site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   4520 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for January 16, 2026

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Scott's sort-of obituary for Scott Adams is one of the best things he's written in ages.

This was a wonderful read, thank you for linking. This part had me feeling REAL called out:

The variety of self-hating nerd are too many to number. There are the nerds who go into psychology to prove that EQ is a real thing and IQ merely its pale pathetic shadow. There are the nerds who become super-woke and talk about how reason and objectivity are forms of white supremacy culture. There are the nerds who obsess over “embodiment” and “somatic therapy” and accuse everyone else of “living in their heads”. There are the nerds who deflect by becoming really into neurodiversity - “the interesting thing about my brain isn’t that I’m ‘smart’ or ‘rational’, it’s that I’m ADHDtistic, which is actually a weakness . . . but also secretly a strength!” There are the nerds who flirt with fascism because it idolizes men of action, and the nerds who convert to Christianity because it idolizes men of faith. There are the nerds who get really into Seeing Like A State, and how being into rationality and metrics and numbers is soooooo High Modernist, but as a Kegan Level Five Avatar they are far beyond such petty concerns. There are the nerds who redefine “nerd” as “person who likes Marvel movies” - having successfully gerrymandered themselves outside the category, they can go back to their impeccably-accurate statisticsblogging on educational outcomes, or their deep dives into anthropology and medieval mysticism, all while casting about them imprecations that of course nerds are loathsome scum who deserve to be bullied.

The bit just before that, man.

Every nerd who was the smartest kid in their high school goes to an appropriately-ranked college and realizes they’re nothing special. But also, once they go into some specific field they find that intellect, as versatile as it is, can only take them so far. And for someone who was told their whole childhood that they were going to cure cancer (alas, a real quote from my elementary school teacher), it’s a tough pill to swallow.

Reaction formation, where you replace a unbearable feeling with its exact opposite, is one of the all time great Freudian defense mechanisms. You may remember it from such classics as “rape victims fall in love with their rapist” or “secretly gay people become really homophobic”. So some percent of washed-up gifted kids compensate by really, really hating nerdiness, rationality, and the intellect.

Literally my course from high school valedictorian, to 85th percentile college student, to barely-above-average law student.

Then I kind of came back around by embracing the 'suck' and interrogating myself honestly about my 'shortcomings' and inflated self-expectations and calibrating my goals to what would be truly achievable (funny enough Slate Star Codex was a major influence in that period!).

Also, this line is an insanely deft cut to the jugular, holy cow.

Adams was willing to sacrifice everything for the right to say “It’s Okay To Be White”. I can’t help wondering what his life would have been like if he’d been equally willing to assert the okayness of the rest of his identity.

This sort of thing has always fascinated me as someone who always liked extremely nerdy things, but never really understood nerd culture.

There is some kind of subculture, especially in the United States, that is into a lot of the same things I'm into, but which seems to revolve around this massive wound (or dare I say trauma) that I just cannot relate to. There's some complex of experiences that includes being interested in dorky things, being smart, being academically successful, being bullied, simultaneously feeling contempt for and yet feeling intensely envious of jocks, etc., etc., that's wrapped up in being a 'nerd'. I have some of those things (I've played D&D, I built my own PC, I was academically successful, I'm smart, etc.) but not others (I was never bullied, I never felt particularly jealous of kids who were good at sports, etc.), and so my relation to American nerd culture is a combination of understanding what they're interested in, and also feeling like they're bizarre aliens.

I think this essay about Scott Adams is in the "bizarre aliens" category. It's close enough that I can tell that it's aiming sort of towards people like me, but then it flies straight past me, impales someone else, and I realise it was never aimed at me at all.

I grappled with my self-identification as a 'nerd' for a while before mostly just leaving it behind a while back.

I like nerdy things, and was unapologetic about this. But to identify as a 'nerd' meant making certain things a facet of my identity. Which made me uncomfortable because I was really just into these things because... I found them fun, challenging, and weird in a pleasant way. Tabletop gaming is an amazing social activity, and I don't find most sports to be compelling enough to follow, so not a surprise where I gravitated.

