STEM impairs sociability

Hi /hum/, This is a topic that has bothered me for months. I am currently in school studying for mathematics, and while I haven't made it very far through my formal education, I've been educating myself on software, logic, and machine learning related material informally (on and off) for a good decade. Here is the phenomenon insofar as I can articulate it. Whenever there is a period of time in which I study material that is very detailed, I notice a decline in my ability to perform socially which is proportional to the degree with which I become immersed in my study. With respect to the nature of what is studied, I mean detailed in the sense that there are many moving parts whose relationships are precise and thus require higher attention detail in order to reach valid conclusions and understanding. For a subject to be "detailed" might also reference the bottom up (where information flows from local to global scope) pattern of perception or thought which, in certain cases, is required for proper studying. By social performance, I mean the ability to tune micro jestures (for convincing communication) as well as to facilitate patterns of perception and thought which are conducive to presenting a persona that radiates feelings of comfort, attention, positivity, or whatever traits I believe people expect me to embody before reciprocating trust. This phenomenon, which I will refer to as the STEM/social trade-off, seems to effect other people, though I don't know to what extent it has been articulated. I believe it effects other people because there is a pervasive stereotype in my culture which portrays individuals with high spatial/logical intelligence as being socially inept or undesirable, ie. the phenomenon of nerds, though I will reject this terminology in order to convey my ideas clearly without evoking unrelated connotations of the word. In particular, I am referring to a decline of social performance Not caused by inherent personality traits, a lack of hygene, disinterest in people, et cetera, but only to one stemming from a shift in perception/cognition that occurs as a direct side effect of studying STEM subjects. I have a few explanations for this phenomenon. 1) The object/subject distinction. There are two regions of the human brain which are responsible for object related and people related reasoning which have some degree of exclusivity- that is, they correspond to separate neural pathways. If this were true, then it might be that extensive activation of one pathway may "turn off" the other so that it requires quite a bit of time and stimulation in order to be reactivated to optimal functioning levels. 2) The anomaly pathway. In this hypothesis, the subject of studying is involve a brain region or pathway which is involved in the detection and processing of anomolies, ei. threats. This is because studying by it's nature requires venturing into the unknown, experiencing new patterns of thought, and formulating new knowledge. In general, when I am immersed in my studying, I intentionally study material which is confusing to me because it is only through the resolution of that confusion that understanding is gained. The side effect is that such activity might modulate pathways involved in threat detection/resolution since that (I would guess) is the evolutionary purpose of reasoning about anomolies. If true, than perhaps this increased perception of threats is perceived as paranoia, negativity, et cetera which causes others to react to me differently. When I perceive there changed reactions, I become insecure and this creates a negative circular feedback loop. These are the two best explanations I can think of without resorting to a research of the litereature on cognitive science which is a field I have limited familiarity with. My questions for you: Have you personally experienced the STEM/social trade-off? If so, does my description of it resonate with you? What other perspectives do you have on it? Do you believe either of my explanations hold truth, or is the phenomenon caused by something else, or both? What other explanations might do justice to this phenomenon? How can this phenomenon be overcome so as to maintain an acceptable standard of social performance without withdrawing from STEM studies? I am interested in hearing all of your thoughts, please discuss!

TL;DR for this thread: Whenever I study too much I get socially awkward and I can't seem to control it

>>19976 Exactly. But it only really happens with STEM. For instance, practicing music/improvising causes me to become less socially awkward.

One of the greatest skills when studying STEM is to turn the focus switch on and off. When I'm really focused on something I will shut out *everything* else. I'll forget to eat, drink water, etc. My ability to hold a conversation or act socially goes way down because I'm not really paying attention to it, not really interested in it.

>>19977 Sounds like placebo to me. Especially as stem itself holds biology/chem which is a lot of group work in a lab or outdoors on excursions for bio. Psych students would get more people interaction perhaps but Artists working alone on their piece would be CS tier. If i would have to make a guess i would point at eye strain. Older people literally go blind for face2face interactions because degrading vision makes it impossible to read micro-emotions on other peoples faces. Might get similar short-term blindness from working long hours before a screen.

