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

The Geek's Dilemma

2»

Comments

  • You talking to me? If so, elaborate.
    I'm kinda busy at work right now, I can explain later tonight. Or perhaps someone else can.
  • edited April 2011
    You talking to me? If so, elaborate.
    I'm kinda busy at work right now, I can explain later tonight. Or perhaps someone else can.
    I'd say that you're the one who is failing to read the Venn diagram properly. At the very least, you must agree with either 1) or point 2) from my other post - which one?
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • For the first chart, the point 2) would be correct saying that nerds and geeks are mutually exclusive (a geek is intelligent AND obsessive, but NOT socially awkward, while a nerd is ALL 3). The second chart posits that what nerds and geeks have in common is that they have strong feelings about what it means to be a nerd or a geek. What I think the second chart subtly implies is that nerds and geeks are the same thing to groups that are neither.
  • edited April 2011
    You're misreading the second chart, then. Since "people with strong opinions on the distinction between geeks and nerds" lies in the intersection between geeks and nerds, then such people must be geeks as well as nerds, and, furthermore, this means that geeks and nerds must not be mutually exclusive - hence contradicting the first chart.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • You're misreading the second chart, then. Since "people with strong opinions on the distinction between geeks and nerds" lies in the intersection between geeks and nerds, then such people must be both geeks and nerds, and, furthermore, this means that geeks and nerds must not be mutually exclusive - hence contradicting the first chart.
    According to the first chart the difference between geeks and nerds is social ineptitude. What if someone is only socially inept sometimes?
  • Since "people with strong opinions on the distinction between geeks and nerds" lies in the intersection between geeks and nerds, then such people must be both geeks and nerds, and, furthermore, this means that geeks and nerds must not be mutually exclusive
    Not exactly, rather the strong opinion as to what defines nerds and geeks is an attribute that both nerds and geeks share.
  • edited April 2011
    Since "people with strong opinions on the distinction between geeks and nerds" lies in the intersection between geeks and nerds, then such people must be both geeks and nerds, and, furthermore, this means that geeks and nerds must not be mutually exclusive
    Not exactly, rather the strong opinion as to what defines nerds and geeks is an attribute that both nerds and geeks share.
    In that case the second diagram is mislabeled. If you're talking about *attributes* of geeks and nerds, then the labels should be:
    "Attributes of nerds"
    "Attributes of geeks"
    "Have strong opinions on the distinction between geeks and nerds"

    However, the space of the diagram isn't attributes, it's people. If the sets of geeks and nerds intersect, there must be people who are both geeks and nerds.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • You're misreading the second chart, then. Since "people with strong opinions on the distinction between geeks and nerds" lies in the intersection between geeks and nerds, then such people must be both geeks and nerds, and, furthermore, this means that geeks and nerds must not be mutually exclusive - hence contradicting the first chart.
    According to the first chart the difference between geeks and nerds is social ineptitude. What if someone is only socially inept sometimes?
    Assuming interpretation 2) above, they are a nerd when they are socially inept, and a geek when they are not. However, at no point in time are they a nerd as well as a geek.
  • You're misreading the second chart, then. Since "people with strong opinions on the distinction between geeks and nerds" lies in the intersection between geeks and nerds, then such people must be both geeks and nerds, and, furthermore, this means that geeks and nerds must not be mutually exclusive - hence contradicting the first chart.
    According to the first chart the difference between geeks and nerds is social ineptitude. What if someone is only socially inept sometimes?
    Assuming interpretation 2) above, they are a nerd when they are socially inept, and a geek when they are not. However, at no point in time are they a nerd as well as a geek.
    Does it really matter?
  • You're misreading the second chart, then. Since "people with strong opinions on the distinction between geeks and nerds" lies in the intersection between geeks and nerds, then such people must be both geeks and nerds, and, furthermore, this means that geeks and nerds must not be mutually exclusive - hence contradicting the first chart.
    According to the first chart the difference between geeks and nerds is social ineptitude. What if someone is only socially inept sometimes?
    Assuming interpretation 2) above, they are a nerd when they are socially inept, and a geek when they are not. However, at no point in time are they a nerd as well as a geek.
    Does it really matter?
    Yes.
  • Does it really matter?
    This is the internet.
  • Does it really matter?
    This is the internet.
    Oh...you mean this isn't woodshop class? D:
  • I cannot support any definition of nerd or geek that disallows being a member of both groups. And I'm not even going near the question of dorks.
  • Oh...you mean this isn't woodshop class? D:
    Minecraft thread is thisaway.
  • I cannot support any definition of nerd or geek that disallows being a member of both groups. And I'm not even going near the question of dorks.
    No, you can only be one! We can't have crossbreeding either, that's just messy!
  • Are people really that unfamiliar with Set Theory?
  • Are people really that unfamiliar with Set Theory?
    I believe this has been made clear.
  • More we're nit picking labels to try and prove who is technically right. >_>
  • edited April 2011
    Indeed, some people here probably are unfamiliar with Set Theory. However, the first diagram is poorly labeled.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • More we're nit picking labels to try and prove who is technically right. >_>
    You are either wrong or the table you posted is shit.
  • No, you can only be one! We can't have crossbreeding either, that's just messy!
    Too late.
  • I made this. Do I win?

    image
  • I don't know that I agree re. con artists having little skill or knowledge.
    It's still a lot better than the other two so far, though.
  • I don't know that I agree re. con artists having little skill or knowledge.
    It's still a lot better than the other two so far, though.
    I agree with your non-agreement, actually. It's bad wording. Maybe "faker" or "poser" would be better. I was trying to sum up someone who knows they don't have the skills, but tricks their way into a well paid gig.
  • If you go for depth, you're a nerd, not a geek.
    ...and nerds are (often awkward) science, math, or computer (specialists).
    These are the two classifications I have sworn upon for all my years.
Sign In or Register to comment.