ego.istic.org

Geeks, it seems to me, are very stereotype-aware. As a group, we know what the world at large thinks of us, and we're all too happy to oblige. We like to play with the idea of stereotypes, and we act in accordance with what people expect of us.

This is not just true in computing. I've noticed that scientists, too, are stereotype-aware. They know that there is an image of the absent-minded, lab-coated scientist who doesn't let emotions get in the way of logic, and some of our colleagues in the sciences consciously play that rôle. Many stereotypes are loosely based on reality and don't reflect statistically sound properties of members of the group being stereotyped, but in these cases the stereotype becomes reality.

This isn't just a question of stereotypes held by outsiders. Geeks themselves have an idea of what constitutes geeky traits, making a second stereotype, which feeds back into the outsider view. Arguably, this is a good thing for the group, as it allows insiders more control over the view held by outsiders, more than would be possible if insiders just ignored the stereotype.

It's a strange kind of conformance, really. The Jargon File, currently edited by Raymond, has an appendix listing observable traits of hackers. Like the rest of the Jargon File, the list is strongly US-centric (he describes Guinness as “exotic”, for instance) and somewhat out of date (there is no mention of anime, amongst other things), but it is still worth a read, by geeks and by people who know geeks. Perhaps the most significant statement therein is that “hackerdom semi-consciously maintains ‘counterculture’ values.”

I'd go as far as saying that most geeks start out being non-conformists. Perhaps we simply disagree with the values that people conform to, or perhaps it is something else, but the outcome is that geeks often feel like they don't fit in, at school and sometimes in later life, and often turn this into a more violent refusal to conform. But then they meet lists like the above, and either because being considered a hacker is a social reward they consider worth having, or because they are fed up of refusing to conform, they conform to the stereotype. Raymond's list is far from the only one, and all such lists are only images of the actual list of traits each of us carries around in his head.

I suspect that many social groups enter into this dance of image-conscious conformance with and divergence from other members of the group, with lists of “you know you've done too much x when...” But other groups treat their lists as humorous diversions, not as holy writ. Some geeks are so desperate to conform to these perceived group norms that they view drowning themselves in coffee as an attainment, and see staying up all night as an end rather than a means. I hesitate to make the explicit comparison because it is trite and obvious, but it is almost as if they think it will get them more XP.

In the presence of such people, the presentation of certain traits as a badge of membership makes the situation worse, generating a vicious circle where self-conscious adherence to dogma leads to reinforcement of the notion that the dogma reflects actual group norms. The feedback loop mentioned above, by which insiders get to influence outsiders' idea of what constitutes group membership, encloses another, by which insiders turn weak observations, widely reported, into precepts. There are two stereotypes, and in a way, neither of them are based on reality.

We can't discuss people's reactions to lists of their supposed character traits without considering the Forer effect, used by astrologers, palmists, and other charlatans the world over. In short, the effect is that if you give people a list of properties you say applies to them, they will tend to focus on the true ones and ignore the false ones. If you give people who would like to consider themselves hackers a list of alleged hacker traits, the same applies. But in this case, there is also an anti-Forer effect, whereby people who do not consider themselves hackers will focus on the traits they don't have, and say, “See, I'm not geeky, because I do enjoy watching rugby,” or whatever. Thus both insiders and outsiders rate the accuracy of the list higher than they should, giving it renewed authority.