>>19980 >Artists working alone on their piece would be CS tier. I don't think OP was referring to the social or asocial nature of the activity, but the type of thought involved; whether it is logical and/or mechanistic vs. abstract. That is a good point about psych students in particular though.

>>19996 I don't believe it's really different. You recombine old ideas til something works. In art it's shapes. In CS code blocks. I would say good artists have even more direction & logic (anatomy&co) than bad programmers. (lets google&copypaste til it works)

One other hypothesis I thought of after posting this relates to introversion. 3) Being introverted means that interpersonal activity takes much more concentration and energy. There are a few ways this could cause my symptoms. On one hand, it might mean that when a great deal of the capacity to concentrate is spent on studying there is no mental capacity left over for social exchanges. On the other hand it might simply be that there is no "decline" in social performance, only a return to baseline after the activity stops being practiced routinely. Though I don't think the latter option explains the way my performance worsens even if I continue engaging other people consistently.

>>19980 I suppose I'm only identifying stem related activities that are done in solitude. I have never worked on software with another person, and even if I did, it would not be face to face or involve much chatting. As for math, it can only become a social activity in a forced or artificial way IMO since learning is mostly contingent on working things out internally and learning to "see" new patterns or objects in the minds eye. Learning to think about and imagine objects which you've never seen is more a matter of taking the time to ponder than listening to someone else talk about the object in my experience. Maybe I believe this because verbal descriptions of mathematical objects will not register for unless I'm already familiar with those objects to begin with.

>>19996 I don't know if it is either one, but I think I was leaning more towards the kind of cognitive process as you describe.

>>20014 Math study groups. I'm also more the sit alone and think about it calmly type but i did participate to make connections and some people seemed really keen on it. The problem is now how statistically relevant such groups are. No idea what the majority does.

It's such a silly myth that we need more STEM. We don't need more of that ѕһіt. We have more than enough of this time, energy, and people-wasting nonsense. We don't produce anything worthwhile with it anymore; just endless busyboxes and cynical machines to turn people's passions into money and then turn that money into more money. We don't need a more clever world. We need a more personable world. STEM is just another vampire. But it pays the bills well.

>>20028 That's politics&co. Has zero to do with people who wish to understand the space they exist in. And the social sciences whore themselves historically way more out than stem to get their funding.

>>20028 what if your field pf study is meaningful to you?

>>20029 > the social sciences whore themselves historically way more out than stem to get their funding ...usually because they have to do so to get by at all.

>>20014 I've always found that talking to other math students, while not a substitute for studying along, can often help with organizing your thoughts and getting new perspectives. Like, you can't really do math if you can't communicate it. I think a lot of people in STEM disciplines, *particularly* CS and math, don't appreciate how much of a collaberative endeavor it is. None of the great proofs of the 20th and 21st centuries were the result of a single genius, all of them were cumulative effort by thousands of people. >>20057 and you think STEM researchers aren't in the exact same position?

>>20072 >cumulative effort by thousands of people well, I guess it would be more accurate to say "between 5 and thousands of people" to take into account some of those very small research groups

>>20072 That's not really accurate. There are a few superstars. That one indian dude for example who died early.

One of the bigger recent solutions in math was one prof who quit his job and went full hermit working alone for 10 years on a single problem. I believe math is the only field where you can do that cause you don't require any resources beyond pen&paper.

>>20074 Ramanujan was definitely an anomaly. Even so, without the work of G.H. Hardy and others his work would have been largely useless. >>20075 you mean Grigori Perelman and the Poincare Conjecture? He didn't even publish a full proof, he just outlined a proof strategy(which he and others thought might exist, and had been looking for for decades). The proof itself was produced by a large international team of mathematicians, he provided a key component.

