, we're geeks, we ought to be better than that.

[ochre54.livejournal.com]

It's a defense mechanism, to varying degrees.

When speaking to a person perceived as 'more normal', saying that you aren't excuses you from the invariably stupid and abnormal thing you are going to do. If they can't handle that, well, at least you warned them. They knew the risks going in and you can leave with some sense of dignity intact. It helps you feel like there's something wrong with them, not just you.

When talking to other geeks, however, letting them know you have no social skills absolves you of any real obligation to the person. You aren't required to be their friend on any deeper level, just accompany them during your enforced social time so you both feel less judged by the normal people around you. If you're lucky, you don't find them as irritating as everyone else does, they're interested in the same things as you and you can go on from there.

Mostly, it just makes it harder to ever develop any social skill by having a built-in excuse for your behaviour. It feels a whole lot better to acknowledge your problems and own them, though, than to hate them and think that everyone else does too.

[osprey-archer.livejournal.com]

That's depressing, really. :( I guess defense mechanisms often are.

But...enforced social time? Who is enforcing this social time? Or is it more being enforced by social pressure, because being somewhere alone is "embarrassing"?

I'm of two minds about the whole "owning your problems," thing, though, because this doesn't sound like owning your problems; it sounds like deciding, against all evidence, that your problems aren't actually problems.

[ochre54.livejournal.com]

I am more bitter than I thought. :S

By social time, I mean any sort of time when you have to be in a space with other people and are given something you must do with them. ex: Lunch, group pairings, seating assignments (chosen either by you or the authority), bus rides, sports teams. And sure, you can just ignore people, but sometimes you can't.

Re-appropriation! Words are words - basically all you're saying is that you know what you are and that other people can't use it as a weapon against you. (Names have power! Power over name gives power over thing itself! Go fantasy!) How much you want to change what you are rests with you. Essentially, you give yourself back your options. It feels better than being pressured into changing and it's a lot more healthy than denying everything in the first place. It's only bad if it's an excuse to stagnate.

As a side note, re-appropriation has happened with other behavioural problems (heard anyone say they're ADD, OCD, PTSD, bi-polar or schizo lately?) where it becomes funny that people have characteristics of a disease. This is actually what I thought you were talking about for a bit in your original post - that sociable people were introducing themselves as asocial. I sort of think this is more of a mis-appropriation, but oh well - I'm as guilty of it as anyone else.

[osprey-archer.livejournal.com]

Yes - names have power, even if not quite in the instantaneously awesome way they do in fantasy.

I've heard people who don't have OCD (ADD, bipolar...) say that they're OCD, to make it funny that they have characteristics of the disease. I think that's just appropriating the word, though; re-appropriation would be OCD people making their OCDness funny. Although I have seen some of that, too.

I do think the first use is something of a misappropriation (especially for really nasty disorders like schizophrenia), but it's better, perhaps, than OCD etc. being completely hush-hush and unmentionable.

[girl-called-sun.livejournal.com]

I agree with ochre54, in large part.

"Social skills" can be learned, like anything else. Pride in the lack of them is odd - a defensive gesture, instead of trying to gain them and failing.

[girl-called-sun.livejournal.com]

Been thinking....

I actually aspired to have social skills when I was in my mid-early teens; I idolised adults who could speak easily to people, make conversations, and control situations. I wanted that ease and an effortless ability to command respect.

I'd still rather sit in a corner with a book, but I can talk to people now.

Really interesting post, and comments.

[osprey-archer.livejournal.com]

You were clearly precocious; in my early teens I was still of the opinion that social skills were stupid, probably because at the time I really didn't have very many.

It wasn't until I was 16/17 that I started to wish I could make conversation easily, and when I went to college I did put some effort into learning them.

I still prefer to sit in the corner with a book, but I think I come across as less actively hostile than I used to.

I wonder if part of this geeky hostility to the entire idea of social skills is the fear that, if you learn them, you'll become a different person - the kind who makes effortless conversations and controls the room at parties, but never cracks a book. Social skills and intellectual skills aren't binary opposites but sometimes society treats them like that.

I'm glad you liked the post; I try. :)

[exuberantself.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm a geek and I have fine social skills. I mean, it's my job. On the other hand, I know a guy who quite literally has no social skills--he has no concept of how to interact with people, and it's not a terribly pretty experience.

[osprey-archer.livejournal.com]

Eeek. I hope that guy doesn't work for you - I bet being his supervisor would be unbelievably unpleasant.

[exuberantself.livejournal.com]

He's actually he brother of a guy I know. I met him at a friends's wedding (http://exuberantself.livejournal.com/11668.html), and I'm still identified to friends and family is "the girl who hung out with Orville at the wedding." I'm memorable for that because apparently it's never happened before. On the upside, he does credit me with his passion for Doctor Who, so I guess I've done some good in this world.

[osprey-archer.livejournal.com]

He sounds like one of my friend's brothers, who has mild autism - no eye contact, no conception how to interact with other people, great affection for Doctor Who (not that that's a diagnostic criterion).

Also - Orville? That's handicapping a kid from the beginning.

[exuberantself.livejournal.com]

You know, I actually asked them once about the autism thing...apparently it's a common question. Either way, he's never been diagnosed.

Nonononono, the man's middle name is Newell, and he's the third of them! It's pretty cruel.

Actually though? He's kind of awesome. I made the Jonesers (the couple he's the brother of) watch Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead once and they hated it...turns out Orville adores it.