Why i stopped being a nerd

As an intelligent and studious person, i am proud to say that i have dropped the "nerd" label. From personal experience, i used to dress somewhat properly and correct others with the facts when they made mistakes. I adhered to using proper grammar shortly after being interested in science. A science nerd is In later years, i've fallen out of the nerd label for many different reasons:

* Being a nerd isolates you from the world -

They say that the most intelligent people are often the loneliest. While it's partially because of their intellectual superiority, it's also because nerds tend to make themselves misunderstood. I've learned that if i socialized with only those who are intelligent, i won't thrive. The mark of a true genius is to make himself understood to a general audience. As a scientist, i am compelled to inspire the uneducated to learn more about science. This cannot be done when i am only stating facts and shunning modern society.

With that, i walked into a science group wearing illustrated jeans, a black shirt and sweater, and long hair. I looked like a complete amateur and i got many condescending stares from university scientists. It seems that the nerd stereotype has breached even the scientific community. This is ironic as Albert Einstein, one of the greatest minds to walk the earth, presented himself in such a bizarre fashion. Take a look at this picture of him:



Do you truly expect to take him seriously posing like that? What i don't appreciate about academically minded people is that some are intolerant of amateurs and anyone not enrolled in a university. The goal of the scientist should be not simply to seek knowledge, but also to inspire others and help build a new generation of scientists from all walks of life.

* Mainstream society should not be deemed as ignorant - Refusing to associate with popular activities, media, and fashion to pursue knowledge rather than ignorance is ironically being ignorant. Everything from sports to games, music to gambling, and shopping to dating are all worthy of scientific investigation. One of the main problems with standardized education is that many teachers fail to make science interesting. This is why art and popular activities help bridge understanding with those who are not scientists. What inspired me to become a scientist was not endless facts, but imagination and creativity through science fiction. While i am very bright, i don't have my head in the books all the time. I also enjoy other hobbies such as music and poetry. I realize that there is more to life and human nature than just factual knowledge.

* Emotions and intellect are in conflict - There is a misconception among some nerds that intellect and emotion are somehow opposed to each other. This can be a depressing mode of thinking. I find that typically people who have this mindset struggle in dealing with their own emotions. Both must be balanced for your mental well-being. Emotions are necessary for survival. The solution is to nourish both intellect and emotion rather than believe yourself to be "robotic."

Stereotypes arise when we fill in the gaps about a social group due to our lack of knowledge. The solution is to break stereotypes by conforming to values that will help us reach our goals.

My dream of a cybernetic breed

When i was a child, i was inspired by sci-fi depictions of human and cyborg hybrids. I wanted to resolve a common problem in the world - crime. I researched what science had to say on cyborgs. I found the singularity, a hypothetical era in which A.I machines will be fully independent of humans. No longer will they depend on human programming to thrive.

I wanted to design a race of cybernetic "police" or supersoldiers. I already had some ideas inside my head by studying the human body. I imagined the sounds they'd make and their mechanical movement. I thought about their energy source and their exterior design. They would look something like the above picture but much more frightening and chillingly inhumane. Why? Because i wanted criminals to fear them. In other countries like Singapore, fear works very well in keeping crime rates low. I thought of precautions to take for every weapon, fighting strategy, and so forth. When sending out my cyborgs, i didn't want them to kill criminals. The goal was to inflict enough excruciating pain until the criminals are reformed. If they don't fear human cops then they will fear cybernetic machines. These cyborgs would be rather mysterious to both civilians and criminals. I would also ensure they'd engage in psychological warfare when pursuing those who break the law.

What changed? I thought of the disastrous consequences that could occur should the singularity take place. Once A.I break away from human control, there's no stopping them from what they deem is "necessary." Worse, governments and other criminal organizations would use this advanced technology for corrupt purposes. It was also unethical. I didn't want to create a world run by fear and a lack of compassion.

Ultimately, i felt humanity could create a force nothing could stop. I am convinced that the human race should not have too much power over any global problem. The technological singularity would encourage a degradation of what makes us human. Other scientists such as Stephen Hawkings agree with me. My only hope is that scientists would consider the possible consequences and not be drawn into too much ambition.

Why people are undefeated

I lost a debate in favor of an undefeated champion despite presenting the more reasonable argument and wondered "why do people favor the undefeated?" A spark of curiosity led to many other questions in my head. I did my research online to see if there was an already an explanation but found nothing. I wasn't sure if it was because i didn't search thoroughly enough or that there wasn't enough scientific research on the matter. With that in mind, i decided to search for the answers myself.

Ronda Rousey, former undefeated UFC champ, shocked the UFC world when she lost against Holly Holm. I expected the sports world to judge skilled competitors more fairly than in the debating world but i was surprised at what i found. Strangely enough, Dana White defended Ronda Rousey by claiming she was stressed thus she couldn't perform to her uttermost potential (see the link below).

I've observed within the Sports world that managers give undefeated champions weaker opponents. This creates a rather unfair balance between less experienced and more experienced competitors. This type of behavior is found in many types of competition.

Why is this? Why do people seem to rationalize an undefeated champion's shortcomings rather than a standard competitor? What makes undefeated competitors so appealing? If we see a flaw in their talents, how would we respond psychologically?

With these questions in mind, i did my research and came up with the following hypothetical ideas. This type of behavior may stem from our early ancestors. At one point in ancient history, human societies developed until groups could favor one individual who fit their ideal perception of a leader (ex. strength, size, etc.) Perhaps favoring that specific leader was essential to their survival. Interestingly, certain neurons and neurotransmitters trigger defensive mechanisms when confronted with different opinions. The brain releases the same chemicals used to survive in dangerous situations. Rational thought is then limited, causing close-mindedness.

From what Social Psychologists have learned, we internalize the expectations of other groups into our own self images. We also associate certain traits with members of specific groups. This can create an "us vs. them" mentality and also creates stereotypes when we are ignorant of other social groups. Surprisingly, popular figures can influence us in many ways. For instance, a study mentioned in "Why Women Have Sex: Understanding sexual motivation from adventure to revenge" by Cindy M. Meston and David M. Buss shows that women are more likely to find a popular man sexually attractive based on the number of women who are already attracted to him.

I predict that we support specific individuals when they posses certain characteristics we value (personality, femininity, dominance, gender, strength, etc.) We then form an ideal image of that person in our minds. When they gain enough influence and eliminate competition by being the most dominant individuals, our beliefs are reinforced. However, it is mostly due to popularity rather than skill. When undefeated champions lose, we face cognitive dissonance. We can either rationalize it like Dana White did with Ronda Rousey or abandon our previously held beliefs. Our motives for defending an undefeated champion is to protect what we value most.



To test this hypothesis, i planned to give a survey asking a set group of people the qualities they valued and why they tend to favor those who are undefeated like Ronda Rousey. The problems i face is making a more accurate experimental design.

Hopefully, i'll be able to see the results in the near future along with the correlation between skill and popularity. I can only imagine the implications this will have on cognitive biases and social competition.

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/12/dana-white-said-ronda-rousey-was-exhausted-before-holm-fight