Poll: Does the classification of "Geek" mean anything any more? Bonus Question: Do you resemble a "Geek"?

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I think I know what the issue here is. He speaks of obsession. There's a difference between it and dedication. namely how healthy they are. All of your graduate and professor friends probably don't focus on only their subject matter to the exclusion of other things. They have expertise, their major and tenure. But is it the thing that they think about and ignore the rest of their educational background? Hell no.

The geeks came about when being manifestly cool did, as well. It created the divide between those who obseesed over their all-important subjects and those who were more focused on their image. The problem in the extremes is that they could never see eye to eye, and the worst cases had severe disadvantages, like being dorky or being undereducated. Worse yet, they'd drag anyone who was more middleground into it, a case of peer pressure to be recognized socially VS pressure to succeed in school and the workplace.

The point is that this did happen, it has had an impact, and that divide is still there. Right now, my claim is that society has made the stereotype a little too real. My favorite media, the love of science, my decent education - These things are too-easily attributed to the perception of being geeky, but I'm a more middleground kind of guy. I'm smart and I have the whiff of cool. I'm just a dude who like a thing. This problem is real, yo.

But there are plenty of academic disciplines that do that. No less in history and archaeology. I much prefer historiography to history itself, because historiography is schools of history writing. The mechanics, their shortfalls, the metaphysics, the assumptions each historiographical model makes, their capacity to be understood by others. There's also people like assyriologists. There is less than 300 people who can truly be said to understand cuneiform, but what cuneiform?

And yeah, you have to dedicate your life to it. These aren't laid back people, they regularly travel the globe, inspect archaeological finds, examine tablets that to this day have lacked appropriate deciphering.

These people spend decades in the field or in archives, and decades more perfecting their understanding of written languages that date back 5,000 years.

These writing systems were so complex and with syntax so foreign to how your brain understands language on a psycholinguistic level that people thought they were just decorative carvings until only 300 years ago. This isn't stuff you can just surf the web over and learn, and the dedication to understand it is no less obsessive than any 'geekification' I've run into.

That's kind of the problem.

I love The Gamers, and I love board games, but The Hand of Fate is not only pretty insulting but even the supposed 'good guys' of that movie are the complete arseholes in tournaments I mentioned in my first post. The card game based off that movie (or the other way around as it is) is, funnily enough, a card game that exists in reality and recently got a reprint. But the thing is, no one I know who plays it wants to aspire to the same awfulness any of those people who play it in the movie.

Moreover the movie doesn't even make sense in terms of metagaming. No half decent gamer of say, Netrunner, would go into a tournament thinking a deck twice as big as another player's would beat someone. There was a reason Chaos Theory and now Smoke are popular runners, and it has a lot to do with those deck size requirements. The difference between a 40 card deck and a 45 or a 50 card deck is massive, and you want consistency over quantity.

And this is kind of the problem I find with anybody claiming 'geek cred' ... because it's not merely obsessive. I could forgive them if they were, I've met people who are truly obsessed about a topic and made it the basis of their academic career. The difference is the self-infatuation and the narcissism of believing that somehow geek cred means something.

Moreover instead of enjoying something, they more often than not want to make it utterly unfun for other players.

And even board gaming companies have realised how badly this can poison the fucking well and have tried to remove it out from the tournament scene. The only people complaining about that is the fucking arseholes in gaming. Moreover it's also responsible [for all the negative opinions about so-called 'geeky' stuff.

Because people I introduce Netrunner to don't find it geeky. Some have never played a card game in their life beyond maybe Poker or something like that. But regardless of whether that board game is fun or their particular cup of tea for them, I am certain there isa board game that is, and universally they all like it when I don't act like a fucking arsehole about it.

The Hand of Fate would have been better if the average gamer on there was basically like this;

[vimeo=140446794]

And the thing is ... if you defend your obvious character flaws because you have weird, hyperactive love for something that by nature you must share in with others in order to find that entertainment ... maybe instead of you being a 'geek', maybe you're just an arsehole.

Putting it plainly out there ... my love for board games doesn't inform me as to the quality of my participation. It informs me that I should love having people having fun with me, which should inform the quality of my participation. And if that is beyond you, that maybe that isn't something to be defended but rather worked upon.

Each person is a magical unicorn. Something not yet discovered in all the realms of science, art and history no matter how much you spend time with them.

