[rf]

Last year, when I read this article, something hit me. Back when I was a kid (and a "nerdy" one), the word "nerd" was always primarily social in meaning. I wasn't a nerd because I liked RPGs or computers, though that did go hand-in-hand with the social aspects in some vague, possibly elitist way. I was a nerd because I didn't have that many friends, wasn't all that popular, didn't go to parties, and stuff like that. But the word, along with its related quasi-synonyms like "geek" and "dork," means something quite different these days, if it didn't back then. If Grossman, the author of the article, believes that nerd culture can become mainstream, then there must be something to nerd culture beyond social outcast-ness, or even something supplanting it as the fundamental definition.

Something about this shift is unsettling to me. Grossman makes a big deal about how stuff like comic books, which used to get you beat up, are now being made into widely popular movies. The thing is, this isn't surprising--with all of their kinetic action and machismo, superhero comics seem fit to be adapted into movies that appeal just as much to the jocks as to the nerds they beat up on the playground. The more fundamentally nerdy aspects of these comics--the intricate backstories, or the social abnormality of heroes like Peter Parker and the X-Men--are a bit harder to convey on the big screen, and won't distract the jocks much anyway. Same with video games, which are now, if anything, negatively correlated with nerdiness. (I go to a fairly nerdy college, in all senses of the word. My dorm last year was one of the least nerdy, and also one of the only ones that gamed regularly.) To what extent is this stuff inherently nerdy, and to what extent has it just been the cultural trapping of nerds, associated with them only because they were the demographic that embraced it?

Grossman mentions Joss Whedon and Neil Gaiman as two leaders of the popularizing "revolution." I haven't seen any of Whedon's stuff, but Gaiman's writing seems somehow attuned to social outcasts in a way that goes beyond coincidence. He has this trope of dropping into some character's head and revealing embarassing-ish personal details--like this one character's cheesy personal theme song, in Anansi Boys. It seems like a good way to portray nerds--in the socially abnormal sense, not the "people who happen to like Neil Gaiman/whatever" sense.

Beyond that, I hear a lot of people saying things like "oh, I'm such a nerd" when they express interest in "boring" things like academics. To some extent this is just sarcastic self-criticism, but this kind of faux-nerdiness does seem to be "cool" nowadays. This is a more fundamental trait than just liking the trappings of a culture, but as with the stuff above, I wonder how far it can go without rendering the word meaningless. Social misfits are famous for focusing their lives on the details of things rather than people, since they can't judge them the way people will. But some affection for things is a natural part of any human life. If you're in college and don't enjoy academics, or have a company job but no pure interest in business, then your life is probably not all that fun! If just having this kind of healthy, balanced liking for "stuff" is enough to make you a "nerd," then who isn't a nerd, these days? Should the word be preserved for people who show more of this stuff-affection than normal? And is this something respectable, anyway, or should we all just strive to be balanced, modern semi-nerds?

Considering the kind of cynicism expressed on SB about video games and stuff like that, I'd expect you guys will see eye-to-eye with me on this, but yeah.
_________________

[psiga]

I have this habit of delineating the fine lines between things. I've classified Geeks, Nerds, and Dorks because of it.

Where the seemingly "normal" could be roughly classified as the Trendy, the Jocks, and the Poseurs, what we would call "outcasts" are nearly equivalent.

the Geeky : the Trendy
Those who can hold a decent conversation, but prefer to focus on what they enjoy.

the Nerds : the Jocks
Those who are so specialized at their talents that they severely lack social graces in turn.

the Dorks : the Poseurs
Because every social group needs followers who either cannot think for themselves or do so very poorly when attempting to.
_________________

[psiga]

I suppose there is a sort-of trend toward trying to glam on to bits of the "outcast" status. I passingly saw a Justin Timberlake interview where he said that he is actually nerdy. It was conveyed in a really deep deadpan that made you question whether he was serious or, like you said, just pushing the sarcastic self-criticism.

The only reasoning that comes to mind is the idea that the trendy, the jocks, and the posers have all earned a reputation for being somehow shallow. To say that you are geeky, nerdy, or dorky is to say that you are deeper than your outward appearance, are actually interested in more than what someone sees on the surface, and you maybe have some quirks that make you a special case.
_________________

[negativedge]

People have been saying this stuff for a long time, guys.

[Predator Goose]

This wave hit like 10 years too late to be of any use to me.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily.

[DJ]

Was I the only kid who was sort of the cool geek in high school?