Like, okay, I'm into outer space, rockets and scifi, I am really into computers, I think the 'internet' as a technology is cool, and I like gadgets. I feel an affinity for hacker culture and I play video games as a hobby...

But I also don't feel a need to dump copious amounts of disposable income into proving my credentials and keeping up with 'fads'. Don't really treat it as a lifestyle that requires certain commitments to fit in and buying lots of CONSOOMER goods as a prerequisite.

Hmmm. Maybe that right there is the factor. I dislike the culture the instant it becomes a pure status competition, and the status climbing becomes the point more than the factors that made it an attractive, enjoyable collection of shared interests.

Something something Geeks MOPS Sociopaths.

Yes, the conclusion that I've come to is basically just to like what I like, and to not make what I like an identity. It's like the difference between playing video games (which I do) and being a gamer (which I do not consider myself). I play tabletop role-playing games, and I enjoy them, and that's enough. The closest I come to 'identifying' as a nerd now is that sometimes, in a social context, I'll say that I have some nerdy hobbies with a self-deprecating laugh.

But I'm not the things I enjoy. Nor should anyone be. And I find there's something very liberating in just deciding that you don't care what the things you like say about you, and just settling for liking the things that bring you joy.

I can’t help wondering what his life would have been like if he’d been equally willing to assert the okayness of the rest of his identity.

I wonder what is the rest? "It's OK to be male" probably would get him cancelled as fast, and the label of misogynist is arguably even worse than "racist" - the latter gets you hated, but the former gets you despised. "It's OK to be a nerd"? But what does it mean? Some nerds are billionaires ruling the world now. Others are a caricature in a popular TV show. Others made a deep dive into various stuff Scott enumerated so eloquently. Which one is it OK to be?

But i think Adams never doubted that it's OK to be Scott Adams. His whole life, and his whole public persona, is a testament to that.

"Its okay to be a mediocre businessman."

"Its okay to be childless."

"Its okay to have a singular crowning achievement that defines your success."

Its specifically the non-spectacular aspects of himself that he seemed to want to avoid acknowledging.

I think he wrote quite a lot of his business failures. What he was probably not ok with is for his success as a cartoonist defining him for the rest of his life, but I don't think it's a bad thing. I think on the contrary, looking for being something more is what made him interesting. Yes, he failed a lot, but so what? I think him keeping at it means that's what defined his identity more than anything, and him not accepting "stick to drawing comics, monkey brain" is actually much more part of his real identity, as he saw it.

What he was probably not ok with is for his success as a cartoonist defining him for the rest of his life

Hence why I find myself with quite a bit more respect for Bill Watterson.

Go out on top, then do things you want to do without the eye of the public following you everywhere.

I guess I disagree. I mean it's a fine choice, but the other choice - choosing to do different things, even if they might be not as successful as things you've done before, and being OK with that, even in public - is fine too.

Every nerd who was the smartest kid in their high school goes to an appropriately-ranked college and realizes they’re nothing special. But also, once they go into some specific field they find that intellect, as versatile as it is, can only take them so far. And for someone who was told their whole childhood that they were going to cure cancer (alas, a real quote from my elementary school teacher), it’s a tough pill to swallow.

Man, I am so profoundly lucky I had two teachers that I think changed my life.

The first was my middle school social studies teacher. In the mid 1990's she had finished her service in the Navy or Army, I can't remember, and become a teacher. She was black pilled as fuck about the future of the country and constantly told us we weren't going to have it as easy as our boomer parents. For whatever reason it made a deep impression on me and I adjusted my expectations accordingly.

The second was my high school calculus teacher. I slept through his class and consistently got top scores. He wrote me a whole ass page long note on the back of one of my tests, because I was never awake in class for him to talk to. It was all about how he'd seen kids like me before, who were never properly challenged and developed poor study habits. That if I didn't reform my ways, I'd either flunk out of college or flounder professionally. Coming from any other teacher, I probably would have blown off the advice. But he always had my back, and generally had an attitude of "If he gets A's, he can sleep through class if he wants" with me. His message of support, but concern, resonated deeper than 12 years of just having teachers yell at me to get my shit together.