And the thing about that is that I don't buy into that idea of the 'geek divide' ... because even the 'geekiest' things I find in media tend to be wrong on a fundamental level as long as I'm trying to be a decent person, and the person I'm explaining a particular passion for is also a decent person.

If people want an anwer to why 'geek' things seem to be going mainstream, it's because they all have the fundamental basics or capacity to be so. Because no person out there doesn't understand passion when they see it ... they also well understand narcissism about one's passion when they see it, as well.

All the nonsense 'geek divide' stuff you can easily attribute also to the visual arts scene. Or the fashion scene. Or gaming. Or sportsball fans...

Geek cred or fake gamer bullshit is no different from me thinking you have no place somewhere because you wore purple socks ... or that shade of lipstick with your complexion!? I like fashion ... fantasy football is the most geekiest thing I have ever heard of or seen in action.

All of these scenes can be equally ugly, equally exclusive, and equally annoying ... it just depends on where you fall and how little self-awareness you have.

All of them gain infantile merit by just how exclusionary they can be. Whether it's a 'true blue' honest labourer chastising an acountant, or indeed the argument of fake gamer girls. By narrowing the eligibility of something you belong to conversely optimizes your sense of protecting yourself by believing you have carved out a niche for yourself in the wider world to prevent a sense of helplessness or existential angst.

There is a reason why Nietzsche painted escapism (and religion) in a poor light.

It makes your personal failures or your apparent suffering at the hands of others acceptable.

Have you ever wondered why people who are truly, systematically disenfranchised in a socioeconomic system seek solidarity and wider social acceptance, but those in power continue to try to refine their eligibility of owning it through making it far less participatory by others?

There's a thing in psychology we like to call 'manufactured exclusivity' ... whereby the desirability of a thing is proportional to the gatekeeper's (like bouncers at a nightclub) efforts to keep the 'undeserving' out. It's the inverse mechanically of unguided optimism and commitment due to investment of time, material, or energy into a failing enterprise... works on the same principle however.

Humans are naturally ingrained to defend themselves from the process of admitting they have lost something, or their actions or efforts have been in vain, narcissistic, or (worse) found wanting.

It's no less a thing in supposedly 'geek' circles, and it's no less the thing advertised in the OP.

The whole point of being a decent person is not being a gatekeeper. As you might tell if you frequent my WW posts, I have a comical dislike of animu.

But Spice and Wolf, the light novels, the manga, the show, is downright one of the best pieces of fiction I have routinely enjoyed. Medieval economics, with flawed characters, and fantastic 'financial mystery' plots, interplayed by the human drama and sociopolitical aspects that plays out through them.

The characters do not go out of their way on some fanciful idea of improving a broken world, there is no big bad, and in many ways are emblematic of why it's a broken and darker world to begin with, but the same could be said of anyone of us. Both Holo and Lawrence could be said to be both halves of Sartre's Mathieu in The Age of Reason. Struggling by the circumstamces of their human attachmrnt, driven by monetary means to play out a role in between his numerous 'friends' and colleagues, and otherwise feeling somewhat powerless in the face of the world and the capacity to truly alter things or escaping the gaze of humanity that informs their every decision and also form yhe principle means by which we come to understand the protagonists.

I spent two paragraphs defending why I like it despite being just as quick to (perhaps uncharitably) say 99% of anime is the same triangles attached to vaguely humanoid bodies that tumbled through an outlet store, and whatever stuck to them they wear for eternity.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

I'm a skinny out of shape white dude. Glasses. When I'm home I wear baggy jogging pants and a hoodie or a t-shirt. I eat instant ramen once in a while (with fresh garlic and stuff in it). I love gaming, either playing games or making them. I'm a programmer, a credited game writer (or will be once the game releases) and I'm pretty much wired to the internet and have my 3DS with me almost at all times.

But that's not what makes me a "geek".

What makes me a geek is when someone says "what games are you playing" and I can jump straight into "I'm playing Monster Hunter 4 again, I'm looking into upgrading my switch axe, it's clearly the best weapon due to power, speed, ability to resist bouncing off tough hides, and the fact it can have a poison element to tack on free damage in any fight, to the point where I've been using the same axe since I grinded Rathalos for a week and I'm still kicking ass because it's just that good." instead of just "I'm replaying Monster hunter 4".