I think I predated/was too young to count as an actual hipster (I still don't think I actually qualify for that) but I was pretty god damn geeky and still managed to maintain a good stable of friends and enjoy the occasional booze-fueled hot tub make out session with random females.

I dunno. You can't do both or something?
_________________

[rf]

I think you can do both partially, but not all the way. In high school, I was more of a full nerd because I didn't really know anyone and was pretty awkward around most people in my classes. On the other hand, I have a lot of friends these days and don't consider myself that inept at human interaction (anymore), so by one definition I'm a lot less of a nerd just for that. I still retain a love for academia/"stuff," though.

One subtlety is that I still probably don't act in a way that would make me get on that well with most people, though I'm fairly well fitted for the group that I'm in. So I have the social abnormality without the social problems it would usually cause. I'm not sure where that falls.

Re: this being an old issue. I figured it would be, but it just occurred to me that I spend a lot of my time thinking about this stuff (considering the number of ambiguously sarcastic "I'm such a nerd" remarks I hear, and stuff like that), but I rarely talk about it. I figured SB would have more to say on the issue that my real-life friends, hence this thread.
_________________

[psiga]

[Quick Shot II Turbo]

This is a (almost) completely unrelated political rant, but:

[Quick Shot II Turbo]

Oh, and this:



Single best descriptive image of SB ever.
_________________

[Predator Goose]

The bit about wotaku is pretty funny. Whoah Taco.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily.

[Quick Shot II Turbo]

[SplashBeats]

[Baron Patsy]

Yeah, see, it isn't so much that being a nerd is cool as it is that certain aspects of 'nerd culture' have spread past said culture. Nerds are not cool, and I can't see them being cool anytime soon. It's just like it has always been.

Side note: just a few days ago in my Geometry class, I heard a girl say, "Wow, I got an eighty-five on the test! I'm such a nerd, hahahaha". It baffled me.

[Gironika]

If nerds are "trendy", they ultimatively will be uncool some years down the road again then, eh?

Behold then and keep your otakuness secret until you'll rise again to former glory.
_________________

[Ebrey]

It never, ever made sense for video games to be a "nerdy" hobby. They're way too suited to violence, sports, and competition. The only reason they had a "nerdy" association for a while was that technophiles are the first adopters of new technology. Video games are no more nerdy than cell phones.

Furthermore, the masses who go to Spider-Man and Batman would never set foot in a comic store, so I'm not sure how "nerdy" they are.

I bet there were articles just like this when Star Wars came out and was the most popular movie of all time.

[CubaLibre]

Socially awkward people are simply drawn to hobbies that feed on the same personality tropes that make them socially awkward. Hence, LARPers.

Anyway, aligning your self-identification with a pithy word like "nerd" means you probably have little of interest to say.
_________________
Let's Play, starring me.

[Predator Goose]

[CubaLibre]

Whoa dude, I didn't even like read half the thread. Those were just general statements not directed at anybody in particular, and certainly nobody at SB.

Obviously yes, labels (read: words) exist for a reason. But you know what I was saying.
_________________
Let's Play, starring me.

[haze]

"emo" is the new "geek/nerd"


also, defiantly refusing to be labeled is SO geeky. i mean, emo.

[negativedge]

[parkbench]

[Mr Mustache]

This thread makes me tired.
_________________
The people are like wool to me

[Predator Goose]

[shrugtheironteacup]

Loch Lomond is known for its invigorating qualities.
_________________

[boojiboy7]

hmmm...

I know I wasn't a cool nerd in the normal social sense in high school. I certainly didn't talk to girls often, but being at an all guys shcool helped that a ton, I am sure. Presently I am fine at talking to women, but completely unable to form anything resembling a relationship with any of them, but that is neither here nor there.

all this aside, having heard from my ex's sister that she is "such a nerd" because she bought tow pairs of shoes in one day, one cannot help but feel the word has lost any sense of meaning. Maybe there should be a new word?

fuck it, who cares?

[inmatarian]

I'd say people like Adam Savage had more to do with making nerds popular. The population now realize that nerds make our beers better and our guns more potent. Think about it, nerds were off doing smart things and nobody wanted to be with them, so they didn't see what nerds were really doing, which tended to involve some form of explosion or mysterious blue smoke.

These days, you need a nerd around just to know what's cool. Do you think Joe Rogan found out about dimethyltryptamine without the assistance of a nerd?
_________________

2993 badness blog email

[haircute]

[Zebadayus]

We must toss out the slang of yesteryear and forge new words to describe our current crap.

