Rohit's Realm

// rohitsrealm.com / archive / 2004 / 09 / 14 / code-is-not-cool

September 14, 2004

Code is NOT Cool

As all the regular readers of my blog probably know, my social criticism and written barrages are usually restricted to a few select topics: bums, bureaucracy, and buffoons. However, after having had the unfortunate experience of hearing three independent conversations about computer programming in less than 12 hours while on campus today, I felt it was my duty to clarify some points regarding this subject.

The most important point I can make about the topic of public discussion of programming, computer science, or really any other such nerdy subject is this: Code is not cool! Now, realize that this is coming from a EECS major with a significant background in programming. I would even venture as far as to call myself a programmer (others certainly do). So you might naturally wonder how I can so unequivocally make such a strong statement, given my own background. The answer is, very easily, considering I know the guidelines regarding public discussion of nerdy subjects.

Now, what are these guidelines I speak of? Simply put, the guidelines are implicit, unstated rules adopted by all technical people desiring to be accepted by mainstream society, which dictate when it is and (and more importantly) when it is not acceptable to speak about nerdy topics. Rarely are they mentioned or even acknowledged; usually, it's just an understanding between technical people. However, given the fact that many of my younger colleagues in the EECS department haven't figured them out yet, I'm going to spell them out here.

  1. Code is not cool. I don't care how excited you're about your 61b project or the wet dreams you have about C++. More importantly, no one else cares either. Any reference to anything that remotely sounds computer science-related will inevitably bring up every existing stereotype of CS geeks to mind within a fraction of a second in anyone who hears it. Even referencing code or coding is bordering on social suicide. Just stop! Restrain yourself.
  2. There are few acceptable places where nerdy topics such as code can be discussed, which include (and are probably limited to): the sanctity of your own home, a computer science class (and no other class, mind you!), online (since its all computers anyway), and at work (IF and ONLY IF you work in a technology field). You might get away with discussing these topics in the general campus nerdzone (ie. Evans, Cory, Soda, Bectel Terrace, etc.), but any attempts to discuss these topics outside that area are completely unacceptable.
  3. It is never acceptable to initiate a conversation about computers, unless you are in one of the acceptable places of discourse (see #2). Even then, some caveats apply. If you are in the presence of non-technical people, it is NEVER, EVER, EVER acceptable to initiate conversation about computers. Furthermore, if an ignorant technical person unwittingly does in fact initiate a conversation about computers while you two are in the presence of non-technical people, it is your responsibility to quickly change the subject.
  4. Snorting while discussing computers doesn't do anything for your image.
  5. Everyone knows C++ and LISP are different and that you learned C++ in high school. There is no need to continuously reiterate this fact.
  6. While in a public place, if a non-technical person asks your advice about a (probably trivial) computer issue he or she is confronting, answer in the quickest and most vague possible way, and then quickly change the subject, preferably to sex, drugs, or alcohol.
  7. Remember, everything is worse if only guys are involved. Not that the presence of women will make things much better, nor is it acceptable to do any of the above just because a woman is present, but just be cogniscent that if it's only guys discussing programming, it's atleast 10x worse.
  8. Referencing your programming abilities is not an effective means of flirting or acquiring a date, nor will it ever be, no matter how much you wish it were.

I could go on, but I think you get the point. Now, some of you might be thinking that this system is inherently unfair, considering that people in other majors can freely discuss what they are passionate about, whether it be politics, economics, or art, while tech majors have to restrain themselves. I'm not going to argue with that; it is unfair. But just look at it this way: people are intimidated by what they don't understand, and frankly, it's much easier to understand a conversation about politics, economics, or art than it is to understand one about programming or math. Those are the realities of the subjects - deal with it.

So, the next time you have an awesome thought about computers you feel like discussing with someone, stop. Write it down. Shoot off an email. Send someone a text message. Just don't start talking about it with your buddy as you walk down Sproul Plaza. Follow these rules and you might even notice people regarding you in a less disgusted manner than before. Hell, maybe you'll even find that special someone. Ok. Let's not go too far.