>>20076 How do these people work together? I can't imagine how you could split the workload of creating a proof. The whole process seems iterative not something you can multitask.

>>20077 Part of it is just that you actually have some people in a room with some blackboards hashing out different proof strategies. In a stage of the proof where there's no obvious way to proceed, this is the most effective way to do math. Another part of it is that many proofs are split into a large variety of cases, which can be worked on mostly independently. Look into the Classification of Finite Simple Groups for a highly distributed proof.

>>19979 >I'll forget to eat, drink water, etc. That's not good for you either, give the pomodoro technique a try. It helps a lot if you're the kind of person who forgets about everything while working. Not sure about you but if you burn yourself out working long hours, it helps break it up.

>>20096 >>I'll forget to eat, drink water, etc. >give the pomodoro technique a try The ``pomodoro'' technique is interrupting your attention by a tomatolike (!!) timer. Good for only important, temporally sensitive requirements. Otherwise, harmful; such focus is of most efficient cogitation. When you notice your mental ability worsening due to a depleted substance (you'll know which), ingest (you'll know how much) that depleted substance. (Have each ready for quick ingestion.) When you notice your mental ability worsening otherwise, sleep. Pre-sleep is convenient for bathing. (During the day, have your urethra septically connected to a pee receptacle. You can hold your poop until bathing.) While bathing water is heating up, poop; flush using collected pee, then flush using clean water. Long nails? clip. Bathing water ready? bathe. Dream. (Post-sleep is convenient for bathing.) Thus unattentively are fulfilled your temporally sensitive obligations.

>>I can't imagine how you could split the workload of creating a proof A proof (of a sentence) is a process such that any possible mind, having undergone it, comprehends that sentence. Beware: triviality isn't nonnecessity. Counterexample: proving an unproven comprehended is trivial, and necessary. If we know how to comprehend it, it's only a matter of undergoing a known way to comprehend it. (Mathematics would try to find a new way to comprehend it.) Mathematics is to comprehend uncomprehended sentences for which we don't know how to comprehend it. Mathematics is supremely creative.

>>22086 Whilst I've had many people tell me mathematics is creative for the past few years, I can't help to think it's just a farce. When I'm creating music, in an 'imaginative' way (trying to make something new) it never really feels as frustrating or lifeless as say mathematics does. I know this is partly because I'm just not a very good mathematician, but it is a lot more cold in my mind, since you are so limited in your options, something a film maker or painter wouldn't experience. Is creative the right word? Why do self prescribed 'creative' people into arts and the like usually hate mathematics? Sort of feels like mathematicians wanting to have their cake and eat it

>>20077 For a vast majority of proofs there's no "plan" for who gets to tackle what, talking about these high level proofs usually you have a small circle of professional mathematicians working in the field on many problems at a time, a paper gets released, which inspires them, (like Grigori Perelman) which causes new strides in another problem. This can then be worked on by others, ideas can be discussed in university departments or conferences etc, but it is a very slow process, some proofs halt for years or even decades waiting for a new vital piece of information that fits.

>>22104 >it never really feels as frustrating or lifeless as say mathematics does. I have tried to learn to play the guitar before, and it is extremely frustrating. I have no patience for it, I want to make the guitar make the right noises but I don't know how, all I can do is scales(badly). This is where most people are at when it comes to math. Pretty much any math you learn in school until year 4 or 5 of university is equivalent to doing scales, or something even simpler. It takes most people years and years of study to create anything new in mathematics. >but it is a lot more cold in my mind, since you are so limited in your options, something a film maker or painter wouldn't experience you're limited by the number of techniques you know and the number of concepts you have familiarity with, just like a film maker or painter is. >Why do self prescribed 'creative' people into arts and the like usually hate mathematics? Mathematics is much more difficult to get started with, it's mandatory but is taught horribly, and most people don't see it as beautiful or interesting.

STEM doesn't impair soykaf, you're just socially awkward. Stop making excuses for your inadequacy, you're just perpetuating a tired, boring stereotype.

