< front page :: writing :: not_mine
Five Geek Social Fallacies
by Michael Suileabhain-Wilson, 2003.

Within the constellation of allied hobbies and subcultures collectively
known as geekdom, one finds many social groups bent under a crushing
burden of dysfunction, social drama, and general interpersonal
wack-ness. It is my opinion that many of these never-ending crises are
sparked off by an assortment of pernicious social fallacies -- ideas
about human interaction which spur their holders to do terrible and
stupid things to themselves and to each other.

Social fallacies are particularly insidious because they tend to be
exaggerated versions of notions that are themselves entirely reasonable
and unobjectionable. It's difficult to debunk the pathological fallacy
without seeming to argue against its reasonable form; therefore,
once it establishes itself, a social fallacy is extremely difficult to
dislodge. It's my hope that drawing attention to some of them may be a
step in the right direction.

I want to note that I'm not trying to say that every geek subscribes to
every one of the fallacies I outline here; every individual subscribes to
a different set of ideas, and adheres to any given idea with a different
amount of zeal.

In any event, here are five geek social fallacies I've identified. There
are likely more.

## Fallacy #1: Ostracizers Are Evil ##

GSF1 is one of the most common fallacies, and one of the most deeply
held. Many geeks have had horrible, humiliating, and formative
experiences with ostracism, and the notion of being on the other side
of the transaction is repugnant to them.

In its non-pathological form, GSF1 is benign, and even commendable: it is
long past time we all grew up and stopped with the junior high popularity
games. However, in its pathological form, GSF1 prevents its carrier
from participating in -- or tolerating -- the exclusion of anyone from
anything, be it a party, a comic book store, or a web forum, and no matter
how obnoxious, offensive, or aromatic the prospective excludee may be.

As a result, nearly every geek social group of significant size has at
least one member that 80% of the members hate, and the remaining 20%
merely tolerate. If GSF1 exists in sufficient concentration -- and it
usually does -- it is impossible to expel a person who actively detracts
from every social event. GSF1 protocol permits you not to invite someone
you don't like to a given event, but if someone spills the beans and our
hypothetical Cat Piss Man invites himself, there is no recourse. You
must put up with him, or you will be an Evil Ostracizer and might as
well go out for the football team.

This phenomenon has a number of unpleasant consequences. For one thing,
it actively hinders the wider acceptance of geek-related activities:
I don't know that RPGs and comics would be more popular if there were
fewer trolls who smell of cheese hassling the new blood, but I'm sure it
couldn't hurt. For another, when nothing smacking of social selectiveness
can be discussed in public, people inevitably begin to organize activities
in secret. These conspiracies often lead to more problems down the line,
and the end result is as juvenile as anything a seventh-grader ever
dreamed of.

## Fallacy #2: Friends Accept Me As I Am ##

The origins of GSF2 are closely allied to the origins of GSF1. After
being victimized by social exclusion, many geeks experience their
"tribe" as a non-judgmental haven where they can take refuge from the
cruel world outside.

This seems straightforward and reasonable. It's important for people
to have a space where they feel safe and accepted. Ideally, everyone's
social group would be a safe haven. When people who rely too heavily
upon that refuge feel insecure in that haven, however, a commendable
ideal mutates into its pathological form, GSF2.

Carriers of GSF2 believe that since a friend accepts them as they are,
anyone who criticizes them is not their friend. Thus, they can't take
criticism from friends -- criticism is experienced as a treacherous
betrayal of the friendship, no matter how inappropriate the criticized
behaviour may be.

Conversely, most carriers will never criticize a friend under any
circumstances; the duty to be supportive trumps any impulse to point
out unacceptable behavior.

GSF2 has extensive consequences within a group. Its presence in
substantial quantity within a social group vastly increases the group's
conflict-averseness. People spend hours debating how to deal with
conflicts, because they know (or sometimes merely fear) that the other
person involved is a GSF2 carrier, and any attempt to confront them
directly will only make things worse. As a result, people let grudges
brew much longer than is healthy, and they spend absurd amounts of time
deconstructing their interpersonal dramas in search of a back way out
of a dilemma.

Ironically, GSF2 carriers often take criticism from coworkers,
supervisors, and mentors quite well; those individuals aren't friends,
and aren't expected to accept the carrier unconditionally.

## Fallacy #3: Friendship Before All ##

Valuing friendships is a fine and worthy thing. When taken to an unhealthy
extreme, however, GSF3 can manifest itself.

GSF3 can be costly for the carrier as well. They often sacrifice work,
family, and romantic obligations at the altar of friendship. In the end,
the carrier has a great circle of friends, but not a lot else to show for
their life. This is one reason why so many geek circles include people
whose sole redeeming quality is loyalty: it's hard not to honour someone
who goes to such lengths to be there for a friend, however destructive
they may be in other respects.

Individual carriers sometimes have exceptions to GSF3, which allow friends
to place a certain protected class of people or things above friendship in
a pinch: "significant others" is a common protected class, as is "work".