Comments

yea. thats why i quit bein a CS major son. code = ???

But snorting coke while discussing computers... now THAT is something =)

Well, by snorting, I meant while laughing, but I guess given the givens, I could see why you mistook that for snorting coke. Ha!

It is unfortunate that one can not express their zeal for tech without appearing to be a total freak. But then again, I'm a bit afraid of anyone who appears to be WAY too passionate about something ... especially religion or politics.

I offer hard evidence for point 8; this is quoted straight from the Ladder Theory:

"Women seem to especially like it if you are more devoted to your bad music, biker gang, forearm tattoo or marijuana. These all seem to work wonders. There are some interests you can show in a woman that will help you to fuck her: a healthy interest in destroying her self-esteem and in fucking her friends more than her seem to work wonders. Note that the following topics of disinterest have been field tested and shown conclusively not to work: ___Unix___, literature, poetry, international politics, and sodomy."

It's in the ladder theory, it's gotta be true: http://www.laddertheory.com/

amen about the ladder theory brotha.

I'm shocked that sodomy lies in the second category.

Not sure what point you are trying to bring out here. I think its quite clear that the intricacies of *any* subject are not cool to the mainstream public. I could bore one as easily with the prospects for quantum computing in the area of cryptography as with Joyce's cylcical use of time in Finnegans Wake. Mainstream cool thrives on homogeneity and pandering to the lowest common denominator. Are you suggesting that everyone should just talk about who Britaney is screwing this week? Or that we should all act disintrested in everything around us, focusing our lives convincing others of our coolness? I have a limited amount of time and energy, and I'm not going to waste either trying to fit into the mass prescribed "guidlines." Your younger colleagues in the EECS department aren't discussing CS in an attempt to fit into a mainstream that thinks we'll still find some WMDs, they are expressing their individuality: the ideas that make them different. If someone is disgusted at me for thinking beyond their cognative capacity, then (how to say this for your simple mind) fuck you. You're not interesting enough for me to care about your opinion anyway, since you haven't even attempted to understand something out of your normal routine of "The Newlyweds" followed by "Desperate Housewives." Rambling now, but see http://paulgraham.com/nerds.html for a more coherent explanation of why I am right.

I'm not suggesting that we (by we, I refer to the technical people) have to always ensure that we talk in ways that every dimwit will understand. This isn't an issue of popularity or even conformity - it's an issue of communication and lameness.

Nothing about social ineptitude is cool. No matter how smart someone is or how unique their ideas, no one will ever stop to listen to them if he or she has already have relegated you to some stereotyped category.

This is the heart of the issue I am trying to address: if someone constantly, day in and day only talks about computers with people who don't know, understand, or care about computers, those people will quickly lose respect for you and your opinion in any other subject. Anyone can be seemingly intelligent if they are talking about a subject that he or she knows well and the other party doesn't. What's truly impressive is when someone can speak cogently about a subject that the two parties share in common or one that he or she isn't spending his or her life studying.

Diversity of ideas and thought are what truly defines intelligence and uniqueness in my mind. I would expect someone as a CS major to know and discuss CS. I would be impressed if someone as a CS major could talk as intelligently about an unrelated subject such as philosophy. And what I saw those folks doing was trying to be impressive through techno-talk, and so I wrote my entry to point out that techno-talk isn't impressive, it's just lame.

Ah, that is much clearer to me, and I agree with that sentiment. Roger Needham once said, "Systems should be build to do useful things for real people." If you can't communicate with real people, you probably don't understand their needs. But if you have an awesome thought about computers, and its awesome because it really makes a difference to someone, you should be able to explain it to that person. I would suggest practicing relaying this information. Improve your communication, don't limit it.

Rohit, AMEN to every one of your points, and your comments after it.

Add Comment


 


 


 


 


* required field

E-mail addresses will never be displayed. The following HTML tags are allowed:
a abbr acronym address big blockquote br cite del em li ol p pre q small strong sub sup ul