I mean, seriously.




For the record, I never beat people up in high school, or got beat up, or got made fun of, or made fun of anybody, or made bad grades, or made good grades.

Damn I'm average. :(

[rf]

In roughly reverse order.

On Adam Savage and other cool nerds: The old saw "be nice to nerds, you may work for one someday" is also relevant here. One of the things I like about being around nerdy people is that I can get away from the endless chatter about getting mundane desirables--a nice job, a sweet car--and talk about more interesting stuff. Yet, as the world has largely figured out, loving academics or business or tech as ends in themselves, rather than as means toward the sweet car/job/house, gives you a head start towards the car/job/house whether you want it or not.

On defining oneself: I've always found defining oneself with a label to be strange, alien to my sensibilities, almost inhuman and creepy. This isn't some kind of I AM A UNIQUE CREATURE DO NOT LABEL ME thing, it's just that that's the way it strikes me. We're all thinking beings first and foremost--I don't mean thinking as in "intelligent," I just mean the act of considering and judging that everyone does--and if we like aspects of the outside world, it's because we've judged them highly, as thinking beings do. To somehow . . . subordinate yourself to them, to say "I am X" or "I like X" not because of the properties of X but because that's somehow what your mind is . . . I don't understand it. Sorry, this isn't all that clear.

On video games: I agree that they aren't as nerdy in themselves as people say. But they do lend themselves to nerd consumption beyond the tech aspect. For one thing, single-player games provide a lot of varied, detailed material to spend your time with that doesn't involve people, so they can fuel social outsiders just as any other medium can (but no more than any other medium). Second, they have a very tangled history and tend to generate a lot of obscure trivia, partially because they take so long to play, and a player doesn't necessarily see everything in one playthrough. I wouldn't be nerdy if I mentioned I play Smash Bros. with my friends, but I would be if I revealed that I can recite the plots of console RPGs and that I have detailed opinions about the differences between the 3 MGS installments. SB itself has a lot of this nerdiness around, as the very name suggests--the select button is trivial in the sense of "trivia," the kind of out-of-the-way thing that you wouldn't consider if you were just casually playing a game once in a while.

On the picture: Thanks! I saw the original here and immediately thought of SB.

On the disconnect between social awkwardness and hobbies: I don't think it's really nonexistent, though it's weaker than some people assume. As I said earlier, I think people who have social trouble are drawn to hobbies with really intricate "backgrounds," simply to stave off boredom and loneliness by giving their minds a bunch of "stuff" to occupy them, if nothing else. I definitely find that when I'm more avidly socializing over a time period, I lose track of the details of things more and more, since I have a more entertaining distraction (people) than paying attention to them.

Plus, there may be something to the quasi-elitist notion that social interaction in normal groups is boring. I.e., liking details and obscure topics makes you "socially awkward" even if you're perfectly competent at conversation because these aren't the kinds of things people want to hear about. Of course, it's possible to go over the top with this--people who obsessively talk about the details of one thing are boring, too--but I'd say the current mainstream state isn't optimal. It isn't that way in every social group, I know for a fact, and it probably hasn't been this extreme at all times in history, either.

On emo being the new nerd: sounds sensible. By now, it seems to be enough of a put-down that anyone who self-describes themselves as emo is making some sort of iconoclastic "reclaiming," which is probably how this whole trend chronicled in the OP got started with "nerd." It'll be interesting, if potentially depressing, to see if some second wave of sincere-though-more-worldly emo kids appears.
_________________

[sawtooth]

[psiga]

nerd : emo :: commie : terrorist

"Progress".
_________________

[Lick Meth]

Living in England (Europe lol), I don't think I've ever come across anybody who could ever fit into the "jock" category, not ever. Probably because barely anybody can get a scolarship or place in Uni through meaty sports. Anybody I've met who tends to be big on the muscular side (admittedly not many, as posing isn't the order of the day in the UK and thus you'd be hard pressed to tell if anyone were big in many cases) tend to be thoroughly nice people, albeit a little old for school.

The thing about school here is that a large majority of kids are the same size, so fighting one another isn't too uncommon, but knowing who'll win it can be. The mass introduction (according to the media) of bladed weapons may have shifted the balance these days, though.

[CubaLibre]

[Jeff Garneau]

honestly rf i think you're confusing unforgiveable nerds and normal people who take a strong interest in something. the first group is completely indefensible.

[taidan]

[Predator Goose]

[Baron Patsy]

[sawtooth]

_________________
(  (