>When I'm creating music, in an 'imaginative' way (trying to make something new) it never really feels as frustrating or lifeless as say mathematics does You're probably doing it wrong, then. Mathematics isn't supposed to be frustrating or ``lifeless.'' Do you understand the concepts? I find that, sometimes, I'm frustrated, but when I look closer, I find that I just didn't quite understand one thing or other. (Of course, the fact of studying things which are so unknown, means that such work should be expected to progress more slowly than, say, musical composition.) With musical composition, improvization, of creative performance, there is the benefit of closer understanding of the things involved. (In Mathematics, except in some special cases, you must imagine everything---no sensory aids. Although, some of my favourite music was created by musicians who (according to what they say) purely imagined the music before ever writing it down; other my favourites are quite the opposite, imagined nothing, but ``made the music make itself.'') >Why do self prescribed 'creative' people into arts and the like usually hate mathematics? If they've tried Mathematics, it can only be because they're not too stupid, or too unimaginitive. Some of them are perfectly creative, but don't understand what Mathematics is. (Some think that Mathematics is the fastædium of manual calculage.) In this case, they might excel at Mathematics, if they tried it. Or they might really prefer their chosen medium. (If they do it right, it'll be Mathematics---in a Mathematically unusual medium.) >>22106 pretty much summed it up. Someone ponders some about this idea, tells others what he came up with, then ponders it some more, or goes on to ponder something else. That's not to say there aren't Mathematics which may be done lonely, but it's a fact of human intelligence that multiple co\"operating intellects are able to work more efficiently than the same nonco\"operating intellects. We don't necessarily know where we'll find good results. Alone, one would have to care to not take any false assumption, or risk losing a legitimate path to the good results. But it's often more efficient, when traversing a particular path, to trust the suggested assumptions of one's trained na\"ition. With multiple Mathematicians, there may be one that maintains strict neutrality, acting as a life guard, while the other's dive into the deep-end of their assumptions; if a particular path becomes known bad, this neutralite can notify the affected, so that they can change course, or look for other things around them. (There doesn't need be such a neutralite, so long as there's someone that'll notify him of results that may be pertinent to him---trawling for results is not always the most efficient method.) A lone Mathematician may miss, by his predjudice, something that another finds patent. (There is a problem in the culture of Mathematics of assuming that what ``I'' finds obvious is obvious for each other. I think that this is due to the (true) belief that Mathematical results are objective, and the (false) assumption that objective facts are objectively (i.e. not dependent on the Mathematician) obvious. So, for now, we should still support such ``neutralite'' Mathematicians.) >Sort of feels like mathematicians wanting to have their cake and eat it It doesn't only feel that way, it is that way. This is a good thing. Anyone who wants to have cake, but not eat it, is either making such a bad cake that it's not worth, or actively harmful, to eat, or is masochistically self-denient. (Perhaps such a person hasn't heard of balanced nutrition and physical exercise. Each of these, when done properly, are quite enjoyable; when done improperly, are harmful.) In this metaphor, creativity is the cake, logical rigour, et cetera, are important other parts of the ``balanced nutrition,'' and drills are the ``physical exercise.''

Back on-topic, the reason you're unable to socialize while thinking intensely is the fact that you're using your resources to think. In the same way, if you would be using all your resources to socialize, you'd be unable to think intensely. I know from personal experience, that the more I focus on the social transaction, the worse my thinking ability is. This is why I don't worry about stupid things like persuasion, nonverbal subtlety, et cetera. These things are only going to slow you down. Perhaps you're worried about losing friends. Don't be. If you lose your friends because you are only superficially less subtle, they're not good people. There'll be other people around who'll be perfectly OK with direct, efficient conversation. Unless you're living in a small town, then you should be careful, and steer your friends towards being more understanding of direct (i.e. efficient) social transaction.