Because there is this really toxic part of nerd culture, where the motto is "Work smarter, not harder". But then they melt down in seething rage when someone works smart and hard and utterly mogs them on their own turf.

It was all about how he'd seen kids like me before, who were never properly challenged and developed poor study habits. That if I didn't reform my ways, I'd either flunk out of college or flounder professionally.

I could have used one of those. Mostly for the wakeup call of "everything is intuitive and easy for your now because the training wheels are on, and your intelligence is covering for your shortcomings in discipline and work ethic."

Law School was the clear inflection point there. Turns out you CAN pass tests by pulling all-nighters to cram the entirety of the coursework the day before the Exam. But when you're graded against people with more consistent habits and effective strategies, you can only hope to keep pace by sheer desperate improvisation.

I didn't really learn the right lesson, though.

This period:

came back around by embracing the 'suck' and interrogating myself honestly about my 'shortcomings' and inflated self-expectations and worked on calibrating my goals to what would be truly achievable

Was when I finally got on the right track.

"Work smarter, not harder". But then they melt down in seething rage when someone works smart and hard and utterly mogs them on their own turf.

lol. "I'm not lazy, I'm just more productive with the time I DO use for work."

"Ookay, well I'm approximately as productive as you with my time, and I spend more of it working... what now?"

That said, the extreme other end of that mentality is the "Sigma Male Grindset" approach where effort is all that matters, whether that effort is spent on something useful and important? Who cares! Getting paid is the only metric that registers.

Thankfully I now have a boss who tolerates my quirks well enough as long as I close enough files to keep the cash flowing.

Tagging @WhiningCoil since this is an appropriate response to his comment as well.

This is what I call "Smartest Motherfucker in the Room" syndrome. I think law school does this to a lot of smart people because they spend three years arguing edge cases with professors who do nothing but theorize in edge cases and when they get into the field they realize that edge cases are rare and that most cases are fairly routine. Compounding this is that most of the work is looking through documents and doing a lot of writing. I think the drive is that these people are constantly looking for opportunities to prove to the bosses how smart they are, while the bosses are looking for people to, you know, get the work done. They constantly bitch about how tedious the work is and are always planning an exit strategy, thinking that if only they worked for a firm with better management or a in different practice area that was more exciting they'd be happier. I give them that name because they seem to forget that they were hired to do actual work, not to be the smartest motherfucker in the room.

On the other end of the spectrum are the people who don't necessarily hate their jobs, and maybe even like their jobs, but have them down to such a routine that they don't want to do anything to rock the boat. These people tend to be reluctant to ask the bosses for advice or bring up their ideas to them. They are significantly less annoying and last a lot longer than the smartest motherfuckers in the room, but they tend to get pissed when they are passed over for promotions by people whom they perceive as lower on the totem pole, usually by virtue of how long they've been with the company.

They're basically two sides of the same coin: The gifted kid who gets As without studying on the one hand, and the overachiever whose grade is a one to one reflection of the work put into it on the other. The gifted kid balks when he finds out that homework is a big part of the grade, not based on its quality but on the fact that it was done, and the overachiever balks when he finds out that 8 hours of consistent studying might not result in an A. The most successful attorneys I know are the ones who embrace the drudgery, not because it's a necessary evil but because it's part of the job, and nonetheless aren't afraid to be the smartest motherfucker in the room if the situation presents itself.

The best part of my job is that I have significant autonomy to select the clients I accept. And if one of them has an "interesting" legal problem to solve and they are willing to pay for the work, I can take on those jobs to keep things fresh.

Thats how I became probably a top 10 expert in a very particular area of Florida construction law.

The drudgery pays the bills, the occasional novel matter keeps me from bashing my head in.

Embrace the suck. Then you'll have more power to achieve success on your own terms.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats