Re: Starting to get disillusioned with DNL's advice

[reboot]

BasedBuzzed has a very good point. DNL's views and experiences are his own. Some of what he talks about will work for some people, some parts will work for other people, and for some people none of it will work because he is not addressing the problems they have or the way he approaches them are not going to work for those individuals. No one should think of him as, "The One Font of Truth in All Nerd Dating. Bow before him!". He is just a guy who identifies as a nerd who once was unable to date, went through a PUA phase, hated what he had become, transformed PUA advice into something that jibed with his ethics, and decided to blog about it. No more, no less.

[Xexyz]

I think the Scott Aaronson article really exemplified to me that the entitlement/nice guy thing is a problem that is huge in nerd culture, not with individual nerds, per se.  I think a lot of what DNL is doing with those types of articles is tearing down these stereotypes that nerds are all nice, harmless guys who just pine away for girls who always want nothing to do with them.  Because nerds are just regular people who happen to have interests in particular things, and they are susceptible to the same problems that all people are - they can be jerks, or sexists, or racists.  And because they have been stereotyped as quiet and nice and all of that, there's this prevailing idea out there that nerds can't be bad people, which is a bunch of BS.  There are people like Aaronson who use "nerd" as a shield to protect them from being considered a bad person as they would if they had some of the same views and were, say, jocks or fratboys or any other cultural group that thinks of itself as mostly male (because, of course, ladynerds are unicorns).  

One of the things I like about DNL is that he takes this idea that nerds are nicer or somehow better than other groups of people and basically says, "nope.  You have the same damn problems, you just have different interests.  Now here's how to work on those problems in ways that might be more appealing to you because you have those interests".

This just blows my mind.  Stereotypes that nerds are nice and harmless [because they're nerds]; where does this come from?  Maybe if I went back and watched a bunch of John Hughes from the 80s I could get that, but even that's a stretch.  I've never gotten a single inkling that such a stereotype could exist.  When I was a kid and teenager being a nerd meant you were uncool, while as an adult it means you're immature and disrespectable.  Never that you were nice or harmless.

Although, if those are actual stereotypes and are pretty prevalent I can understand why DNL may feel the need to dispute them.

[Wondering]

It comes from nerds themselves. I don't know if it's a bit of privilege in your experience, Xexyz, and you don't see it or just that you've truly never encountered it, but when I talked about the sorts of behavior that turned me off dating nerd men? The idea that nerds were only nice and could never be bad was one of the most significant of those behaviors.

When my female friends and I pointed out the bad behavior of other nerd men to our male nerd friends (like physical boundary pushing and stalking-type behavior), it was always, always met with "Oh, he's not doing that. He's just a nice, shy, quiet guy. You misunderstood." Or "You're overreacting. He couldn't have groped you; he's pretty reserved. It must have been an accident." The idea that nerds could only be harmless was applied to all nerd men by default, whether it was deserved or not.

The idea that jocks and frat guys are jerks, unlike nerd men is part of this, too. Every time you see a nerd guy talking about how all the jerks get the girls and he doesn't, that's this internalized stereotype playing out. The idea that nerds could never be bullies because they were bullied is this stereotype, too. (See that play out with various different assholish things Mike Krahulik from Penny Arcade has said. IIRC, when he was making asshole comments about trans folk a year or so ago and got called a bully, that exact excuse was used: That he couldn't be a bully because he was a nerd who had been bullied himself.)

[jcorozza]

The idea that nerds could never be bullies because they were bullied is this stereotype, too.

Yes, so much this. And with it, the idea that the bullied are always innocent victims at all times, or that if you've been bullied, you must be a nice, good person. Except people who are bullied can be just as shitty as those who aren't, or as the bullies.

[PintsizeBro]

Xexyz, you're not the first person I've seen who characterizes addressing the problems standing between you and dating success as "jumping through hoops." Why do you feel this way? I mean, yeah it sucks that you have problems that other people don't have, but the other people are more successful because they don't have those problems (or they've already addressed them in their own lives).

[nearly_takuan]

the other people are more successful because they don't have those problems (or they've already addressed them in their own lives).

What differences do you see between being successful, not having problems, and not needing to jump through hoops?

[Andrew Corvero]

The idea that nerds could never be bullies because they were bullied is this stereotype, too.

Yes, so much this.  And with it, the idea that the bullied are always innocent victims at all times, or that if you've been bullied, you must be a nice, good person.  Except people who are bullied can be just as shitty as those who aren't, or as the bullies.

This is very true. Some people even bring up the idea that they've bullied as an excuse for awful behavior.

Sadly being an object of bullying doesn't make people better, from an ethical perspective. I'm actually convinced that in most cases being exposed to bullying may make you worse if you can't deal with it or you aren't helped by someone to move on.

Being bullied leaves you angry and frustrated. If you don't deal with that anger in a healthy way you can either turn it inwards, internalize the voice of the bully and get depressed, or lash out at the world and hurt people. Either outcome isn't great for you or others.

I'm of the opinion that people should recovery, or if necessary be helped to recovery from bullying to spare both them and others from unneeded grief and pain.

People who have been bullied have every right to be angry given for has happened. However when they let anger change their behavior for the worse they're actually giving power to the bullies to make them and others suffer. There's an element of tragedy to that: the victim lashes out because of the abuse they suffered but by doing so they can cause more suffering. The end result is that there is more suffering in the world.

What you need to do with your anger for being bullied as a nerd is to turn it into motivation. You have to say to yourself "They bullied me, I suffered from that and it was horrible. It wasn't fair. That's why I don't wish further suffering to stem from that, neither to myself nor to others. I'm going to use the anger for the injustice that I suffered as a motivation to help myself grow into someone who no longer suffers from the consequences of my bullying, and who doesn't act like those bullies did, because acting like that creates suffering and I know it first hand".

Suppressing or denying anger isn't right, but expressing it in ways that are damaging to yourself or others also isn't right. Anger from bullying should be challenged into a healthy, productive way. Some people can do it on their own, others need to be helped to do it.

There's no shame in needing psychological help. If a group of people broke your leg and you needed to be helped to walk again, you'd feel no shame. If some people had hindered your social skills and you need to be helped to learn them, you should feel no shame, either.

[Andrew Corvero]

Xexyz, you're not the first person I've seen who characterizes addressing the problems standing between you and dating success as "jumping through hoops." Why do you feel this way? I mean, yeah it sucks that you have problems that other people don't have, but the other people are more successful because they don't have those problems (or they've already addressed them in their own lives).

It may stem from a feeling of being inferior to others (more immature, less manly, or a lesser human being in general) because you need to deal with those problems now while they never had those problems or already addressed them in their lives.

[Xexyz]

Xexyz, you're not the first person I've seen who characterizes addressing the problems standing between you and dating success as "jumping through hoops." Why do you feel this way? I mean, yeah it sucks that you have problems that other people don't have, but the other people are more successful because they don't have those problems (or they've already addressed them in their own lives).

I don't think we're on the same page here, I'm assuming you're referring to this comment of mine:

Couple the above with the fact that he calls himself Dr. Nerdlove and is ostensibly gearing his advice toward nerds, geeks, gamers, and what have you, and it makes me feel resentful.  So because I self-identify as a nerd or can be identified as a nerd, I'm supposed to jump through all these extra hoops just to earn the privilege of being considered 'ready to date?'  Everyone else is A+ awesome, it's just us pathetic loser nerds who need learn not to be creepy, start a self-improvement regimen, reject toxic masculinity, get therapy, improve our horrible social skills... did I miss anything?  

What I meant with this comment is that I read DNL and he often comes across as saying that people who don't identify as nerds either don't have issues with being creepy or entitled, don't suffer from social anxiety or awkwardness, etc. - or if they do, it's ok if they ignore those shortcomings because they're cool and have other attractive traits nerds lack which makes up for it. That's why I used the phrase "jumping through hoops" - I feel that because I identify as nerd DNL is telling me that I'm obligated to do a much of self-improvement work that non-nerds who may have the exact same issues or shortcomings don't need to address. It's not that I believe that self-improvement is a chore or that performing self-improvement somehow constitutes injustice toward me; its more of the whom DNL implies who needs to be doing the self-improving as a matter of obligation and who doesn't.

[kath]

Hmm, that's very interesting. I never thought he was saying, "you are a nerd, and therefore you have more dating problems than other people, and have extra special work to do."

I interpret it as "I'm a nerd, I've had dating problems ... you're a nerd who's looking for dating advice [and therefore presumably have some dating problems] - here's my advice as someone who's been there." Some of it is tied in to presumptions that may be more associated with nerds, some of it is tied in to societal baggage around gender relations, a lot of it is just general interacting-with-other-humans advice.

So basically, him being Doctor Nerdlove has never indicated to me that he considers nerds particularly in need of help ... just that he feels better placed to help nerds as a member of that subculture than others.

Also the hoops he suggests jumping through are generally hoops most people need to jump through, and often ones that categories of people far outside of "nerds" also have a lot of trouble with.

I've actually found that most of his advice is totally applicable to people who aren't nerds. He's just working to an audience he knows and identifies with.

What I meant with this comment is that I read DNL and he often comes across as saying that people who don't identify as nerds either don't have issues with being creepy or entitled, don't suffer from social anxiety or awkwardness, etc. - or if they do, it's ok if they ignore those shortcomings because they're cool and have other attractive traits nerds lack which makes up for it.  

(emphasis added)

I also don't think I've ever seen Dr Nerdlove say that. In general, I notice him taking people to task for those behaviors, whether he (or they) identify then[selves]as nerds. Is there a specific example you're thinking of where you noticed that that I've missed? He talks a lot about toxic masculinity, which would be using the masculine ideal (an ideal that doesn't qualify as "nerdy") to reinforce or excuse that kind of behavior and attitude.