>>22108 I guess with music it only took me a few years to get very competent with my instruments, where as with maths I've been working on it for the whole of my life and have only just started making new strides. I see beauty in mathematics and have been fairly successful at it so far, but creativity wise I think it suffers from being so horrendously large that you can't hold all tools to your disposal. >>22112 I said that this could be a result of me not being a very good mathematician. I don't have full confidence in my understand of every topic, but that is still an issue with mathematics and being creative, is that it takes so long to even understand some of the most fundamental things. The biggest similarity is there is definitely a "feeling" you get when you're going in the right direction, an instinct that pulls you towards a certain way that can only form from experience, which is something truly great to experience. Maybe I'm just jaded when it comes to mathematics and I haven't studied music to the same depths so my view is skewed. >>22112 I posted the other comment too (fuarrrked up posting twice). An example of the 'lone genius' working at something would be Andrew Wiles proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, he worked on it quietly for years and years, (as a professional mathematician he was proving other stuff too), until he made a break through and published a proof, there was a (relatively minor) mistake though, and he couldn't find the solution, so Richard Taylor helped him and they managed to fix it. A group working together may not have the focus Wiles had, but the perspective from Taylor was supremely important when finishing the proof. As the other lain said "a lone Mathematician may miss, by his prejudice, something that another finds patent". I may misunderstand your writing but it looks like you've understood my idiom slightly wrong, once the cake is eaten you can't have it, it is gone. I meant that mathematicians want to have the purest of all science be creative and extremely rigorous as well, but I am not sure those things go hand in hand all the time. What's the jazz of maths? Back to the OP I can't really relate to your issues, I do think the way my brain is 'wired' to make me good at STEM related subjects means I am not as emotionally talented, but I've not noticed it get worse at times of particular focus. I'm not inept though, I'm in long term relationship and have friends etc, but what gives me the impression your feelings are deeper than just a 'trade off' is the section about micro gestures and wanting to radiate comfort/attention, if you're just happy and ask questions and aren't ugly these things are quite easy to achieve. However, at times of particular stress I do do some of things you list, mainly a disinterest in people and a willingness to shut myself off from the world, maybe stress is the result and only caused by moments at school where higher focus is required?

>>22111 Valid points are being made on different sides of this. Read the thread and stop being triggered.

>>22147 >What's the jazz of maths? differential geometry.

>>22128 Thank you for the on topic response, the phenomenon you describe is on par with what I'm trying to articulate. The problem I have is not only less subtle communication. It's much worse actually- my behavior becomes stereo-typically awkward and it damages my image/relationship with respect to everyone I interact with. Here are some of the symptoms - awkward, painfully mechanical gestures and movement that convey (wrongly) to others that something is wrong with me - difficulty smiling and less fluid control over my expressions; incongruence in my speech and body language - my eyes seem to be less open, and the efficacy of whatever process is integrating new information into my awareness/active perception is dampened When this happens, I ruin any rapport that I've managed to build up with peers/other students, life acquaintances, et cetera. People seem to think I'm angry or hostile, trust me less, or are generally suspicious of me and uncomfortable around me, and sometimes even remark at my mood or intentions as they perceive it. More aggressive individuals will become more diligent about undermining or manipulating me. When I start to notice the situation going down hill, I become incredibly insecure, which further damages my performance. People say things like "just be yourself", or "you just have to get comfortable". But if everyone you meet consistently, over the course of years and with invariance to context, signals the same messages to you, how can you simply ignore the problem and "just be yourself'. If you read this and believe I am socially akward, you are missing my point. I am only socially awkward when I don't control certain variables in my life. For instance, I've noticed that I experience the above symptoms when - missing a meal - consuming pornography - using certain drugs, eg. stimulants/pot/psychedelics - avoiding danger and discomfort - extended deprivation of physical contact Yes, I have to try very hard to simply not to regress into social dissonance. It seems like I am highly sensitive to certain conditions that don't seem to effect other people much. But if I control all the variables, I find myself able to perform much better. By 'perform much better', I don't mean having high self esteem. I mean that people seem much happpier to see me. I make friends everywhere I go, I engage in satisfying converstations with strangers who walk away from the experience seeming happy, attractive women show interest in me, I succeed in job interviews, etc. Sure, there will still be difficulty, awkward moments, blunders, unpleasantness, and the likes, but I have seen myself excel socially when I put my mind to it. The difference is exceptional, and to readers who might wave off what I have to say or dismiss me because you believe that I'm stereotyping, insecure (although I am), or because you believe that it's all in my head is unproductive to the discussion. The fact is, the way that small conditions can throw me into such a horrible state of turmoil and social isolation has puzzled me for years, and I have been struggling, though that is not the point of this thread. In the OP, I'm only trying to address one aspect of this sensitivity (and hoping that a few other lainons will come out who can validate my experience if it isn't something that's specific to me), since I can control all of the other aspects with enough diligence. The fact that intense study also seems to place me at odds with other people is not so easily solved, because my desire to engage meaningfully with mathematics and software is not strong enough to overwhelm my desire for social harmony, and neither is my desire for social harmony enough to overwhelm my love of the fields that I've chosen.