What makes me a geek is that while I was in my League phase I could rattle off exactly what items picks I needed at what phase of the game for Leona and Ashe as well as the reasons why.

What makes me a geek is that I don't just "main" a hero in overwatch. I look at the team composition I have and the one the enemy has to try to make the pick I feel is most optimal for the given situation.

What makes me a geek is that if someone asks me about one of the hobby games I've made, I will be hard pressed not to rattle off all the cool game design decisions I implemented, and why having a main character who can transfer status effects from themselves to an enemy, when there's equipment in the game that can make you perpetually bleed in exchange for a big stat bonus is soooo coooool you guys!

Geeks are, by definition, people who are obsessed with a particular hobby, which tends to be gaming these days.

So yeah, we'll always be around. Just because gaming is going mainstream doesn't mean that the obsessive ones will go away. In fact, games being made more accessible isn't always a bad thing. New XCOM is way better than the old one because of just how stupidly complex just the damn control scheme for the old one is, for example.

And in fact, traditionally "Geeky" hobbies being more mainstream means it'll be easier to meet people with similar interests, which is always a plus. And there will always be games that cater to us, because smaller devs who can afford to take risks (and established hardcore franchises) know that we exist as a market and will keep giving us what we want. Maybe not as much as we want, but we'll still be served.

So, the terms "geek" and "nerd" may be slowly eroding, but the core of it is still there. And honestly, that's fine by me.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

The difference is the self-infatuation and the narcissism of believing that somehow geek cred means something.

I really love you for this sentence (and further explanation too but this in particular got me) because that was something that bothered me about people a lot and I never really had a good solid thought about what it was exactly that was getting to me. Always hated status stuff that some people try to use a lot, never really made the connection to this sort of gatekeeping stuff and that, but it makes sense. Things go so much better, are more relaxed, when you don't have those people who jockey for status like that, trying to act like that stuff should even matter.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I really love you for this sentence (and further explanation too but this in particular got me) because that was something that bothered me about people a lot and I never really had a good solid thought about what it was exactly that was getting to me. Always hated status stuff that some people try to use a lot, never really made the connection to this sort of gatekeeping stuff and that, but it makes sense. Things go so much better, are more relaxed, when you don't have those people who jockey for status like that, trying to act like that stuff should even matter.

Precisely. And it happens everywhere in any scene. To put it more directly from the OP...

It's actually sucked. Since I could 'pass' for normal, trying to get a date was super hard. The normal girls who liked me were always turned off when I started to talk about my interests. All geek girls wanted geek guys, or thought I was pretending for easy sex...

For starters it's stupidly high degrees of mauvaise foi. This is one problem I have with 'geek cred'. It doesn't exist, and you're ultimately creating unrealistic expectations of being understood as well as typecasting the people you assume by definition are similar to for no fucking reason whatsoever. Believe it or not, I'd be far more willing to engage with someone if they told me their entire livelihood was specifically and only about motorcycles rather than if they called themselves a 'geek' ... because at least I like motorcycles and 'motorcyclist' doesn't leave much to the imagination.

Kind of creepy. I have significant doubts that the reason why 'geek women' wouldn't sleep with you is because they thought you were looking for 'easy sex'. As if they would happen to throw themselves at 'geek men' atthefirst possible chance they'd get.

People are looking for authenticity.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

I've not thought about geekdom for at least a decade and I don't think I resemble one. Half of the tea cups I own are game merchandise (as well as a pair of coffee cups), about 2/3rds of my daily wear shirts are game inspired and out of 6 pictures hanging in my living room, 4 are from BioShock, with the final 2 being Art Deco posters. In my bookshelf, one shelf is dedicated solely to X-wing ships, another is dedicated to roleplaying games and 2 to board games, out of a dozen or so shelves. I am absolutely nerdy about my hobbies and feel no shame in enjoying them, but I do not see myself as a geek.

I think that mainly is because geeks, to me, was a distinction from high school. Back then you had your jocks, your emos, your brats, your grade chasers and your geeks. Once high school was out and I was through the army (hard to be anything special when you all wear the same clothes and do the same thing for 18 hours a day), the distinctions just seemed pointless. In adult life and college you were free to do whatever and it was more important what you studied then what you did on your spare time. So the importance of the label faded and today I simply don't feel strongly enough to care. If you want to call me a geek, call me a geek. I don't particularly care, because there are so many other labels, parent, married, RN, etc., that I think are more important and more descriptive as to who I am then geek is.