## Fallacy #4: Friendship Is Transitive ##

Every carrier of GSF4 has, at some point, said:

"Wouldn't it be great to get all my groups of friends into one place
for one big happy party?!"

If you groaned at that last paragraph, you may be a recovering GSF4

GSF4 is the belief that any two of your friends ought to be friends with
each other, and if they're not, something is Very Wrong.

The milder form of GSF4 merely prevents the carrier from perceiving
evidence to contradict it; a carrier will refuse to comprehend that two of
their friends (or two groups of friends) don't much care for each other,
and will continue to try to bring them together at social events. They
may even maintain that a full-scale vendetta is just a misunderstanding
between friends that could easily be resolved if the principals would
just sit down to talk it out.

A more serious form of GSF4 becomes another "friendship test" fallacy:
if you have a friend A, and a friend B, but A and B are not friends to
each other, then one of them must not really be your friend at all. It
is surprisingly common for a carrier, when faced with two friends who
don't get along, to simply drop one of them.

On the other side of the equation, a carrier who doesn't like a friend
of a friend will often get very passive-aggressive and covertly hostile
to the friend of a friend, while vigorously maintaining that we're one
big happy family and everyone is friends.

GSF4 can also lead carriers to make inappropriate requests of people they
barely know -- asking a friend's roommate's ex if they can crash on their
couch, asking a college acquaintance from eight years ago for a letter of
recommendation at their workplace, and so on. If something is appropriate
to ask of a friend, it's appropriate to ask of a friend of a friend.

Arguably, Friendster was designed by a GSF4 carrier.

## Fallacy #5: Friends Do Everything Together ##

GSF5, put simply, maintains that every friend in a circle should
be included in every activity to the full extent possible. This is
subtly different from GSF1; GSF1 requires that no one, friend or not,
be excluded, while GSF5 requires that every friend be invited. This means
that to a GSF5 carrier, not being invited to something is intrinsically
a snub, and will be responded to as such.

This is perhaps the least destructive of the five, being at worst
inconvenient. In a small circle, this is incestuous but basically
harmless. In larger groups, it can make certain social events very
difficult: parties which are way too large for their spaces and restaurant
expeditions that include twenty people and no reservation are far from

When everyone in a group is a GSF5 carrier, this isn't really
a problem. If, however, there are members who aren't carriers, they
may want occasionally to have smaller outings, and these can be hard
to arrange without causing hurt feelings and social drama. It's hard to
explain to a GSF5 carrier that just because you only wanted to have dinner
with five other people tonight, it doesn't mean that your friendship is
in terrible danger.

For some reason, many GSF5 carriers are willing to make an exception
for gender-segregated events. I don't know why.

## Interactions ##

Each fallacy has its own set of unfortunate consequences, but frequently
they become worse in interaction. GSF4 often develops into its more
extreme form when paired with GSF5; if everyone does everything together,
it's much harder to maintain two friends who don't get along. One will
usually fall by the wayside.

Similarly, GSF1 and GSF5 can combine regrettably: when a failure to
invite someone is equivalent to excluding them, you can't even get
away with not inviting Captain Halitosis along on the road trip. GSF3
can combine disastrously with the other "friendship test" fallacies;
carriers may insist that their friends join them in snubbing someone
who fails the test, which occasionally leads to a chain reaction which
causes the carrier to eventually reject all of their friends. This is
not healthy; fortunately, severe versions of GSF3 are rare.

## Consequences ##

Dealing with the effects of social fallacies is an essential part of
managing one's social life among geeks, and this is much easier when
one is aware of them and can identify which of your friends carry which
fallacies. In the absence of this kind of awareness, three situations
tend to arise when people come into contact with fallacies they don't
hold themselves.

Most common is simple conflict and hurt feelings. It's hard for people
to talk through these conflicts because they usually stem from fairly
primal value clashes; a GSF3 carrier may not even be able to articulate
why it was such a big deal that their non-carrier friend blew off their
movie night.

Alternately, people often take on fallacies that are dominant in their
social circle. If you join a group of GSF5 carriers, doing everything
together is going to become a habit; if you spend enough time around
GSF1 carriers, putting up with trolls is going to seem normal.

Less commonly, people form a sort of counter-fallacy which I call "Your
Feelings, Your Problem". YFYP carriers deal with other people's fallacies
by ignoring them entirely, in the process acquiring a reputation for being
charmingly tactless. Carriers tend to receive a sort of exemption from the
usual standards: "that's just Dana", and so on. YFYP has its own problems,
but if you would rather be an asshole than angstful, it may be the way
to go. It's also remarkably easy to pull off in a GSF1-rich environment.

## What Can I Do? ##

As I've said, I think that the best way to deal with social fallacies
is to be aware of them, in yourself and in others. In yourself, you can
try to deal with them; in others, understanding their behaviour usually
makes it less aggravating.

Social fallacies don't make someone a bad person; on the contrary,
they usually spring from the purest motives. But I believe they are
worth deconstructing; in the long run, social fallacies cost a lot of
stress and drama, to no real benefit. You can be tolerant without being
indiscriminate, and you can be loyal to friends without being compulsive
about it.