>>22147 Thank you for the response as well. Sometimes it isn't that difficult for me to get along, but periodically I find myself struggling intensely and no matter what I do, I can see distrust/distaste for me reflected in other's expressions in a way that is consistent and . For instance, >if you're just happy and ask questions and aren't ugly these things are quite easy to achieve This has not been my experience. I have never lived through a period of time where I didn't have to struggle uphill to not end up as a group outlier receiving consistent negative attention. I suppose I could just get over it since the harm and lost opportunities of alienation can be circumvented. But it is painful on one level, and on another, I can't accept watching myself miss the mark in one particular area over and over again without becoming preoccupied and searching for a way to solve the problem.

>>22231 meant to say >consistent and unmistakable.

>>22106 this touches on something i didn't realize until i got to higher level math in university: it really is very social (with some exceptions of course), in a way that transcends "office politics" among coworkers. well, the teaching side of things is more bureaucratic and hierarchical, but when it comes to actually doing math the dynamic is simultaneously more genuinely collaborative (as opposed to "everyone does their own job or delegates to someone else") and more individualistic, as paradoxical as that sounds. collaborations usually come from a converging of minds, and not just to lighten the workload. honestly, it's a lot more like what i've seen of the music and design industries rather than a typical "STEM" job.

>>19973 I've noticed it too. Regarding the second pathway, I find a parallel between threat awareness (anxiety, paranoia, doomsaying) and error finding (for programming, demonstrations). When I study or program I create exhaustive mental constructs and track down and choke every anomaly. I also abstract a lot, connect distant concepts and think in many things at the same time. I create detailed explanations of how things work and even talk to myself explaining things. When this kind of behavior leaks into my social life, I come out as rigid, controlling, obsessive, anxious, my attention is divided when speaking to someone, talk too much, etc I'm trying to learn to switch mental states. Exercise helps a lot. Not running in circles or doing stupid soykaf. Just reconnecting to my body, stretching a bit, moving around, getting to know myself more, meditating and all that hippie bullshit. Disregard all the hippie bullshit, but meditating works wonders and its a growing field for study. Look up neural annealing, sounds like a potentially sound mathematical framework.

>>25310 >>19973 To clarify on the "doomsaying" bit: Exhaustive awareness works wonders to make waterproof mathematical proofs, but when you are dealing with other people in a project at work, you should find better ways of saying that they are not considering all possible variables and that the project can go to soykaf. I also get too dramatic for inconsequential errors people make, and might overreact to the possible consequences. This has the compound effect of making myself sound like too intelligent to be surrounded by them, as if I'm the only one who knows how things should be, for stuff that I don't actually care tl;dr: I turn myself into an autist

>>22111 We don't all work the same. I'm socially awkward a lot of time, but utterly autistic when I study too much. Maybe it's some indirect proxy like how often I get out of my house, but every aspect of your life affects another. It's nothing unthinkable that we've found some connection

>>19973 STEM can enrich society if used in a healthy fashion, but, like all things can be one's downfall. A perfect example of this is social media. The obvious pro here is communication with friends and family, but the cons are innumerable. The most prevalent examples would be data collection, an aversion to meeting in person, and low self-worth. But the rule of thumb is that everything is good in moderation.

