A conversation at work today fostered a foray into the Wikipedia
Jstas
Posts: 14,842
We were debating the difference between Geeks and Nerds and if there actually was a difference. This of course necesscitated a concensus on what the definition of each would.
Enter, stage left, Wikipedia!
We found some info on geeks and nerds but when I started reading the entry on nerds and found a good deal of insight. Just thought I'd share for fun and see if it would spark some conversation...well, more likely another whiney fight but hey, whatever...status quo, ya know?
Nerds and geeks
Pundits and observers dispute the relationship of the terms nerd and geek to one another. Some view the geek as a less technically skilled nerd. Some factions maintain that "nerds" have both technical skills and social competence, whereas geeks display technical skills while socially incompetent; others hold an exactly reversed view, with geek serving as the socially competent counterpart of the socially incompetent nerd, and call themselves geeks with pride (compare Geekcorps, an organization that sends people with technical skills to developing countries to assist in computer infrastructure development). Another view is that "geeks" lack both social competency and technical skills.
Some regional differences may exist in the use of the words nerd and geek. Some claim that on the North American west coast the population prefers the term geek to nerd, while the North American east coast prefers the word nerd to geek (see Ellen Spertus's page on The Sexiest Geek Alive). Others on the east coast dispute this, claiming that they have always found nerd used disparagingly and geek used in a positive light. In Britain, this latter view tends to apply nerd has more offensive connotations than geek, which speakers of British English often use affectionately. Compare anorak.
The word nerd gained currency from the 1950s at a time when many school students did not see excelling at school as "cool". Therefore nerd originated as a derogatory word (although some people now consider it a compliment), while the term geek became widespread later (1980s) and has avoided many of the negative connotations. Geek as a milder version of nerd may also apply to socially insignificant people, while nerd refers more to socially inept people.
However, personal preferences aside, two distinct focuses set the two words apart. Such is observed in the initial entries of the words; nerd, is a stereotypical or archetypal designation, referring to people of "above-average intelligence" whose interests (often in science and mathematics) are not shared by mainstream society. A "geek" is a person who is fascinated, perhaps obsessively, by obscure or very specific areas of knowledge and imagination. Thus essentially a "nerd" is often marked as having a high intelligence and not necessarily more fascinated with one subject anymore so than another. A "geek" however is obsessively fascinated with particular subjects, yet does not necessarily have an above average intelligence. Thus a "geek" has the compulsion and drive to learn vast quantities of knowledge about a particular field such as computers, or Star Trek trivia, without being required to have a high intelligence. More than likely the main confusion between the terms comes from specific areas of knowledge, which would seem to require a high intelligence to be extremely knowledgeable in, such as mathematics and science. Thus a "geek" who was obsessed in the pursuit of mathematical or scientific knowledge, may be classified as a "nerd" as society considers such pursuits to be intellectual in nature and one would appear to need a higher than average intellect to pursue such subjects. Both "nerds" and "geeks" would tend to be socially inept in this case, but not as a necessary requirement.
There is one other comparison that can be made. In this view, geeks and nerds are exactly the same but for one broad respect: How the two archetypes view and interact with other people. Geeks will share their knowledge to "equals", while nerds will force their "superiority" on other people. This categorization allows an extra, not as well-known type of character, the dork, who perceives himself/herself as lower than the rest of society due to their knowledge/intelligence.
Why Nerds are Unpopular
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
"Why Nerds are Unpopular," published February 2003, is an essay by computer programmer Paul Graham that examines an apparent correlation between intelligence and unpopularity in American secondary schools. It also delves into the topic of high school's purported purpose and its failure to carry out that stated goal.
[edit]
Synopsis
Graham proposes that "nerds," defined by him as people who aren't "socially adept enough," don't really want to be popular; instead, they would rather be smart. Being popular demands constant attention to fashion, personal appearance, and scrutinizing detail to one's actions, or as he states, conformity; this fact, he claims, fails to register with nerds, who believe popularity is thrust upon an individual, not something worked towards. Nerds, he proposes, have other interests that occupy their time.
Before high school, children are preoccupied with family, paying little attention to the opinions of peers. In the transition between elementary school and high school, children become less family-oriented in an attempt to become individuals. These teenagers, now thrust into an unfamiliar and perhaps frightening place, create their own society, one he compares with that of William Golding's Lord of the Flies.
