Started 12 December 2006. Please feel free to contribute. --Remi0o 08:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- The wikipedia article says there are no studies on the proportion or prevalence of nerds. I had to suppress an urge to add "despite nerds being the people who normally conduct such studies"--Rayc 05:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I highly recommend approaching this from a Folkloric perspective. Many universities have Folklore archives which may contain research on nerd lore. I know that Brigham Young University's Folklore archives contain at least half a dozen projects on Role-playing alone. The Jade Knight 09:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Nerds don't use title case[edit source]
Nerd vs Geek[edit source]
I've heard (and like) this definition/distinction: "A geek is someone who knows a lot about computers and very little about anything else. A nerd is a geek with bad social and hygiene skills." Indeed, for me at least, "Geek" has always had a definite association with computers (except when modified by an adjective ie "Science Geek") whereas "nerd" has always been associated with buck teeth, body odor, and text books.
I find it interesting that this article mentions the term "nerd" being preferable to "geek", since it seems almost exactly opposite to me. Perhaps it is demographic or even individual? (The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 5 September 2007)
Based on the usage of the word "geek," a geek is someone who's technologically oriented. I believe that ISTPs would be included in the mix more so than they would fit to be nerds. A nerd is a person who seeks intellectual stimulation: politics, history, sociology, science, often without experiencing life. Because I crossover into the geek personality: I have a need to investigate everything around me (could be sports, mechanics, etc.) without wanting to master what I learn. I hate sports but the only reason I tried to learn a little bit is so that I could be able to talk to anyone; then again, there's people who seem to be experts (or cocky) who I wasn't able to transcend. (The preceding unsigned comment was added by Axlzx (talk • contribs) 15:11, 9 September 2007)
My opinion[edit source]
Nerds, Geeks, Tools[edit source]
It should be noted that the semantic differences, as well as the light in which each of these archetypes is viewed, depends upon the community polled for information. When I was an undergrad at MIT, both "nerds" and "tools" were students who did extremely well on class assignments and examinations. A "nerd" referred to somebody who was naturally extremely intelligent (above the norm for the school) and could rapidly internalize the coursework and the implications of the theories presented with very little study. A "tool" was someone who needed a lot of study to internalize the coursework, and who would ignore the rest of campus life in the process of studying enough to score much higher than average on class assignments and examinations.
"Nerds" may have social issues related to their inability to break down complex concepts into terms the common person can understand; "tools" may have social issues due to a highly competitive nature channeled into academic pursuit, or to similarly-channeled self-esteem issues.
At the time I was at MIT (1978-1982), the term "geek" was not in common use. Today, "geek" seems to imply depth of knowledge in a particular field, with the implication that said knowledge was (at least initially) pursued for non-academic reasons (Star Trek geek, gaming geek, etc.). The "socially acceptable" geek is one who has managed to turn his passion to practical and/or professional use (e.g. computer repair, computer animation, antiques appraisal...) (The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 4 January 2008)
- Also, as mentioned in this article, a gamer who simply spends his waking hours playing World of Warcraft or a person who knows the Potterverse backwards and forwards should be distinguished from a person who actually has an above average intelligence and is capable of using that intelligence. Absorbing fictional trivia doesn't take a higher than average IQ. Being able to grasp quantum physics without requiring it dumbed down for you (or sugarcoated with hipster crap or mysticism) does take an above average IQ. The former may be wasting their time with rubbish like that "What the Bleep.." movie and the Matrix movies. The latter will be looking to Hawking, Greene, and the guys who really know what they're talking about.184.108.40.206 17:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to submit a link for your consideration: The Nerd Handbook