Even though I haven't a clue what was just said, I love the sound of gearhead technobabble. It feels very technical and authoritative, but casually so. Like a surfing particle physicist or a stoned mechanical engineer.
I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.
*high five*
I'm currently trying to create a hybrid of European small displacement, high RPM horsepower with American large displacement, low RPM torque. Kinda a hybrid of the Audi RS4 4.2 V8 and the GM 6.0L LS2 V8. I'm thinking a 305, that's 5.0L with a dual-plane manifold and shorty headers for broad, mid range power, but enough flow to get 400 hp. Somewhere around 10.5:1 compression, maybe more depending on the camshaft I finally decide on. And top it off with a 3" inch magnaflow exhaust.
But my other idea is a 267 (4.4L) with a supercharger. Decisions.
I was going to post a long paragraph about my views on what makes someone a professional vs a hobbyist vs a geek vs a nerd. But then I found this in my rss reader:
After that, I might have to make a venn diagram of my own. Which will, of course, make me a geek about nerddom.
But my other idea is a 267 (4.4L) with a supercharger. Decisions.
Well, what's your intended application? What sort of fast do you want, straight line, around a course, or a good all-rounder? How does it handle?
More around a course fast and all-rounder. I intend to autocross the car, and for that reason I'm leaning toward the 5.0L NA engine. A supercharger will add weight to the front end and add it high up, doubly bad for cornering performance. Also, I think I'll have trouble meeting the fueling demands of a supercharged engine with the GM TBI setup. The NA engine requires fewer components and can be tuned much more easily. However, to hit the RPM target will require carefully selection of components that will support those engine speeds.
I've been intending to learn more about automobiles. I already know plenty (my dad is a complete gearhead), but I don't know the finer details needed to geek out about them. You guys are providing that incentive (also, my burgeoning interest in efficiency-maximized autos and the possibility of making electric car design [read: like Tesla, not like the Volt] my job).
I made the diagram to outline my views on geeks vs nerds vs other kinds of people. In the making I found a whole load of categories which I'd not bothered filling in before, so put in "comedy" tags instead of roles or personality types.
For any subject:
In case the image isn't clear: Self Aware vs Self Deluded Makes Money vs Loses Money Great Knowledge or Skill vs Little Knowledge or Skill
I wanted it to be a four way diagram with the added dimension of "creates vs consumes" which lets me add things like: Self aware, loses money, great knowledge or skill, creates = geek who makes fan art. Self aware, loses money, great knowledge or skill, consumes = geek who collects.
But at that point the entire thing becomes a bit unwieldy.
Thing of my day: I just found my graphics tablet stylus! The above image I scribbled on paper, then took a photo of the scribble, then turned greyscale and boosted contrast, then cropped and uploaded... a tablet would let me just do the scribble.
I'm a scary nerd that can act like a normal person when in public. The strain is sometimes far to great which causes me to revert to my terrifying true form.
I'm a scary nerd that can act like a normal person when in public. The strain is sometimes far to great which causes me to revert to my terrifying true form.
Kinda reminds me of the Nutty Professor (the Jerry Lewis version not the stupid Eddie Murphy version).
I'm definitely geeky, but I wouldn't consider it my primary quality. I'm more of a geeky artist, rather than an artsy geek. I don't spend a lot of money on geeky things, I'm not game or tech savy, etc, etc. My geekdom lies in books and cartoons. The rest of my interests are academic and outdoor-oriented.
I'm definitely geeky, but I wouldn't consider it my primary quality. I'm more of a geeky artist, rather than an artsy geek. I don't spend a lot of money on geeky things, I'm not game or tech savy, etc, etc. My geekdom lies in books and cartoons. The rest of my interests are academic and outdoor-oriented.
You're definitely the sexiest kind there is, though.
Sorry for necro'ing an old thread, but I thought it was smarter than making a new one. I was curious about something, primarily this:
So... getting back on the topic.
To me the difference between a Nerd and a Geek has basically been:
Geek = NERD + Social Skills. And therefore accepted into society.
You see I had never ever heard of geeks and nerds having that particular definition (or the one on Scott's chart for that matter) until I started listening to GeekNights which was barely two weeks ago.
The definition, as I have understood it and as I have come to learn from others and from much thought and analysis, is that the difference being "Smart" and being a "Hobbyist/Obsessive" with much overlap and plenty of outliers with common but not ubiquitous aspects such as social awkwardness and being knowledgeable. However nerd being defined as the worst version of a geek has never come to the equation until I arrived here so I was curious to know how many of you came to that conclusion.
My particular definitions and origins for them are elaborated here and revisited here (I could post them but really, I don't want to take up all that space.)
My final conclusion of the terms definitions are coming far closer to this page I have recently discovered that reaffirms my previous suppositions however also seem to vaguely cross with your definitions.