Besides, my 19 year old cousin would have been geeky as fuck back in my days and she was one of the cool gang in her high school, so whatever I put into the word geek is likely to be very outdated.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I think that mainly is because geeks, to me, was a distinction from high school. Back then you had your jocks, your emos, your brats, your grade chasers and your geeks. Once high school was out and I was through the army (hard to be anything special when you all wear the same clothes and do the same thing for 18 hours a day), the distinctions just seemed pointless. In adult life and college you were free to do whatever and it was more important what you studied then what you did on your spare time. So the importance of the label faded and today I simply don't feel strongly enough to care. If you want to call me a geek, call me a geek. I don't particularly care, because there are so many other labels, parent, married, RN, etc., that I think are more important and more descriptive as to who I am then geek is.

Out of curiosity (and utterly OT), and speaking about labels, do Scandinavian RNs smoke as much as Australian RNs? Might be a cultural thing, but I've never understood why RNs who would probably have to work around lung cancer patients all day would be particularly heavy smokers.

Last time I went to a hospital I saw one of those trach-thing patients and judging by the colour of his teeth and righthand fingers I'm guessing it was ciggy-related. So now I'm like one week into being cigarette-free, took ages to whittle myself from 4/day, to one, to zero. Now, to me ... that was enough to break my habit. But I would have thought for nurses seeing that every now and again that would kind of be a perpetual reminder.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Out of curiosity (and utterly OT), and speaking about labels, do Scandinavian RNs smoke as much as Australian RNs? Might be a cultural thing, but I've never understood why RNs who would probably have to work around lung cancer patients all day would be particularly heavy smokers.

Used to do, no doubt. RNs were over-represented among smokers for a long time. In the last few years the hospitals have been cracking down on smoking during work hours, which has led to many RNs quitting because they simply don't have the time or chance to smoke during work.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Used to do, no doubt. RNs were over-represented among smokers for a long time. In the last few years the hospitals have been cracking down on smoking during work hours, which has led to many RNs quitting because they simply don't have the time or chance to smoke during work.

Really? Geeze... I'd hope many that left were at least nearing their pension if that's the case?

I'd imagine the familiarity of death coupled with often getting the short end of the stick when dealing with more 'temperamental' patients might be what kind of nails that idea of wanting a smoko? Gah, I hate blood. I kept it a secret when I enlisted that I really hate other people's blood. Mine? Not so bad. Other people's? Gah, that's the worst. Not Doc Martin levels bad (if you've seen the show) ... I'll put up with it. Honestly you just feel like retching constantly. Worst still is knowing it's on you, but you're not sure where. So you want to shower, but even if you can at the time you still don't feel clean.

I'd make an awful nurse. I'd imagine I'd burn through a lot of cigarettes, too ... and hospitals slamming down on that would probably be like cutting off my own lifeline. I get that nurses and doctors wouldn't survive if they hated blood, but I can't imagine simply having a tolerance for blood prepares you for everything ... like bone, and crushed teeth, and in-grown hairs, muscle, fecal matter, mucus, and pus... I can't imagine one person having a tolerance to all those things.

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

If you call yourself a geek or a nerd, chances are you aren't one.

Well, okay, that might not be entirely true, everyone's trying to be all self aware the days but generally speaking, "geek" or "nerd" are labels given to you by others, and mostly used derisively. Either way, it's a bad thing to take pride in, it's not really something to be ashamed of either but it's not the sort of identity you should embrace if you expect people to take you very seriously.

I kinda hesitate to say that it's justified to call it an id3ntity period, I always felt that the construct of a "nerd identity" was a pretty cynical affair. What I mean is, whenever people talk about genuine nerd identity what usually comes up is fandom and when fandom comes up, what come up next is how much money you invested into it. How much merchandise you own. How expensive the computer or television is you enjoy it on. That sort of thing. Which, as a poor person, seemed like a marketing gimmick to me.

Same with gamer identity, which came up sometimes back in 2014 - 2015 when GamerGate started to forget what it's actually about. Gamer identity was very much a construct of the same sleazy marketers and corrupt gaming journalists the movement initially claimed to oppose.

