Journalist Malcolm Gladwell has a message for geeks and nerds everywhere: Take heart. The bestselling author of books like Blink and The Tipping Point thinks that people tend to view advantages and disadvantages in black-and-white terms, but that in reality a seeming disadvantage often turns out in your favor. It’s an idea he explores in his recent book David and Goliath, which he thinks will help reassure geeks and nerds that being unpopular isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

“The geek gives up acclaim and prestige, and all kinds of social benefits, in exchange for doing whatever the geek wants to do, for the freedom to pursue whatever course your imagination takes you on,” Gladwell says in Episode 150 of the Geek’s Guide to the Galaxy podcast. “And this book wholeheartedly embraces that choice.”

David and Goliath profiles figures like legendary cancer researcher Emil Freireich, whose medical breakthroughs are inextricably linked to his lone wolf personality.

“He’s someone who does not require the approval of others to do what he thinks is correct, and that is an absolutely central trait for any kind of entrepreneur or innovator,” says Gladwell.

He sees the same thing among many top scientists, who often endure years of frustration before seeing results. He believes social rejection helps mold that sort of resilient personality.

“They weren’t in the instant gratification world growing up,” he says. “They were off doing their own thing, and learning habits of patience. They did things as children that did not have any expectation of winning social approval.”

Conversely, those who have it easy at school may be less prepared to cope with adversity.

“If you’re popular and on the football team, you never learn that,” says Gladwell. “Everything you do brings you social gratification. How on earth do you embark on a task as a 35-year-old which involves the absence of that kind of feedback? It’s not impossible. It’s just harder.”

Listen to our complete interview with Malcolm Gladwell in Episode 150 of Geek’s Guide to the Galaxy (above). And check out some highlights from the discussion below.

Malcolm Gladwell on the French Impressionists:

“The French Impressionists are painting in a way that the rest of society finds unacceptable, and they’re not doing very well. They’re ignored and overlooked, and they’re broke. And the principle method for being noticed in France in that era is what’s called the Salon, which is essentially an art show—a competition. … And in order to get in and be accepted by the Salon, they would have to change the way they paint—paint like everybody else. … And what they choose to do in the end—and fortunately for the history of art it was the right choice—is they choose to drop out of the Salon and have their own art show. … And that idea, that there are benefits to being small and out of the limelight—that, paradoxically, it can bring you more attention in the long run than if you try to play in the big leagues—that’s a really interesting idea, and one that I think should provide a lot of solace to people who are pursuing things that are in the moment unpopular.”

Malcolm Gladwell on insecurity:

“There was a wonderful book written early last year by Amy Chua, in which she’s trying to figure out what it is that distinguishes the immigrant groups to America that have done really well. And one of the things she talks about is insecurity, a sense that your place in the world is not entirely safe, and that others are after you. And she says that can actually be—in reasonable doses—a healthy thing. You know, I’m paraphrasing her point, and simplifying it dramatically, but basically it keeps you on your toes. … What’s striking about a lot of ethnic Asian immigrants to America is their work ethic, particularly when it comes to academia, and their attachment to education as a way of getting ahead. And she’s saying that comes from insecurity, a feeling that unless we outperform everyone else academically, we’re not going to make it. … That can be a very positive and powerful thing.”

Malcolm Gladwell on the future:

“My basic conclusion on the future is that everyone who thinks they know how to predict it is wrong, so I’m very, very shy about rendering any [opinions], but I do think, just as a kind of rubric for making sense of the future, we need to do a better job of breaking up problems into categories. I feel like categories that have a clear technological solution should not be considered problems. They’re simply questions that have not yet been answered. But questions that have a human dimension are real problems, and we should spend our time on them. So to clarify, I don’t call global warming a problem. It is a technical problem that will be solved. … Really smart people like Elon Musk, who we’ve just been talking about, he and a thousand other smart people—they’re handling it. We should just get out of their way, don’t put impediments in their path, get out of the way, and focus on the stuff that requires real time and attention, which is the stuff that involves human beings relating to other human beings.”

Malcolm Gladwell on plagiarism:

“My notion has always been that if you put an idea out in the world, you’ve put it out in the world, and so when I come across an idea of mine that someone else has taken and used, and done whatever they want to do with it, my position is, fantastic. If they cite me, fantastic, if not, whatever. It’s not the end of the world. The reason I write books full of ideas is because I want those ideas to be used. … People are so insecure and neurotic about their ‘material.’ It’s not your material. You got it from a thousand places, the person who uses it is going to take it in a thousand directions. Everyone should just chill out. I thought that Jonah Lehrer was sloppy and made mistakes and all that, but the real question is: Did you read his books and learn something from it? If you did, who cares whether the Dylan quote had that precise wording or had a slightly different wording? I don’t know, I just don’t have the strength and patience for these kinds of intramural arguments that writers have about whether this precise use of words matched this precise use of words. I’d just much rather answer the question of whether something is being learned, or something interesting is happening.”