[Xexyz]

What I meant with this comment is that I read DNL and he often comes across as saying that people who don't identify as nerds either don't have issues with being creepy or entitled, don't suffer from social anxiety or awkwardness, etc. - or if they do, it's ok if they ignore those shortcomings because they're cool and have other attractive traits nerds lack which makes up for it.  

(emphasis added)

I also don't think I've ever seen Dr Nerdlove say that. In general, I notice him taking people to task for those behaviors, whether he (or they) identify then[selves]as nerds. Is there a specific example you're thinking of where you noticed that that I've missed? He talks a lot about toxic masculinity, which would be using the masculine ideal (an ideal that doesn't qualify as "nerdy") to reinforce or excuse that kind of behavior and attitude.

Sorry it took so long to reply; I couldn't think of a good response.  But to answer your question, I'll refer to the article of his I linked to in one of my early posts:  The way he consistently uses the phrase "Nerds and Nice Guys" as if to imply that they were one in the same.  Contrast that with his latest article where he talks about problematic behavior without conflating that behavior with nerddom.  

At least some of the issues I have with DNL's articles is that his writing style just rubs me the wrong way.

After reading some of the comments in this thread, it's made me reconsider my conception of myself as a 'nerd' instead of something else like 'gamer' or 'geek'.

[Izmuth]

Sorry it took so long to reply; I couldn't think of a good response.  But to answer your question, I'll refer to the article of his [url=/2015/01/nice-guys-dont-finish-last/]I linked to[/url] in one of my early posts:  The way he consistently uses the phrase "Nerds and Nice Guys" as if to imply that they were one in the same.  Contrast that with his [url=/2015/09/a-gentlemans-guide-to-not-being-an-asshole/#idc-container]latest[/url] article where he talks about problematic behavior without conflating that behavior with nerddom.  

At least some of the issues I have with DNL's articles is that his writing style just rubs me the wrong way.

After reading some of the comments in this thread, it's made me reconsider my conception of myself as a 'nerd' instead of something else like 'gamer' or 'geek'.

That's the problem with written text, IMHO.
You can keep reading it until your brain latches onto some words that rub you the wrong way, which results in badfeels.
Spoken text you hear, you get the main message and forget the details. It's why when people have a problem with me and try to discuss it over email, I insist we call. I've seen friendships crash and burn over perceived slights that got waaay out of hand.

You might want to try to read the articles only once, and force yourself not to reread them?
Your mileage may vary on that one.

Or, you know, stop reading the newer articles all together. Again IMHO, DNL has said most everything he can on the topic of dating in his older articles. I personally find it more interesting to lurk in this forum and read more diverse case studies about what works, what doesn't work, what people struggle with, than what DNL can ever write, simply because he's only one guy. He can't have experienced everything.

[JP McBride]

At least some of the issues I have with DNL's articles is that his writing style just rubs me the wrong way.

You're right to be wary. Doctors and predators alike seek out the wounded.

EDIT: I don't have any reason to think that DNL is acting in bad faith, but you don't need to second guess your feelings if someone's advice seems off to you.

[Enail]

<mod>Hey JPMcBride, your post is a little ambiguous - I'm pretty sure you're saying something like "it's wise to be wary of advice-givers," but it's easy to read it as just implying that DNL is a predator, which is getting a bit over the forum guidelines on personal attacks. So could you please rephrase your post to remove the ambiguity a bit? Thanks! </mod>

[Xexyz]

At least some of the issues I have with DNL's articles is that his writing style just rubs me the wrong way.

You're right to be wary. Doctors and predators alike seek out the wounded.

[kath]

Also, you're certainly not obligated to like DNL's style, or stick with it to "get what you can" out of it or anything. He doesn't need to be doing a terrible, or even bad job for it to run you the wrong way and for you to not read it.

Again, there, I don't think he's conflating "entitlement, nerds and neanderthals" - I think he's saying that there are some sort of prevalent ideas in nerd-circles that reinforce entitlement (which there are in society in general, the specific ones are somewhat different in nerd-circles, and I'm not much for trying to contrast severity of different ideas that are [might be] more prevalent in nerd-circles at this point int he discussion). I read it as, he's looking at a kind of uncomfortable topic and delving into it, and dealing with what you can do about it and how to fight those nerd-circle messages. And I don't think he's saying that being a nerd means you have to have these problems - if he was, he would tell people not to be nerds, not tell them to adjust how they're thinking.

I do think if you're sort of having that reaction of emotional closeness that the way DNL is making the distinctions isn't working for you, do go find other ways to discuss these issues that helps you make that bridge more productively. (And that's a totally sincere comment, I'm hoping it doesn't sound judgmental or like it's supposed to be a dig - it's not)

[Sponsored content]