 

[FalloutJack]

Snip

Can I get a summary to this lecture? And I don't mean that in a derogatory fashion. I mean that that is highly-verbose a deal in comparison to my statement.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Snip

Can I get a summary to this lecture? And I don't mean that in a derogatory fashion. I mean that that is highly-verbose a deal in comparison to my statement.

That seeing oneself as a geek is not only mauvaise foi, but wearing it as a badge or judging others by it is manufactured exclusivity?

In the same way arsehole shop assistants in 'aspirational brand' stores use microaggressions to undermine self-esteem of shoppers in order to inflate both a sense of their own esteem while also creating artificial demand for the products of what they wish to market as 'desirable'?

That ultimately the same bullshit stupidity of 'geek' things being 'mainstream' is no different from fashion scenes wielding wildly fictional or temporarily popular aspects of class?

That many 'geek' things in my experience all have the capacity of being 'mainstream' when I'm not an arsehole introducing them to someone? Like board games, for instance. I've noticed less people be arseholes about them, and lo and behold it's exponentially exploding in popularity... and that is good because it gives more money to creators, to create new experiences, and for me to have new experiences with new people and that is what board games are about... not an identity but a hobby?

That to justify one's character flaws as merely being 'geek' rather than character flaws that ultimately undermine personal authenticity and striving to be a better person?

That... in the words of the OP...

It's actually sucked. Since I could 'pass' for normal, trying to get a date was super hard. The normal girls who liked me were always turned off when I started to talk about my interests. All geek girls wanted geek guys, or thought I was pretending for easy sex...

Is a really fucking creepy way to look at people, and maybe "geek women" don't just magically throw themselves at "geek men" but rather don't like people who pretend they have some transcendental connection to because of a pathopsychological construction born from narcissism?

 

[FalloutJack]

Snip

Then, I think we're on similar wavelengths here. The trend we're noting here is not one that we like, clearly. There is a case of trying to classify that which is entertaining (ALOT of what is entertaining, in fact) as geek, but it's not. It's some kind of disingenuous PC shift, and I don't like it because everyone tries to shove you into the hole. And I have a feeling that you are saying this is just as bad as all the people who call screeching rage-o-holics autistics, when I'm the genuine article and am eloquent enough in conversation. It just isn't right.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I'll say that the geeks are those who are really-really-really into... whatever. If you've got encyclopedic knowledge of, well, anything, you're still a geek. Whether that's the history of Basketball, the Napoleonic Wars, trains, or, yes, comic books.

These days, everyone and their dog is into superhero movies and video games... and there's a big difference between watching the latest Marvel movie and doing a deep dive into their history and being able to recite anything and everything behind the history of the characters.


As for me... I don't think that I'm deep enough into anything anymore to be called a geek (maybe I used to be with anime... though I don't really care about or watch much these days), though I've still got mad nerd cred with my Computer Science degree, Aspergers (yes, officially diagnosed; the self-diagnosed BS is so lame, and makes me have to write this; though maybe that fad is over since I haven't seen it much recently), and complete lack of IRL friends.

I don't get this definition. I've met lecturers that I know are really into the history of the Australian Imperial Force during the Great War. Who have written journal articles about it, written books, can tell you two thousand names off the top of their head, where they fought, their commanding officers, their contributions, where they are buried, who their friends were, where they grew up.

It's no different than being a grad student.

Still not 'geeks', or at least my entire professional existence is merely geek-filled.

To me, 'geek' has meant a focus on something that to others is either merely escapism or not comprising an 'academic professionalism' of detachment as something that is a field of enquiry.

After all, that lecturer learnt those names like in much the same fashion I did with other groups of people during my first years of university. Microhistorical perspective. Recreating an event through looking at the lives and first hand accounts of people in thesame place at the same time (or thereabouts).

The reason they taught us stuff like this was to inculcate the necessary baseline skills for he most simplest form of historiographical critiquing. Basically being a time detective and inferring directly from the sources of individuals and their lives to make arguments as to the nature of an event or a group of people. The other thing that it was to slam home was the idea of respect. Respect for a history that may still yet be written in the lives of people still drawing breath, their children, their spouses, their parents. Remembering you have a duty of respect to the words and thoughts you commit to eternity.

