<i>Nerds: Who They Are and Why We Need More of Them</i> by David Anderegg, PhD.

Jason and I read this book together. Anderegg's argument is that our cultural understanding of nerds---as obsessed with science, focused on things other than human relationships, wearing glasses, being bad dressers and having no sex---while less harmful on an adult level---as adults understand irony and sarcasm---is extremely dangerous to children since they take what adults say as the truth (no developed sense of irony). This, as a result, turns kids away from science, math and intense curiosity at a young age as nerds are seen as bad (since adults make fun of them) and therefore undesirable to be. While some kids overcome this in high school, some do not and as these kids become adults, it only deepens the anti-intellectualism in the US.

Anderegg makes a compelling argument for this based on a few studies, his own experiences as a child psychologist and the development of the idea of a nerd in American culture (all the way back to Bram Bones and Ichabod Crane). I definitely agree the cultural idea of a nerd is damaging to America, in that it stigmatizes knowledge, thereby affecting the competitive of our country in science, technology and economic areas. It also brings about a general science and math illiteracy, causing the general public to not understand the intricacies of the debates on global warming, IVF and stem cell research, thereby making the public more susceptible to positions based on slogans (drill, baby, drill) and knee-jerk ideology.

Anderegg finishes by offering some prescriptions to parents on how to get their young kids to understand that being a nerd is not bad or that nerd is not a real idea. I was sorry to see that he did not offer ideas for those of us currently in science and engineering fields on how to improve the perception in American culture.

Overall, an interesting read with insightful assessments of American culture.

7/10

<i>Men, Machines and Modern Times</i> by Elting E. Morison

Dave gave me this one.

Come to find out, Elting Morison started th STS (Science, Technology and Society) program at MIT. You can see that interest in his writing. There are 8 essays in this book, which address some questions on innovation.

My favorite essays focused on the mechanical. Morison includes two essays on computers, but like many thoughts on computers they don't age well. It may be due to thoughts that are generally had regarding any new technology are very optimistic at the outset---"none of the processes involved in human creativity appear to lie beyond the reach of computers" (I'm not an AI person, but I think that we don't say that with certainty now)---then it is slowly determined that the problem is much more complicated than originally thought.

But, back to the mechanical. These essays are about men (all the examples were of men) who were able to create---as Clayton Christenson would say---disruptive innovation in their respective fields. Morison puts this down to a type of personality more than anything else. In the case of the naval gun site, the man (Sims) who faced the change

was moved...in part by rebellion against tedium, against inefficiency from on high, and against the artificial limitations placed on his actions by the social structure

He gives other similar examples related to the expansion of the use of the Bessemer process in the use.

Morison aims, though, not to say that we should all fight our hierarchies (despite the fact I really want someone to give me permission to do so), but

that in a world such as ours, new ways to do things [are] standard operating procedure and that we had all better realize it and become an adaptive society before we [are] shaken apart or disintegrated under the strain produced by our blind resistances.

But within this we have to beware of our

mechanical triumph...produc[ing] a mechanical atmosphere we can't stand...the design of our technology must take into greater account our interior needs."

One note on an essay included here, but does no easily fall into either of the two categories above. This one was on bureaucracy and described it quite wall as a state reached due to years and years of refinements put into place with the best intentions, but never reconsidered---"it is easy to make a regulation than to abolish it." As a result, organizations are "highly dependent upon outside stimuli to force changes...Everyone inside is too committed to the special world." All due to the order we try to apply to the chaos we see around us.

A very good read---minus the essays on computers.

7/10

<i>Notes Towards the Definition of Culture</i> by T.S. Eliot

Dave and I spent some time discussing this book---indeed, Dave loaned it to me in the first place so we could do just that. We haven't had a final conversation about it since I finished. I have a few thoughts, though, that have been discussed to some extent about the content of this work.

Eliot contends that culture must have a religious base. I, rather flippantly, disagree with that. But, I cannot give an example of a culture where its people are not involved in a religion (i.e. a faith in the supernatural/divine). Even if, in the case of agnostics or atheists, it is only to speak against the 'common' understanding. For an atheist to say there is no god, there must be some cultural understanding to make that meaningful.

Eliot also claims that those who come to a religion through culture are just as entitled to call themselves of that religion as those who come to a religion through faith. I summarized this to Dave as: becoming Catholic for the art (or, in the Seinfeld tradition, Jewish for the jokes). Eliot's point is that the cultural results of religion will tend to reflect the same values as those held by the religion. As such, if you like the cultural aspects, the faith will fit you as well.

I find this hard to agree with. While I think people can come to faith by a variety of directions, I also think it is fair to be suspicious of the of those who have conversions based on cultural aspects that can be found in many religions or in society at large (see Jason's entry on Take This Bread). While a group of people who are in the local soup kitchen may share your desire to hep the needy, the conversion to a faith should rest on more than a single commonality, as faith, if one is serious about it, is a more encompassing than the single act to serve soup.

I agree with Eliot on his general view of culture: that cultures are intertwined and depend on each other; that you cannot have a middle-class culture without a lower class culture; when people forget the cost ties between cultures, wars breakout; the ideas of a world culture is meaningless without any counterpart to help define it.

Overall, I liked the book, Eliot sets his argument out reasonably. He keeps it short, which enables understanding. I enjoyed thinking about the ideas he presented.

8/10