>>19973 I can relate. I took mainly science and math back in high school, and literature. Enjoyed everything but literature was where my heart was at. I excelled naturally at literature with little effort whereas math took a huge amount of self discipline to shift my mindset into a technical state of mind. I remember the hardest part of my finals wasn't the huge amount of study required but the stress induced by having literature followed by maths - or maybe it was the other way around, and having to almost boot my brain into another OS. I went on to study computer science at uni and spent most of my degree reading novels and political literature. Forgive me for playing with pseudoscience but I think there are certain types of 'feeling' personality types whose intuition can allow them to function as 'thinking' types, and vice versa. What I'm trying to say is that some people can be expressionistic, feeling and intuitively understanding, with the self awareness and discipline to temporarily transform their thinking styles into something appropriate for technical work. I probably shouldn't have gone into CS. Having two minds is exhausting.

>>20028 That's a functioning of how capitalism applies technology though, not a problem with STEM.

>>22158 I really enjoyed my brief exposure to it, I'd like to learn more someday

>>19973 >tune micro jestures (for convincing communication) as well as to facilitate patterns of perception and thought which are conducive to presenting a persona that radiates feelings of comfort, attention, positivity, or whatever traits I believe people expect me to embody before reciprocating trust. OP, the way you describe social interaction is pretty consistent with how autistic friends of mine describe it. Have you considered that you might be on the spectrum in some way? Please note, I don't mean this in the derogatory slur kind of way that has unfortunately become the norm for much of imageboard culture. Some people's brains just work differently.

>>25311 >>25310 I never responded to your post because I don't have anything to add to it but I found it insightful and helpful so I wanted to mention it.

>>22128 >I know from personal experience, that the more I focus on the social transaction, the worse my thinking ability is. Hm... for me this depends a lot on mood. There have been times in my life when I was thinking analytically and socially interacting, both at peak capacity. I think of them as the highlights of my life. Other times I am thinking deeply but can't communicate at all(*extremely* frustrating), other times I have to focus totally on the social situation at hand just to stay above water. And, of course, sometimes I'm not doing anything hard and I can barely remember basic words. I remember when some guy at a party asked me about what I do so I started yammering about CS and data science and he politely excused himself after a bit. I was drunk enough that I didn't really care but it was definitely a case of my power level seeping through.

>>20028 I do soykaf-STEM-that-makes-everything-worse so I can get resources to produce good-STEM-that-makes-everything-better, and to feed kids-who-are-the-spark-of-the-future you are correct, though, that most people worship the all-consuming ouroborous

>>19973 Performing well in STEM fields requires a certain mindset of constant questioning with analytical and objective thinking as far as that is humanly possible. This mindset does not help you in social situations; here you need empathy, shared experiences and spontaneous action. I think I have the same problem, but am approaching it from a different angle: When working on STEM-related problems, you need the STEM mindset. But once you enter a social situation you need to switch into a social mindset, reboot into the social operating system, and approach the situation from this new angle. The problem I have (and that I think you have too) is that this switch becomes increasingly difficult after analyzing everything through the STEM mindset extended periods of time. I haven't found a solution to this problem but to actively try to empathize with others ahead of conversations, or imagening some light smalltalk with someone before engaging in social situations.