It's a form of historiography that adequately portrays an event, but that doesn't rely on complex theory that they start hammering home in second year courses of a Bach. Sacrificing complexity and astuteness of comparisons and complex bridging of otherwise disparate events or personalities, but recreating an event in detail rather than scope.

But I doubt simply applying these techniques makes one a geek. It simply makes one a historian.

The distinction is entirely on whether this encyclopedic knowledge is obtained purely out of voluntary love or as a necessity.

If you learn those 2000 names as a means to an end because you wanna achieve something outside of knowing them, be it to get a diploma or to understand history or what have you, you are using them as a means to an end, as a tool. So, yeah, that's not a geek.

If some random person who isn't "getting payed" somehow through this endeavor, still learns them, out of pure unadulterated passion, for no reason other than his love for historical names or what have you, divorced from other contexts, not as a means to an end but as an end in and of itself, then that person is indeed a geek.

Geekness entails selfless love and passion for something you have encyclopedic knowledge about, not just purely having this knowledge.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Snip

Then, I think we're on similar wavelengths here. The trend we're noting here is not one that we like, clearly. There is a case of trying to classify that which is entertaining (ALOT of what is entertaining, in fact) as geek, but it's not. It's some kind of disingenuous PC shift, and I don't like it because everyone tries to shove you into the hole. And I have a feeling that you are saying this is just as bad as all the people who call screeching rage-o-holics autistics, when I'm the genuine article and am eloquent enough in conversation. It just isn't right.

Kind of? Personally I'm just annoyed that the self-awareness is lacking. The 'geek divide' is no less tribalistic than rival FC pubs having a brawl before a gsme. It's an outlet of both belonging to nothing in particular and the capacity of diminishing personal ownership of wilful tribalistic instincts you give in to.

What is fashionable is merely class hierarchy of consumption. And how many people in this thresd who describe thrmselves as being, somehow, 'physically geek'? Or 'looking normal'... and yet a 'geek'? Or have pretended geek has some fucking transcendental 'core' ... yet, like Kant's perfect will, they can't fucking show me.

People should grow up rather than kid themselves.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

The difference is the self-infatuation and the narcissism of believing that somehow geek cred means something.

I really love you for this sentence (and further explanation too but this in particular got me) because that was something that bothered me about people a lot and I never really had a good solid thought about what it was exactly that was getting to me. Always hated status stuff that some people try to use a lot, never really made the connection to this sort of gatekeeping stuff and that, but it makes sense. Things go so much better, are more relaxed, when you don't have those people who jockey for status like that, trying to act like that stuff should even matter.

I think I can illuminate this point somewhat.

There's certain assumptions in play here, not sure if I'd call em narcissistic, but anyways;
-the object of ones fandom is worthwhile
-knowing more about an object bequeaths one with the capacity to offer higher-levels of expertise within their opinions about it
-when discussing something, it is more valuable to be more expert about it than less, because you generate more meaning that way



So, yeah. Obviously those idiots who try to claim that being really good in this or that game makes them Adonis aren't worth taking seriously, and this manifestation of "geek cred" isn't anything to write home about, but I think there's more to it.

I think at its core, you have people who think their interests are intrinsically meaningful, that they have something to offer life, and that through knowing them more you also are able to appreciate that something at a higher degree. That you're more interesting, put simply.

Having this geek cred isn't something to use to be an asshole to people but more like something you use to gauge how much weight ones' opinion ought carry on a certain subject. It's like how when you have expert testimony in a trial carrying more weight than layman testimony. This same spirit is what functions within geek cred when it's behaving optimally.


I think it is overblown how this geek cred truly matters. I don't think most people take it seriously at all. It's just one of those things that makes it interesting to share things with people cause you feel comfortable going more in-depth about topics than you would with your grandmother. It's something that indicates how interesting someone is by virtue of being well-versed in something that you deem to make people versed in it interesting, out of its inherent characteristics.


If I think that building rockets is awesome, and I know you build rockets, I'll instantly value you slightly higher and find you more interesting due to that. If I think training dogs is cool, and you have trained your poodle to perform backflips, I'll instantly think you're great and be a little more prone to take your words regarding pet training more seriously.

We don't call those things "rocket cred" or "poodle cred" but we do when it comes to geeky stuff, which is I think a way of making a big deal out of an unremarkable thing. It's not elitism, it's just passion and love.

