‘Nerd’ and ‘smart’ don’t necessarily go hand in hand

Q: I thought it was interesting (in your April 6 column) that your general definition of nerd is significantly different from my understanding of the definition of the term. What you notice in "Revenge of the Nerds" to an extent, and what I've observed generally, is that "nerd" is often associated with someone who is very smart. This is often someone who does very well in school and who, a la Bill Gates, is likely to do just fine, if not magnificently, once they get out of the awkward teenage stage. And because they are smart, they are drawn away from things like football and cheerleading and toward things like arty movies and books and Dungeons and Dragons and chess. Things that challenge them mentally a little bit. And because they get involved with these things to the point of obsession perhaps -- "Star Trek" fans, computer geeks, etc. -- they don't develop the proper social skills to get along. -- G.S., Las Vegas

A: You have put your finger right on the dilemma over which I struggled the longest in that column. I wondered over and over whether my definition of "nerd" should, by definition, include "smart."

In the end, I decided that "smart nerd" was like "Jews are really good at banking" or "Blacks have really good rhythm in music and dance." I'm saying that, after a lot of thought, I decided "smart" was an independent variable weighing against the attributes of a nerd.

Here's why.

Indeed, some nerds are smart, and certainly all smart, academically ambitious kids have to deal with the envy, resentment and prejudices of not-smart and especially lazy kids. But ...

Do all smart people naturally avoid football and cheerleading? Nope. Rhodes Scholars can and do letter in collegiate athletics. And for those smart people who are not drawn to athletics, is it because of their high acumen? I would say no; it's an independent variable. Nothing about smart necessarily causes people to reject interest in sports. Nothing about not-so-bright necessarily makes sports more appealing.

Can an athlete be just as obsessed about football as a "Star Trek" geek can be obsessed about "Star Trek"? Well, yeah. Is over-the-top, obsessive focus on hobbies and extracurricular interests a nerd attribute? Nope, I'd say it's an obsessive attribute. Some nerds are obsessive, just as some jocks are.

Can we observe that smart adolescents disproportionately struggle with social development? I would guess no, and I actually wonder if it's just the opposite. I would say that the variables in social development are many, but I can't say I see any evidence that smart is one of those variables.

You're right, by the way: Many adolescent nerds (based on my definition) do grow out of nerdness. There is a wide window of diversity in human physical, psychological, emotional and social development. Most people do "catch up" at some point. Human development, in all phases, tends to level out in adulthood. But when you meet a 45-year-old nerd, you can be pretty sure there is a combination of more complex factors at work -- factors that have impeded development.

Which brings me back to my original point: My advocacy for nerds is pretty much identical to my advocacy for any clinical patient. To wit, one way to think of all people who present themselves for therapy is as folks who seek to investigate and remediate heretofore undeveloped parts of self. Who cares how and why those parts failed to develop! It is precisely the willingness to get on about that development that changes lives and gives us more choices for meaningful living.

It sounded to some of my readers that I was being critical or judgmental of nerds. I insist that my observations were ultimately the most respectful view, precisely because it expected the most from them.

Steven Kalas is a behavioral health consultant and counselor at Clear View Counseling Wellness Center in Las Vegas and the author of "Human Matters: Wise and Witty Counsel on Relationships, Parenting, Grief and Doing the Right Thing" (Stephens Press). His columns appear on Tuesdays and Sundays. Questions or comments can be e-mailed to skalas @ reviewjournal.com.