What i noticed is a more longterm effect although its hard to say if the attribution is correct or merely sounds reasonable. As a kid i always was outside with friends. Every day, whole day. The behaviour then was say anything you think without holding anything back and see what comes back. Sometimes you say too much but whatever. After a few years working mostly alone in my own office = lots of time with no interaction, i noticed i dont speak out as much and retain my thoughts even if it would be rational to say something. In retrospect i believe being outspoken is just a matter of your enviroment and not a native character trait. Obviously both sides have issues - if you say something you shouldn't and if you dont say something you should. The open question is how to retain the middle ground and don't land in one extreme due to your enviroment. Artificially increasing/reducing social interaction just to maintain the ideal level of outspokenness seems too much work.

What I notice while staying indoors, is increasing paranoia of people and the outside world. A couple weeks ago I snapped and decided to start by buying a skateboard and started practicing skateboarding just get out of the house. I used to think (as a kid) that staying home all day was /comfy. But now that it is actually enforced and ecouraged, after a while, it starts to drain you as much if not more than before the pandemic. Idk thats just me

>>32099 >What I notice while staying indoors, is increasing paranoia of people and the outside world. I genuinely believe that this phenomenon, in the form of suburban disconnection, is part of the reason why public discourse is in such a terrible state in most of the world. On weekdays the average suburbanite goes from their home-box to their work-box in their car-box, and back, just to spend hours watching their TV-box. On weekends they spice things up with a car-box trip to store-boxes. And they rarely interact with anyone who doesn't live a suburban box-life because it's too much of a hassle to find a downtown parking-box for their car-box that's more than a ten-second walk away from whatever other box they want to visit. I definitely felt mentally healthier and more connected to the world when I was living in a downtown core and taking transit everywhere. I'd hear a dozen languages on the train to and from work. I felt part of the world. Now, in my semi-suburban box-life in another city, I just feel isolated.

>>32099 I was already a little agoraphobic and hermetic before all this started. My life has changed very little honestly. I'm not even particularly stressed about any of the various natural disasters happening. Although I do want to leave soon, drop out a little bit. >>32101 it is true that suburbia is really bad for you. Makes it way too easy to believe made up stories, because there's nothing really happening outdoors so you have no frame of reference for what it's like anywhere else. It's also much worse for the environment than practically any other lifestyle. Near-total disconnection from the land and from other people. And people living like this are who make most of the public discourse and policy decisions... no wonder soykaf's so fuarrrked.

What you all say is very strange to me because for me it's totally opposite. The deeper I go the more attentive I get when interacting with others, my thoughts are more precise and orderly and overall I function much better but I may have inattentive type ADHD so perhaps the stimulation I get is helpful. I only become socially retarded when I get burned out which might be the case for you as well.

>>19973 >Have you personally experienced the STEM/social trade-off? If so, does my description of it resonate with you? It sounds like the long way to say, "Smarter people tend to have fewer children." >What other perspectives do you have on it? When I'm immersed in a puzzle, I am thinking about that puzzle. When I'm taken away from it, I'm still thinking about it. "Oh, that's my new boss? Who cares?" I'm wondering how to fit my solution together. "Yeah, great, thanks for the shallow compliments and empty words man, I got stuff on my mind." I don't care if the social people think I'm rain man, I'm busy.

A very interesting topic. My personal opinion isn't based on the functionality of the brain, but rather a comparative approach. Your time and personal resources are limited. Like studying mathematics, social interaction is also to be seen as a field of study. Social interaction does not come naturally, no a priori culture of interpersonal exchange is given by birth, hence all the different cultures/personalities/etc. Just as you need to become familiar with basic knowledge and later, more sophisticated theorems, to advance in your field of study, you must become familiar with the structures of social interaction. When spending all your time on studying a science from an early age without having equipped yourself with the tools required to perform socially successfully, it's only logical you do not perform as good as those who have done so. Imagine trying to discuss matters of machine learning only with basic knowledge of algebra. In order to become a "successful" actor in social society, you would need to actively spend more resources on learning how to perform socially. As with any field, first getting into it is one of the most tedious steps. When did you first noticed the phenomenon you have described?