 

[FalloutJack]

Snip

Then, I think we're on similar wavelengths here. The trend we're noting here is not one that we like, clearly. There is a case of trying to classify that which is entertaining (ALOT of what is entertaining, in fact) as geek, but it's not. It's some kind of disingenuous PC shift, and I don't like it because everyone tries to shove you into the hole. And I have a feeling that you are saying this is just as bad as all the people who call screeching rage-o-holics autistics, when I'm the genuine article and am eloquent enough in conversation. It just isn't right.

Kind of? Personally I'm just annoyed that the self-awareness is lacking. The 'geek divide' is no less tribalistic than rival FC pubs having a brawl before a gsme. It's an outlet of both belonging to nothing in particular and the capacity of diminishing personal ownership of wilful tribalistic instincts you give in to.

What is fashionable is merely class hierarchy of consumption. And how many people in this thresd who describe thrmselves as being, somehow, 'physically geek'? Or 'looking normal'... and yet a 'geek'? Or have pretended geek has some fucking transcendental 'core' ... yet, like Kant's perfect will, they can't fucking show me.

People should grow up rather than kid themselves.

Wait, that happens before a game? I thought it was after, or possibly during.

Anyway, since when have people demonstrated a great self-awareness at large? I'm fairly certain that alot of people would be very different if they were aware of how much of a dingus they can be. I mean, look at Kim Jong Un, whose haircut matches his personality.[footnote]As in, extremely rigid and terrible.[/footnote] If he got just a little real perspective, he'd be so speechless that it would be 20% quieter in North Korea.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

The distinction is entirely on whether this encyclopedic knowledge is obtained purely out of voluntary love or as a necessity.

If you learn those 2000 names as a means to an end because you wanna achieve something outside of knowing them, be it to get a diploma or to understand history or what have you, you are using them as a means to an end, as a tool. So, yeah, that's not a geek.

If some random person who isn't "getting payed" somehow through this endeavor, still learns them, out of pure unadulterated passion, for no reason other than his love for historical names or what have you, divorced from other contexts, not as a means to an end but as an end in and of itself, then that person is indeed a geek.

Geekness entails selfless love and passion for something you have encyclopedic knowledge about, not just purely having this knowledge.

It's cute you think your average researcher get paid anything meaningful. I know post-docs in the sciences who are tossing up living in their cars.

I see what you're doing here, but let me rephrase why I think it's wrong.

One: "I do plenty of things I like without pay."

Two: "That if you don't have a love of history or historiography, you won't be good at it."

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

The distinction is entirely on whether this encyclopedic knowledge is obtained purely out of voluntary love or as a necessity.

If you learn those 2000 names as a means to an end because you wanna achieve something outside of knowing them, be it to get a diploma or to understand history or what have you, you are using them as a means to an end, as a tool. So, yeah, that's not a geek.

If some random person who isn't "getting payed" somehow through this endeavor, still learns them, out of pure unadulterated passion, for no reason other than his love for historical names or what have you, divorced from other contexts, not as a means to an end but as an end in and of itself, then that person is indeed a geek.

Geekness entails selfless love and passion for something you have encyclopedic knowledge about, not just purely having this knowledge.

It's cute you think your average researcher get paid anything meaningful. I know post-docs in the sciences who are tossing up living in their cars.

I see what you're doing here, but let me rephrase why I think it's wrong.

One: "I do plenty of things I like without pay."

Two: "That if you don't have a love of history or historiography, you won't be good at it."

No, no, I didn't mean literally earning money, this is why I put it in quotation marks. It's a term referring to anything outside of the joy of knowing this thing for the sake of knowing it and how fun it is to know it and that stuff. Earning a diploma or something else is within the definition of using that knowledge as a means to an end.


Anyhow, the point I was making is that it's the combination of both having encyclopedic knowledge and having this knowledge as an end in-and-of-itself that makes the activity into a geeky one.


Everyone does casual stuff they like without getting payed but seldom do they go as in-depth as one would to get a diploma, hence they're not geeky.

As for your point regarding being good at it or not, well, you certainly do need a modicum of love for your job to do it well no matter what it is, so I kinda guessed at that. I am not against letting people who work at their fields claim geekhood if they so choose. It's just that typically most people in academia tend to learn stuff cause they have to, at least in part. If they truly love every single paper they ever need to read to graduate, then props to them, but I don't think that's the most common of occurrences.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Wait, that happens before a game? I thought it was after, or possibly during.