In school, nerds are actively sought out as targets. The upper echelon of the student body, the most popular kids, rarely pick on nerds; instead, it's those situated in the "middle" who feel the need to up their status by picking on a "common enemy" and forming alliances with others in the same position. Nerds are easy targets for everyone; among the most cruel to nerds are those slightly above them socially, something he likens to poor whites being the most hostile to blacks.
Graham draws several comparisons between prisons and schools. He equates public school teachers with prison wardens; their main goals being to keep their subjects on the premises, feed them, and prevent them from killing each other. He draws parallels between each institution's hierarchy as well. In both systems, the bottom of the pecking order harbors harsh environments. Graham also feels that schools are nothing more than large-scale nurseries, a place to keep kids while their parents are at work in an industrialized nation. Teenagers, who in former times were utilized as apprentices, today are useless to adults and the adult world. Although apprentices weren't completely useful until their apprenticeship was complete, even new ones could perform minor tasks to help their teacher. Additionally, the work done in high school, mainly memorization and recollection of facts, has little bearing on work done during adulthood.
Nerds, he argues, are the most affected by the inability of the school to fully foster education and the creation of "fake" societies within. Similar to their neighborhoods, normally isolated suburbs where their parents moved them for protection from inner city perversion, schools thrive on pettiness and obedience. However, graduation ends most suffering. Their former bullies, now adults, are subject to consequences for their actions, if indeed their behavior did in fact reflect personality problems (an alternative theory is that the nerds are the one with the personality problems). Additionally, some semblance of maturity has kicked in. Lastly, nerds, who were forced into cohabitation with people who shared vastly dissimilar interests, can group together, forming clans where intelligence is something to be proud of.
Here are the links to the Wikipedia entries referenced:
Nerds: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerd
Geeks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geek
Why Nerds Are Unpopular: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Nerds_are_Unpopular
Have fun with it, that's all it is is fun. No need to fight, no need to take it personal, no need to point fingers and assign blame, no need to cry, take your ball and go home. Just fun. You all say you are geeks and nerds about audio so why not take a chance to have an introspective session with yourself and have some fun with it?
Enter, stage left, Wikipedia!
We found some info on geeks and nerds but when I started reading the entry on nerds and found a good deal of insight. Just thought I'd share for fun and see if it would spark some conversation...well, more likely another whiney fight but hey, whatever...status quo, ya know?
Nerds and geeks
Pundits and observers dispute the relationship of the terms nerd and geek to one another. Some view the geek as a less technically skilled nerd. Some factions maintain that "nerds" have both technical skills and social competence, whereas geeks display technical skills while socially incompetent; others hold an exactly reversed view, with geek serving as the socially competent counterpart of the socially incompetent nerd, and call themselves geeks with pride (compare Geekcorps, an organization that sends people with technical skills to developing countries to assist in computer infrastructure development). Another view is that "geeks" lack both social competency and technical skills.
Some regional differences may exist in the use of the words nerd and geek. Some claim that on the North American west coast the population prefers the term geek to nerd, while the North American east coast prefers the word nerd to geek (see Ellen Spertus's page on The Sexiest Geek Alive). Others on the east coast dispute this, claiming that they have always found nerd used disparagingly and geek used in a positive light. In Britain, this latter view tends to apply nerd has more offensive connotations than geek, which speakers of British English often use affectionately. Compare anorak.
The word nerd gained currency from the 1950s at a time when many school students did not see excelling at school as "cool". Therefore nerd originated as a derogatory word (although some people now consider it a compliment), while the term geek became widespread later (1980s) and has avoided many of the negative connotations. Geek as a milder version of nerd may also apply to socially insignificant people, while nerd refers more to socially inept people.
However, personal preferences aside, two distinct focuses set the two words apart. Such is observed in the initial entries of the words; nerd, is a stereotypical or archetypal designation, referring to people of "above-average intelligence" whose interests (often in science and mathematics) are not shared by mainstream society. A "geek" is a person who is fascinated, perhaps obsessively, by obscure or very specific areas of knowledge and imagination. Thus essentially a "nerd" is often marked as having a high intelligence and not necessarily more fascinated with one subject anymore so than another. A "geek" however is obsessively fascinated with particular subjects, yet does not necessarily have an above average intelligence. Thus a "geek" has the compulsion and drive to learn vast quantities of knowledge about a particular field such as computers, or Star Trek trivia, without being required to have a high intelligence. More than likely the main confusion between the terms comes from specific areas of knowledge, which would seem to require a high intelligence to be extremely knowledgeable in, such as mathematics and science. Thus a "geek" who was obsessed in the pursuit of mathematical or scientific knowledge, may be classified as a "nerd" as society considers such pursuits to be intellectual in nature and one would appear to need a higher than average intellect to pursue such subjects. Both "nerds" and "geeks" would tend to be socially inept in this case, but not as a necessary requirement.
