Is the common perception of "nerds" (as in socially awkward/inept unpopular people) is that they are universally smart?
Cause that's not been my experience at all. Some nerdly hobbies require (at least some) intelligence, programming, building robots, etc. Other nerdly activities that I'm part of don't require nearly as much, RPGs(pen and paper), and fandom as in trekkies, browncoats etc. And boy am I here to tell you there are some dumb "nerds".
In my experience "nerds" have the same ranges of intelligence as non-nerds and intelligent people range from popular jocks to social handicapped nerds.
In other words, over my 35 years I've not seen a significant correlation between "intelligence" and popularity, or "intelligence" and social grace/ineptitude.
This has pretty much been my experience too. My high school wasn't enormous, but it was ~2000 kids, big enough for subcultures to form and as many (if not more honestly) of the outcast were dumb as the popular kids.
Heck actually in that school most of the really intelligent ones, the AP/Dual enrollment kids and the like, while not necessarily popular, were treated very well by everyone because a smart peer was always a better resource than a teacher if you needed help, regardless of how much of a social outcast they were.
That's what I have observed. The smart kids weren't popular in the sit-com or movie way, but people came to them with questions or to settle some debates.
I find the quibbling over nerds versus geeks or whatever other term one wants to use silly. You may subscribe to that distinction, but most people don't - which makes it hard to communicate meaningfully with those terms.
Whatever your favored labeling, the distinction is valid. If people in general don't distinguish between "nerds" and "geeks", then people in general are suffering from a misconception, and encouraging usage of two distinct terms is surely a good way to combat that misconception. No?
I don't agree. Many people who use the labels on themselves and their friends have conflicting definitions. Further, I see the distinction as a false one. It boils down to "people within my subgroup that I like" and "people within my subgroup that I don't like."
That's not the distinction at all. The distinction is between antisocial people who like sci-fi and fantasy and smart, somewhat obsessive people who like technology. The groups are not disjoint, but they're by no means the same group.
but which label goes with which group, I've heard many, many. And no one has mentioned dork, dweeb, or other terms used to belittle the not popular. I know several definitions for geek
Geeks people who bite the heads off of chickens and other circus freaks.
Geeks people who are really into some niche such as game geeks, or mathgeeks.
Geeks socially awkward losers.
The definitions of geek and nerd are location and temporally dependent. That means if you grew up in KS during the 80's your definitions are far different than if you grew up in San Jose in the 90's.
Those aren't the definitions I've heard other people use. And since you've characterized one group as "antisocial," I think you've labeled one of the groups as "people I don't like."
Comments
Is the common perception of "nerds" (as in socially awkward/inept unpopular people) is that they are universally smart?
Cause that's not been my experience at all. Some nerdly hobbies require (at least some) intelligence, programming, building robots, etc. Other nerdly activities that I'm part of don't require nearly as much, RPGs(pen and paper), and fandom as in trekkies, browncoats etc. And boy am I here to tell you there are some dumb "nerds".
In my experience "nerds" have the same ranges of intelligence as non-nerds and intelligent people range from popular jocks to social handicapped nerds.
In other words, over my 35 years I've not seen a significant correlation between "intelligence" and popularity, or "intelligence" and social grace/ineptitude.
This has pretty much been my experience too. My high school wasn't enormous, but it was ~2000 kids, big enough for subcultures to form and as many (if not more honestly) of the outcast were dumb as the popular kids.
Heck actually in that school most of the really intelligent ones, the AP/Dual enrollment kids and the like, while not necessarily popular, were treated very well by everyone because a smart peer was always a better resource than a teacher if you needed help, regardless of how much of a social outcast they were.
That's what I have observed. The smart kids weren't popular in the sit-com or movie way, but people came to them with questions or to settle some debates.
Don't confuse 'nerds' with 'geeks'.
I find the quibbling over nerds versus geeks or whatever other term one wants to use silly. You may subscribe to that distinction, but most people don't - which makes it hard to communicate meaningfully with those terms.
Whatever your favored labeling, the distinction is valid. If people in general don't distinguish between "nerds" and "geeks", then people in general are suffering from a misconception, and encouraging usage of two distinct terms is surely a good way to combat that misconception. No?
I don't agree. Many people who use the labels on themselves and their friends have conflicting definitions. Further, I see the distinction as a false one. It boils down to "people within my subgroup that I like" and "people within my subgroup that I don't like."
That's not the distinction at all. The distinction is between antisocial people who like sci-fi and fantasy and smart, somewhat obsessive people who like technology. The groups are not disjoint, but they're by no means the same group.
but which label goes with which group, I've heard many, many. And no one has mentioned dork, dweeb, or other terms used to belittle the not popular. I know several definitions for geek
Geeks people who bite the heads off of chickens and other circus freaks.
Geeks people who are really into some niche such as game geeks, or mathgeeks.
Geeks socially awkward losers.
The definitions of geek and nerd are location and temporally dependent. That means if you grew up in KS during the 80's your definitions are far different than if you grew up in San Jose in the 90's.
Those aren't the definitions I've heard other people use. And since you've characterized one group as "antisocial," I think you've labeled one of the groups as "people I don't like."
Sorry, antisocial was too strong a word. What I meant was something more like "socially awkward".
Yeah, this is why I never distinguish between jocks and musicians and other forms of "popular kids", quibbling over terms is pointless.
It is silly, and I wasn't being entirely serious...
I find this Venn diagram useful, as a rough definition: http://azahar.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/nerd-venn-diagram....