Tuesday, May 25, 2004
Terminology
I was involved in a discussion at work last week about terminology. The discussion was ironic, because I was already planning a post on the topic, and had started lining up my thoughts about it when I walked into the discussion. Interestingly, the discussion went along the same lines as my train of thought, so I knew my stance on the issue was probably right in line with public opinion.
I am a geek.
By that, I do not mean the classical definition of a circus performer who bites heads off of animals. Yuck. Instead, I fall in with the modern understanding of a geek as one who is into technology to a great degree - i.e., a "computer geek." I proudly wear the label (sorry to shatter some of your dreams), because to try to fight it would just be silly. But that also got me thinking - what is the accepted understanding of what a geek actually is, since the circus is not as prominent in our culture these days?
I did a little digging around. Both dictionary.com and websters-online-dictionary.org (which I'm liking more and more the more I use it (could I possibly use that word more in a sentence?)) describe a geek as with highly-developed technical or scientific skills but lacking in the social graces, which seems in contradiction with my understanding of the term. Conversely, both sites do indicate that the term nerd is less flattering than geek but has the same technical or knowledge basis.
Hence the discussion at work - what's the difference between a geek and a nerd?
After much deliberation, we came to this conclusion. In today's society, and by that I mean 2004, the terms can be used thusly: a geek and a nerd are both brilliant individuals who have an enviable scientific or technical background, but whereas a nerd is usually a social outcast or misfit, a geek is not only comfortable in social situations, he or she is actually welcomed in public gatherings. Geeks will understand that there is a time and place to discuss the merits of Star Trek or The Matrix and, more importantly, when is the wrong time to enter into a discussion into said topics. Nerds generally try to make an impression or get a conversation rolling by introducting the topics unprompted.
Apparently, though, I am dangerously close to being a nerd, according to this discussion group. Two items land me very close to this classification. One is the fact that I attempted to learn Klingon a few years ago (I may have been saved by the fact that my wife was trying to learn it along with me). The other stems from an incident when I was becoming a physics nerd, the one night where the instructors in the UNT Astronomy Lab spent about 30 minutes devising a formula to calculate the number of licks it takes to get to the Toostie Roll center of a Tootsie Pop.
Ultimately, my excellent social graces saved me from such a fate. I may be one of those rare individuals who is dangerously close to being a nerd, yet falls just short of the dividing line.
Of course, what does it mean that I willingly partook in a discussion of the difference between a geek and a nerd? Hmm. Well, is there a better place to have that discussion than at Micro$oft?
Entire contents of this site © 2003-2008 Eriq Oliver Neale/Simultaneous Pancakes Media unless otherwise noted. I hate that I have to point that out...I am a geek.
By that, I do not mean the classical definition of a circus performer who bites heads off of animals. Yuck. Instead, I fall in with the modern understanding of a geek as one who is into technology to a great degree - i.e., a "computer geek." I proudly wear the label (sorry to shatter some of your dreams), because to try to fight it would just be silly. But that also got me thinking - what is the accepted understanding of what a geek actually is, since the circus is not as prominent in our culture these days?
I did a little digging around. Both dictionary.com and websters-online-dictionary.org (which I'm liking more and more the more I use it (could I possibly use that word more in a sentence?)) describe a geek as with highly-developed technical or scientific skills but lacking in the social graces, which seems in contradiction with my understanding of the term. Conversely, both sites do indicate that the term nerd is less flattering than geek but has the same technical or knowledge basis.
Hence the discussion at work - what's the difference between a geek and a nerd?
After much deliberation, we came to this conclusion. In today's society, and by that I mean 2004, the terms can be used thusly: a geek and a nerd are both brilliant individuals who have an enviable scientific or technical background, but whereas a nerd is usually a social outcast or misfit, a geek is not only comfortable in social situations, he or she is actually welcomed in public gatherings. Geeks will understand that there is a time and place to discuss the merits of Star Trek or The Matrix and, more importantly, when is the wrong time to enter into a discussion into said topics. Nerds generally try to make an impression or get a conversation rolling by introducting the topics unprompted.
Apparently, though, I am dangerously close to being a nerd, according to this discussion group. Two items land me very close to this classification. One is the fact that I attempted to learn Klingon a few years ago (I may have been saved by the fact that my wife was trying to learn it along with me). The other stems from an incident when I was becoming a physics nerd, the one night where the instructors in the UNT Astronomy Lab spent about 30 minutes devising a formula to calculate the number of licks it takes to get to the Toostie Roll center of a Tootsie Pop.
Ultimately, my excellent social graces saved me from such a fate. I may be one of those rare individuals who is dangerously close to being a nerd, yet falls just short of the dividing line.
Of course, what does it mean that I willingly partook in a discussion of the difference between a geek and a nerd? Hmm. Well, is there a better place to have that discussion than at Micro$oft?
