This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Nerd, Geek or Dork?

2456789

Comments

  • Wow, Rym's and Scott's results have scared me. I'm wondering whether I should take the test at all.
  • edited January 2007
    I have been wondering lately, what is the difference between a nerd and a geek?

    Discuss.
    A geek is 1. Not as obsessed in just one thing as nerds are, and 2. A lot cooler about things and topics. My opinion.
    Post edited by Loganator456 on
  • The difference is that nerds are very confined to one particular subject they are interested in, let's say Star Trek for example. A nerd would not be able to have fun at an Anime con, only at a Star Trek con. But a geek would be able to have fun at either.

    So, to review, a Star Trek geek would be able to still converse with an Anime geek with ease, while a Star Trek nerd can only socialize with other Star Trek nerds.
  • Why are LEGOs under the "childhood" toy section? I broke mine out just last week.
  • Why are LEGOs under the "childhood" toy section? I broke mine out just last week.
    They're under the adult toy section as well, it's just not listed.
  • A nerd is someone who has almost no social skills and finds it nearly impossible to relate to anyone outside of a specific area of culture (often geek culture).
  • Legos are the best! I have large boxes full of those things. Haven't touched them in years though.
  • Is there really a need for a distinction? Do people distinguish between freaks and spazes in the same manner, for instance? Is there a difference between "queer" and "gay"? I've always used the geek and nerd (and dork) interchangably, and the only real issue I have is with people self-applying the terms to describe things that really aren't dorky. Examples such as: "I'm such a dork, I'll stay in watching football all Sunday!" or "Can you believe I've read every issue of Cosmopolitan? I'm a total nerd!"
  • Is there really a need for a distinction? Do people distinguish between freaks and spazes in the same manner, for instance? Is there a difference between "queer" and "gay"? I've always used the geek and nerd (and dork) interchangably, and the only real issue I have is with people self-applying the terms to describe things that really aren't dorky. Examples such as: "I'm such a dork, I'll stay in watching football all Sunday!" or "Can you believe I've read every issue of Cosmopolitan? I'm a total nerd!"
    Yes, they are different, and yes there is a need. At least there is a need within the community, but maybe not outside of it. To someone who is not a member of the geek community, it is OK to refer to the collective geekdom and nerdom with your word of choice. To someone within the community, there is a clear difference, and different words are required to specify. An average non-geek/nerd/dork American will lump otaku in the same bin as the comic book guy from The Simpsons. Within the community we recognize that the two are entirely different beasts and require separate labels to differentiate them.

    An analogous situation would be the Inuit (eskimos) and their many words for snow. They don't have a bunch of words that all mean the same exact thing, that is silly. They have different words for different types of snow. Living in the tropics, the single word snow will suffice for your vocabulary. Living in the Arctic Circle, you will have different snow every day, and you will need many more words to describe the different weather patterns you experience.

    Unless you think it proper to put MC Chris in the same category as a yaoi fangirl, then we need more words and they need different meanings.
  • But we already HAVE these terms, terms such as 'anime fan' or 'comic book guy'. I'm not sure how the example of geek/nerd even applies to a situation like this, especially if you are referring to otaku in the traditional sense, at which point they're nigh-on indistinguishable (depending on the depths of otaku-dom). To me, like with any self-titling, the whole thing smacks of inflation of one's groups own self-importance instead of any genuine desire to classify things, which strikes me as a fictitious need anyway. "Oh no no, sir! You have me wrong! I am not a NERD, I am a GEEK! Pshaw! For sure it should've been obvious from the start!"

    Per my original example, a leather daddy and a twink are two very different types of homosexuals, but it's appropriate to call them both gay. Consider me in the "don't get it" pile.

    And for my money, you can lump MC Chris and a yaoi fangirl in the same category: annoying as all get out.
  • A geek is 1. Not as obsessed in just one thing as nerds are, and 2. A lot cooler about things and topics. My opinion.
    Is it just me or do we switch them around here in Aus?
  • What are the guys who so the "Sci-Fi and Fantasy Podcast"? Geeks, nerds, dorks, or something else?
  • I thought that they were mostly the same, also.
  • I think Geek is the social highly knowledgeable and practical one, nerd is the not so social, not so practical one, geek is not derogative, nerd is. I guess nerd is more like otaku.
  • I guess I'm a gnerd because people usually annoy me.
  • It does not matter since at the end of the day both of them end up to be human beings, well most of them.
  • Isn't it cool to be a geek now, while nerds are still castaways?
  • image