Fuck off. You're not allowed to apologize for that. We demand you revive old threads with new and insightful comments!
Translation, for people that might not know how to read that: "You are doing it right. I approve, but I like to make derisive statements as they are how I express my boyish charms."
Related note, antisocial tendencies are neither nerd nor geek nor dweeb nor dork. Asocial tendencies might fall in there somewhere, but people with antisocial tendencies usually skip right to different naming schemes entirely.
Fuck off. You're not allowed to apologize for that. We demand you revive old threads with new and insightful comments!
Translation, for people that might not know how to read that: "You are doing it right. I approve, but I like to make derisive statements as they are how I express my boyish charms."
I sort of figured. thank you for the translation.
Related note, antisocial tendencies are neither nerd nor geek nor dweeb nor dork. Asocial tendencies might fall in there somewhere, but people with antisocial tendencies usually skip right to different naming schemes entirely.
I never used the word anti-social and fully aware that the word refers to the behavior that of sociopaths and would've used asocial had the need had come up. I used the term specifically social awkwardness to cover that general spectrum.
Sociopaths use anti-social behavior, but anti-social behavior is not exclusive to sociopaths.
Children often experiment with anti-social behavior growing up as a normal part of social experimentation. Generally, the reactions to antisocial behavior are quite negative for the child, and the child learns to avoid antisocial behavior.
There is nothing loaded about the term antisocial.
Social awkwardness is definitely correlated to asocial tendencies: if one doesn't interact with people enough, one does not learn the correct social aptitudes for interacting (resulting in ... awkward!); on the flip side, one who feels awkward (justly or not) will tend towards asocial behaviors to avoid the stigma of predicted social faux pas. It is a good term to use, and it makes no implications about the person's capabilities.
Social ineptitude, for example, implies the person isn't capable of navigating social norms. I think some of the definitions between nerd and geek mentioned in this thread are trying to differentiate the two by suggesting one label implies social ineptitude specifically; while I don't believe nerd or geek are well defined anywhere but small circles who have agreed on a definition amongst themselves, I certainly have a hard time seeing social ineptitude being part of either definition.
About the Pro Wrestling conversation earlier in this thread, apparently it's bad right now. Like, it takes itself too seriously. That's what information I can garner from the Pro Wrestling geeks anyway.
There is nothing loaded about the term antisocial.
Probably but after long association with a friend who is more into psychology than I ever will be I have been more inclined to believe that it is a more loaded term or at least less correct than saying asocial. My mistake.
Social ineptitude, for example, implies the person isn't capable of navigating social norms. I think some of the definitions between nerd and geek mentioned in this thread are trying to differentiate the two by suggesting one label implies social ineptitude specifically; while I don't believe nerd or geek are well defined anywhere but small circles who have agreed on a definition amongst themselves, I certainly have a hard time seeing social ineptitude being part of either definition.
Only the definitions I've found here try to define the two by presence or lack of social ineptitude and it intrigued me vastly. My experience has been that both terms when originally used as insults usually were loaded with the implication of social ineptitude due to other interests (The intellectual or the the obsessive) taking away from general social competence. As geekier interests and intellectual pursuits have become vaguely more mainstream (but only barely) most of the negative implications of social ineptitude appear less and are more likely to be seen on a case by case basis or by the "scary" people Scrym tend to describe.
I do agree that certain circles will have their own definitions, like how I've found that some believe the definitions to the terms I've found are actually reversed, though I have found them less often. I suppose my quest for definitions will always be fruitless but the observations will always be too fascinating to let go for good.
I did it twice in my blog posts, I am fully aware, acknowledge and laugh at all this, I'm not so dumb that I'm not self-aware. It's just something else to overthink alongside My Little Pony theories and figuring out what Nintendo is going to do for Pokemon Grey.
Good for you. Rest of forum who has posted in this thread, redeem yourself.
I'd post a response, but it'd have to be in the Hipster thread, because like ... you know ... I read that comic while Randall (we're on a first name basis) was copying it from my notebook.
About the Pro Wrestling conversation earlier in this thread, apparently it's bad right now. Like, it takes itself too seriously. That's what information I can garner from the Pro Wrestling geeks anyway.
Within its own universe, wrestling should take itself seriously. That's how it keeps people interested and makes money. Ideally you have a situation where every belt, but most especially your World Championship, is considered a prize to be battled to the death for. It meant a lot when Eddie Guerrero pinned Brock Lesnar to win that belt. He'd battled years of being told he was too small, not to mention a crippling drug problem, had cleaned himself up, and made the fans care so much about him that WWE simply HAD to push him. Yes, Vince McMahon told Eddie and Brock who was going to win and who was going to lose that match but the emotion was very real. When wrestling doesn't take itself seriously, who can really care? The day after John Cena was screwed out of winning the WWE title he went on Raw and was laughing and smiling and saying he didn't want to face the Miz again. Right then and there he told everyone watching that he doesn't care about being the champion in character. If the biggest star in WWE doesn't care about winning the belt, why should we care about who has it? Yes, there is room for comedy and I love watching Colt Cabana in the ring, but there needs to be a certain level of seriousness and consequence or else everything in the ring is a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing, and no one buys that. There's a reason why WWE PPV buyrates are in the toilet right now.
