This substack post, The Flight of the Weird* Nerd From Academia, makes me nervous, as I suspect it is true. I saw something similar about talented psychiatrists running afoul of HR and other thought police at the hospital over the years.
This species, while occasionally difficult to interact with, plays a crucial role in society, acting as an innovator and “village truth-teller”. In the last decades, The Weird Nerd has found a sanctuary within the confines of academia, a natural habitat where its traits are not only tolerated but often nurtured. In this symbiotic relationship, the wider world benefits from the intellectual pursuits and discoveries of the Weird Nerd, without the need to engage directly with its often annoying demeanour. It's a situation that seems to maintain a harmonious balance: the Weird Nerd is protected from “drowning”, while society at large reaps the rewards of its unique contributions without having to deal directly with it. Has there been a disturbance in this equilibrium recently ? This is what Nate Silver argues in a recent tweet:
Oh yeah, this is part of the autism series, for sure.
*"Weird" in the traditional sense, not the Joseph Henrich sense
4 comments:
It tracks with what I have seen at an academic medical center. The iconoclasts, almost universally white or Asian men,are being hounded by the administrators, and are dropping out. I’m sure it makes a more malleable environment,but not an innovative or interesting one.I do emphatically distrust the administrators who are killing medicine.
I replied to a comment at the Substack post: "
"That will *massively* select for conscientious and more neurotypical high-achiever types than weird nerds, who weren’t in contention for those elite schools anyways because they can’t bring themselves to do ECs which don’t interest them (I played the elite college admissions game and got into Vanderbilt and got a full ride, but it was a miserable experience for me playing that game)"
My response: Our society has granted a whole lot of influence to university admissions officers, without really considering who these people are and what kind of things they value. I doubt that many of them are themselves innovators, or have any real ability to choose innovators.
I also commented on hiring in business:
In business, there seems to be some movement away from having the decision made by the hiring manager (the person for whom the new employee will be reporting and who will be responsible for his results) and toward more diffused hiring responsibility. I'm fine with having the prospective new employee interviewed by various people with who he will be working and considering that in the decision--this is generally a good idea...and also considering any advice from HR people...but the final decision should lie with the hiring manager. I've heard stories recently about companies where ANY person interviewing the candidate can veto the hiring; this is a very bad idea.
Another factor could be at play here. We've noticed some wealthy families steered their children toward engineering degrees. Those children don't stay around to work in engineering; it's just a stepping stone to a career in finance, medicine or government.
I agree with David Foster as well that the modern admission process selects against "weird nerds," who are too honest to play the game.
Creative people can also be weird, and unable to play the game. I've long prized this essay by Helen Vendler: https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2012/10/writers-and-artists-at-harvard
Stay tuned
Post a Comment