As students of the social sciences, we are all very familiar with the "larger" forms of discrimination: race, sexual orientation, gender etc. We are also aware that discrimination can both be overt and implicit. One can harbour discriminatory attitudes, but not execute the same behaviour; and vice versa.

There is a type of discrimination I want to highlight, which is discrimination based on intellect. I am not suggesting people are treated differently entirely based on cognitive ability i.e. we treat stupid people prejudicially (although mostly in exams, we do feel most prejudiced when a question is smarter than us.) This topic has been at the cliffs of my mind for quite some time, and during social gatherings, the experience sometimes haunts me about the acceptance of people with more obscure interests. You know, nerds.

In short, nerds are sometimes discriminated - which is the differential and prejudicial treatment of people based on categories or typologies. I have personally experienced social settings when speaking of one's obscure interests are often given a pointed look, or a polite exit to a conversation a partner has no interest taking part in. One could argue that it's a matter of social setting, besides a dinner out is really to relax and not talk about work isn't it?

Yet why is talking about K-pop treated as 'relaxation' and conversations about Marx's geniuses, or camera apertures, diminshed 7th chords, contract law, syntax, terabytes, or aerodynamics seem to make everyone have a headache. Talking about K-pop gives ME a headache the same way Marxian theory gives my conversation partners a headache. There is a preferential treatment of the trivial over the serious. The 'serious topics' are confined to academic discourse in a formal classroom, while the triviality of everyday gains hegemony in all social spaces: the restaurant, the coffee houses, the passing of everyday spaces.

Public space, is not democratic. There are people who are excluded from the spaces of 'everyday' life. Some social geographers have argued that streets are heternormative (assumption of hetersexuality as the norm) and masculine (women are dissuaded from walking at night, although more men are victims of crime than women). Societal expectations are manifested in space-based behaviours. Therefore, the dissuasion of certain intellectual debate in public spaces, and its confinement to 'specialised' spaces like Universities, is a form of prejudiced treatment - much like how homosexuals self-govern to not display affections for each other in malls in Singapore.

[nerd talk]

This is perhaps tragic, and although it would be a stretch to say might be a factor of our poor civil engagement, we must not forget that cafes, bars and pubs are what Oldenburg calls Third Spaces. Third spaces are places in cities where people are able to mingle and talk over coffee or bear, it's a place where no one needs to have a 'serious' relationship with others, and conversation with strangers happen easily. Such places are essential to the intellectual movement leading to the French Revolution. The political meetings and intellectual discourses were held in such bars and pubs. It would be interesting to note, that such places are where we have discussed about meeting - over beer - to presumably know each other better and engage in lively debate and social issues of any kind. The deliberate attempt to make an effort to meet to discuss over a specific topic, is proof how it's queered and 'different' since the norm is assumed that people often talk about more 'light-hearted' stuff, something that is relatable.

Some argue that calling this 'discimination' might be too severe. After all, we can always simply find someone who is interested as the same subject as you. Of course that is true, yet my point is to illustrate how certain kinds of interests are barred from public domains, because they are assumed to be 'boring' and 'cheem' - in favour for mass interests. I often wonder what if children were schooled in Sociology since secondary school, would their topics of conversation be any different? Would theories be less approachable - given they are able to teach complex math and science, I'm sure they can achieve a colourful "Do you know?" version of understanding complex social theories. Would our children be able to think better?

My intention is to highlight that discrimination can take much more varied forms and hegemony comes is very subtle ways. While I am grateful that my friends understand me, and for their friendship, I do moderate my conversations and seek to understand the appeal of their fascinations, I also feel misunderstood and under-appreciated for my appreciation of the social sciences and the very applicability of my studies in everyday life.

I am also grateful that there are groups like these that bring like-minded people together. It is my vision, that one day, our children (should we choose to have any in this sky-high standard of living) may be able to speak their interests freely with acceptance and understanding and not feel that they have to conform just to gain acceptance i.e. they don't have to pretend to like popular music just not to be treated like an outcast.