I'm not discounting the possibility of all three after what I saw as a kid, tbh. I'm not sure how their stadiums stand up to the abuse. They practically have to corral them into the stadium to keep the two groups separated on a scale I haven't seen since the stockyard autions in rural Australia. It's like watching tens of thousands of sheep passing wash trough lines before going to the abattoir.

...Only more blood.

It's amazing the ways we want to inspire utterly irrational hatred of what are ostensibly neighbours.

The thing is Australia is a 'sporting nation' and we never have problems like the UK do despite practically having the same cultural background and constitution. The only real difference is having less Protesta--oooooh.

Nvm, I'll leave that in WW! :3

Anyway, since when have people demonstrated a great self-awareness at large? I'm fairly certain that alot of people would be very different if they were aware of how much of a dingus they can be. I mean, look at Kim Jong Un, whose haircut matches his personality.[footnote]As in, extremely rigid and terrible.[/footnote] If he got just a little real perspective, he'd be so speechless that it would be 20% quieter in North Korea.

True enough. Honestly, as a board gamer predominantly I'm utterly fine with "geek" of that type of thing is going 'mainstream'. No board gamer who is not an arsehole I've met is complaining about our quickly growing numbers. The only people complaining are those douchebag gamers saying how 'feminazis are taking away our games because they're saying I shouldn't be mouthing off bigoted bullshit to other players to throw them off during tournaments' crowd.

Fuck those wankers. The less of them, the more people that will play in tournaments. And basically even WotC picked up on that, given how numerous competitors to the former near monopoly on the tournament scene have risen, and the sudden massive popularity of competitors like Netrunner who wisely thought; "Hey, instead of driving away customers and fans, maybe we should keep the people that actually make the atmosphere fun?"

I like having more people to have fun with.

Alien concept, I know.

No, no, I didn't mean literally earning money, this is why I put it in quotation marks. It's a term referring to anything outside of the joy of knowing this thing for the sake of knowing it and how fun it is to know it and that stuff. Earning a diploma or something else is within the definition of using that knowledge as a means to an end.


Anyhow, the point I was making is that it's the combination of both having encyclopedic knowledge and having this knowledge as an end in-and-of-itself that makes the activity into a geeky one.

That's kind of a silly description, however. I went for a trip major in History, Psychology, Sociology in my first degree for a reason. I liked all those things. I got multiple jobs in/implementing all three of those things I learnt. History is not about having an encyclopaedic knowledge. As I said before, I prefer historiography to history. The schools of thought, mechanics and the philosophy behind academic history writing.

I have the tools to dissect a topic through what I learnt and expand upon it in an academic fashion suitable for things like academic journal articles. Doesn't inform me that I "simply know a lot about something" ... I've written large essays on the history of historiography. How they alter academic writings of a time and place, how they are influenced by sociological factors of a time or place.

Does that sound like someone who doesn't like history? Moreover, just how well do you think someone who doesn't like history will put up with doing that?

I understand the concept of studying something for a job ... but not specifically studying something you dislike or have no inclination towards solely for a job.

I like history. I am really good at writing about it academically. I am gifted at approaching the same topic from multiple historiographical approaches to reveal multiple aspects of that topic that might not otherwise be considered or contemplated in academia. That seems pretty 'geek' to me by your description, but honestly I'm an intellectual lightweight compared to the academic calibre of some people I have met. That's the cold, honest truth.

But then again, like any academic pursuit, the pursuit of knowledge itself is lifelong and one full of humility.

One of the reasons why I like history is precisely because it's a lifelong dedication that lay its worth on the fundamentals of information transfer, meaningfulness and how it relates to the human being the ever-growing past. The purpose of history and how it might shape opinion, and deals with fantastically difficult concepts such as the impossibility of truth, requiring infinite regression and (re)examination. You have a duty to truth, but due to even the language that you write it in must colour the perception of it as future generations absorb your works through a very different sociological environment.

That interests me. Because humans are infinitely interesting. How is that meaningfully different from being a 'geek' yet not fundamental to being a historian?

 

[McElroy]

People should grow up rather than kid themselves.

Hey now, being a perpetual manchild is the new orange.