Comments on: Authentically Geeky

By: Vazou o novo visual do 11º Doctor! - GOMA DE MASCAR!

Vazou o novo visual do 11º Doctor! - GOMA DE MASCAR! — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:05:26 +0000

[...] modinha passageira (eu espero) que acha que a mera vestimenta nerd garante umas sinapses a mais (malditos FAUX NERDS!). Longe de mim criticar Steven Moffat, o novo showrunner de Doctor Who, mas não dava pra arranjar [...]

By: Jason Tocci

Jason Tocci — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:42:33 +0000

Thanks for weighing in, all. You may know from my posts here that I’m more inclined to go by people’s own definitions of themselves than to impose one top-down definition—partly because of my theoretical inclinations as an ethnographer, and party because of my personal inclination to avoid exclusivity. I do understand that there are plenty who understand certain things as distinguishing geekiness, though, and I appreciate honest responses to my request to understand those perspectives better.

By: Church

Church — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:04:15 +0000

Hrmm. I’m actually agreeing with both of you. I think Jemimiah’s distinction is valid, but I think Matt is right in that it’s not worth pursuing.

One of us, is, after all, one of us.

By: Matt S

Matt S — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:58:38 +0000

And I say that the whole debate about what seperates a real geek from a “hipster geek” is crap.

For one, there is no way to answer the question. And worst of all, there is no way to respond to the question with out making gross over generalizations that perpetuate exclusionary mind sets and play into the whole “cooler then you” crap.

The questions may have had some validity at one point, but it has now turned into a case of us eating our young. Face it, the only way to win this game is to refuse to play.

By: Church

Church — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:34:49 +0000

I think what Jemimah is getting at is the distinction b/t geeks and ‘hipster geeks’ (or whatever.) Matt’s example isn’t out of line. Yeah, there’s endless “X is better than Y and I can prove it to you,” but the fact that one is willing to engage on that level of discourse is the mark of a true geek.

(The GF and I spent a good part of last night discussing the physics of Space:1999′s premise. Just so you know where I’m coming from.)

By: Matt S

Matt S — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:23:18 +0000

If being a geek/nerd equates to being rational, then please explain the plethora of examples to the contrary? An obvious example would be the confusion between subjective value judgments and objective facts. The “Star Wars is better then Star Trek” type discussions. While many of these discussions are just done for fun, there are plenty of examples where one or more of those involved is dead serious.

I’m pointing this out because I think it’s time for us to stop dislocating our shoulders by trying so hard to pat ourselves on the back. This whole mindset that “geeks are smart” or “geeks are rational” or “geeks are better with tech” is utter crap. Worst of all, it is exclusionary.

If we seriously want to approach the idea of what is, or isn’t, a geek/nerd then we must look with suspicion on any definition that makes us better, in any way, then non geeks/nerds. It is the only rational thing to do.

By: Jemimah

Jemimah — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:19:29 +0000

I don’t think one can successfully understand what makes a person geeky without taking personality types into account. Geekyness (or nerdiness) is not merely defined by a particular set of interests or a specific fashion sense, but primarily by the possession of a “rational” temperament (http://www.keirsey.com/handler.aspx?s=keirsey&f=fourtemps&tab=5&c=overview).

Geek culture itself is an expression of the rational personality types (especially the introverted INTJ/INTP types), which are meritocratic and pragmatic, and value abstract problem solving skills. A faux-geek attempts to appropriate or deconstruct geek stereotypes, but lacks the technical competence and logical mindset required to be taken seriously by the rationals that make up the majority of geekdom.

By: Phill

Phill — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:29:46 +0000

Haha, I love the term crypto-nerd, tho I don’t think I’ve met any yet.

I’ve felt the need to apply ‘faux geek’ to some people.

With the advent of twitter and facebook, some people feel that they are now ‘geeky’ somehow, because they just use the internet a lot.

I remember actually being annoyed because I felt like my term was being co-opted. I suppose personally the key distinction is, you can’t be hyper-social like some of those people, it’s almost a contradiction in terms, but more importantly you have to be obsessed about something, anything.

It’s hard to make this clear distinction, because most of my friends are nerdy/geeky, and so I don’t have a clear basis for comparison. I have no idea what “regular” people do. I think they might use Facebook a lot?

By: Geeks and Nerds « Around Teh Table

Geeks and Nerds « Around Teh Table — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 22:37:47 +0000

[...] the same question as what makes a geek authentic. One of the blogs I’ve just started reading deals with this question as well, and I sugest checking out Geek Studies, for an educated read on the points I’m [...]

By: zandperl

zandperl — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 19:30:03 +0000

I would agree with there being hierarchy at nerd schools – I attended Hunter College High School and there definitely were more popular and less popular students. Just this past summer I was talking with my friend since high school Jen, about how I always perceived her as one of the popular kids and I as part of the unpopular crowd, so I was glad she was willing to be friends with me anyway. On the other hand she viewed herself as being on the outskirts of the popular group and admired my group for not bowing to the pressures to become popular.

When I taught a couple summers at the Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth (CTY) academic summer camp for nerds, I also perceived hieararchy of popularity there. Being an observer I wasn’t always aware of how the structure went, but I definitely knew it existed.