Redeem yourself by assuming that people don't post xkcd things here. It's a given that 99% of the people here read it.
Forgive me for not having read the "Geeks Dilemma" thread. I've seen plenty of people post xkcd to sum up their opinions before, and they hadn't been given grief. I didn't realize a taboo had been instated since then.
Comments
I'm currently trying to create a hybrid of European small displacement, high RPM horsepower with American large displacement, low RPM torque. Kinda a hybrid of the Audi RS4 4.2 V8 and the GM 6.0L LS2 V8. I'm thinking a 305, that's 5.0L with a dual-plane manifold and shorty headers for broad, mid range power, but enough flow to get 400 hp. Somewhere around 10.5:1 compression, maybe more depending on the camshaft I finally decide on. And top it off with a 3" inch magnaflow exhaust.
But my other idea is a 267 (4.4L) with a supercharger. Decisions.
After that, I might have to make a venn diagram of my own. Which will, of course, make me a geek about nerddom.
For any subject:
In case the image isn't clear:
Self Aware vs Self Deluded
Makes Money vs Loses Money
Great Knowledge or Skill vs Little Knowledge or Skill
Self aware, loses money, great knowledge or skill, creates = geek who makes fan art.
Self aware, loses money, great knowledge or skill, consumes = geek who collects.
But at that point the entire thing becomes a bit unwieldy.
Thing of my day: I just found my graphics tablet stylus! The above image I scribbled on paper, then took a photo of the scribble, then turned greyscale and boosted contrast, then cropped and uploaded... a tablet would let me just do the scribble.
The definition, as I have understood it and as I have come to learn from others and from much thought and analysis, is that the difference being "Smart" and being a "Hobbyist/Obsessive" with much overlap and plenty of outliers with common but not ubiquitous aspects such as social awkwardness and being knowledgeable. However nerd being defined as the worst version of a geek has never come to the equation until I arrived here so I was curious to know how many of you came to that conclusion.
My particular definitions and origins for them are elaborated here and revisited here (I could post them but really, I don't want to take up all that space.)
My final conclusion of the terms definitions are coming far closer to this page I have recently discovered that reaffirms my previous suppositions however also seem to vaguely cross with your definitions.
Related note, antisocial tendencies are neither nerd nor geek nor dweeb nor dork. Asocial tendencies might fall in there somewhere, but people with antisocial tendencies usually skip right to different naming schemes entirely.
Children often experiment with anti-social behavior growing up as a normal part of social experimentation. Generally, the reactions to antisocial behavior are quite negative for the child, and the child learns to avoid antisocial behavior.
There is nothing loaded about the term antisocial.
Social awkwardness is definitely correlated to asocial tendencies: if one doesn't interact with people enough, one does not learn the correct social aptitudes for interacting (resulting in ... awkward!); on the flip side, one who feels awkward (justly or not) will tend towards asocial behaviors to avoid the stigma of predicted social faux pas. It is a good term to use, and it makes no implications about the person's capabilities.
Social ineptitude, for example, implies the person isn't capable of navigating social norms. I think some of the definitions between nerd and geek mentioned in this thread are trying to differentiate the two by suggesting one label implies social ineptitude specifically; while I don't believe nerd or geek are well defined anywhere but small circles who have agreed on a definition amongst themselves, I certainly have a hard time seeing social ineptitude being part of either definition.
That's what information I can garner from the Pro Wrestling geeks anyway.
I do agree that certain circles will have their own definitions, like how I've found that some believe the definitions to the terms I've found are actually reversed, though I have found them less often. I suppose my quest for definitions will always be fruitless but the observations will always be too fascinating to let go for good.
How is it no one had posted this before?
Redeem yourself by assuming that people don't post xkcd things here. It's a given that 99% of the people here read it.
When wrestling doesn't take itself seriously, who can really care? The day after John Cena was screwed out of winning the WWE title he went on Raw and was laughing and smiling and saying he didn't want to face the Miz again. Right then and there he told everyone watching that he doesn't care about being the champion in character. If the biggest star in WWE doesn't care about winning the belt, why should we care about who has it? Yes, there is room for comedy and I love watching Colt Cabana in the ring, but there needs to be a certain level of seriousness and consequence or else everything in the ring is a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing, and no one buys that. There's a reason why WWE PPV buyrates are in the toilet right now.