There is one other comparison that can be made. In this view, geeks and nerds are exactly the same but for one broad respect: How the two archetypes view and interact with other people. Geeks will share their knowledge to "equals", while nerds will force their "superiority" on other people. This categorization allows an extra, not as well-known type of character, the dork, who perceives himself/herself as lower than the rest of society due to their knowledge/intelligence.
Why Nerds are Unpopular
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
"Why Nerds are Unpopular," published February 2003, is an essay by computer programmer Paul Graham that examines an apparent correlation between intelligence and unpopularity in American secondary schools. It also delves into the topic of high school's purported purpose and its failure to carry out that stated goal.
[edit]
Synopsis
Graham proposes that "nerds," defined by him as people who aren't "socially adept enough," don't really want to be popular; instead, they would rather be smart. Being popular demands constant attention to fashion, personal appearance, and scrutinizing detail to one's actions, or as he states, conformity; this fact, he claims, fails to register with nerds, who believe popularity is thrust upon an individual, not something worked towards. Nerds, he proposes, have other interests that occupy their time.
Before high school, children are preoccupied with family, paying little attention to the opinions of peers. In the transition between elementary school and high school, children become less family-oriented in an attempt to become individuals. These teenagers, now thrust into an unfamiliar and perhaps frightening place, create their own society, one he compares with that of William Golding's Lord of the Flies.
In school, nerds are actively sought out as targets. The upper echelon of the student body, the most popular kids, rarely pick on nerds; instead, it's those situated in the "middle" who feel the need to up their status by picking on a "common enemy" and forming alliances with others in the same position. Nerds are easy targets for everyone; among the most cruel to nerds are those slightly above them socially, something he likens to poor whites being the most hostile to blacks.
Graham draws several comparisons between prisons and schools. He equates public school teachers with prison wardens; their main goals being to keep their subjects on the premises, feed them, and prevent them from killing each other. He draws parallels between each institution's hierarchy as well. In both systems, the bottom of the pecking order harbors harsh environments. Graham also feels that schools are nothing more than large-scale nurseries, a place to keep kids while their parents are at work in an industrialized nation. Teenagers, who in former times were utilized as apprentices, today are useless to adults and the adult world. Although apprentices weren't completely useful until their apprenticeship was complete, even new ones could perform minor tasks to help their teacher. Additionally, the work done in high school, mainly memorization and recollection of facts, has little bearing on work done during adulthood.
Nerds, he argues, are the most affected by the inability of the school to fully foster education and the creation of "fake" societies within. Similar to their neighborhoods, normally isolated suburbs where their parents moved them for protection from inner city perversion, schools thrive on pettiness and obedience. However, graduation ends most suffering. Their former bullies, now adults, are subject to consequences for their actions, if indeed their behavior did in fact reflect personality problems (an alternative theory is that the nerds are the one with the personality problems). Additionally, some semblance of maturity has kicked in. Lastly, nerds, who were forced into cohabitation with people who shared vastly dissimilar interests, can group together, forming clans where intelligence is something to be proud of.
Here are the links to the Wikipedia entries referenced:
Nerds: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerd
Geeks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geek
Why Nerds Are Unpopular: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Nerds_are_Unpopular
Have fun with it, that's all it is is fun. No need to fight, no need to take it personal, no need to point fingers and assign blame, no need to cry, take your ball and go home. Just fun. You all say you are geeks and nerds about audio so why not take a chance to have an introspective session with yourself and have some fun with it?
Expert Moron Extraordinaire
You're just jealous 'cause the voices don't talk to you!
You're just jealous 'cause the voices don't talk to you!
Post edited by RyanC_Masimo on
Comments
-
After reading all of that, I'm not sure if you are a geek or a nerd for making this thread. :-)
-
He's a nerd. A geek would not have included references.HT/2-channel Rig: Sony 50 LCD TV; Toshiba HD-A2 DVD player; Emotiva LMC-1 pre/pro; Rogue Audio M-120 monoblocks (modded); Placette RVC; Emotiva LPA-1 amp; Bada HD-22 tube CDP (modded); VMPS Tower II SE (fronts); DIY Clearwave Dynamic 4CC (center); Wharfedale Opus Tri-Surrounds (rear); and VMPS 215 sub
"God grooves with tubes."