    Linking directly from Scott's website.
  • I'm a geek then, but people still annoy me. Especially you guys. ;p
  • I call myself a geek but I really don't fit into any of these categories. Frankly, it doesn't bother me, I am who I am and I like what I like. You can call yourself whatever you feel like calling yourself. Frankly I've always hated people trying to shoe horn others into this category or that category when everyone is unique. For example, I'm guessing I'm one of the few hardcore pro wrestling fans here, does that automatically mean I don't belong?
  • For example, I'm guessing I'm one of the few hardcore pro wrestling fans here, does that automatically mean I don't belong?
    On a tangent, but what is it that attracts you to "wrestling"? It's fake, they are shit actors, and the "fighting" is boring/unrealistic/makes them look stupid.
  • Nerd
    image
    Geek
    image
  • I think the first guy there is a dork...
  • edited July 2007
    For example, I'm guessing I'm one of the few hardcore pro wrestling fans here, does that automatically mean I don't belong?
    On a tangent, but what is it that attracts you to "wrestling"? It's fake, they are shit actors, and the "fighting" is boring/unrealistic/makes them look stupid.
    The fighting isn't boring if you're willing to get into it. I don't know if I can totally explain it, it may just be a "get it or don't" thing, but sometimes great stories are told in the ring. However, there are multiple levels to appreciate pro wrestling on. I know it's fake, everyone knows it's fake. You can enjoy it for the drama in the ring, you don't get it so much in modern WWE except in big time matches with the really elite wrestlers. You can enjoy it on the level of looking at the actual in ring product. Are they hitting the moves well? Are the moves logical? For example, let's take one of the best ring technicians ever, Bret Hart(yes, the guy my user name comes from) Bret Hart's finisher is a submission hold called the Sharpshooter. It primarily puts pressure on the lower back, and he also needs to weaken their legs so he can actually apply the hold. Thus, throughout his match, is he attacking the back and legs of his opponent? Bret usually did. The third level you can enjoy it on is the business aspect. Are they drawing ratings? Does the television show properly establish what the company wants you to think is important? Is the monthly Pay Per View, usually one of the biggest sources of direct revenue for a company, built up well? Do you want to buy the PPV? I look at it on all three levels, and have a subscription to Figure Four Weekly. Bryan Alvarez is one of the few real wrestling journalists out there, along with his mentor, Dave Meltzer, and he brings a different perspective to reviewing shows because he did do independent wrestling for a while, so he knows a bit more about actual in ring psychology. Mostly, though, wrestling is just something I like watching, I'm very passionate about it, and will probably do so until the end of time. Right now things are really tough because the Chris Benoit story is so very, very tragic on many levels and before it happened, he was something of a hero to most wrestling fans. Right now I don't feel comfortable making suggestions for DVDs or such to look for as I'm still working through it, but if you want sometime I'll post a list of DVDs and stuff to check out, most, if not all, of which should be Netflixable. Pardon me for going so long, and possibly rambling, it's been a long day.
    Post edited by Hitman Hart on
  • edited July 2007
    You are probably a nerd: a wrestling nerd.  That's why I made the comparison of nerd and otaku.  And, wrestling is NOT boring: the acrobatics are really cool.  That's why I like the Mexican one better.  Plus, the guys put on a great show.  You have your bad guys and your good guys.  They hit the old ladies in the front row.  It's all good.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • Working with the broad definition we're using to define nerds and geeks, I don't think I'm a wrestling nerd, I'm nowhere near as hardcore as the guys who watch and rewatch early to mid 90s All Japan matches breaking down every single move and such, or the ones who buy all the Ring of Honor DVDs. Unfortunately I don't have the sort of money to do that, and I'm kind of glad, I think some of them end up going insane from what I've seen on some message boards....
  • I believe I slot into the gerd category. You pretty much slot into that category if you like Lego Star Wars...heh.

    As for being the only hardcore fan of wrestling...I haven't watched a match in years but it sure was awesome in college. Pretty much the entire floor watched wrestling. I loved Eddie Guerrero and Chris Benoit...I was stunned to recently find out they were both dead. Obviously Benoit is more recent having died June 25th but I've been out of touch for a long time...Guerrero died back in 2005. I haven't watched a match since the Guerrero vs JBL thing about 3 years ago though...
  • When I was a kid wrestling was cool for the characters. Randy Savage and Hulk Hogan were just so cool when you were a little kid. They were cool in the same way that GI Joe or Optimus Prime were cool. Heck, Sergeant Slaughter!

    It was around the time those characters left wrestling and stopped being in the spotlight that I stopped watching. Those characters just aren't cool if you aren't a little kid. It's not really pleasant to look at steroided muscly guys grabbing each other. And fake fighting is not entertaining. Watching a rigged sporting event isn't really that entertaining. I put watching pro-wrestling in the same category as watching the Harlem Globetrotters. If you're a kid, it's super awesome because it's all flash. When you realize it's rigged, or you've seen it before, it becomes a boring waste of time.
Sign In or Register to comment.