Does stereotypical nerd or geek exists?

[CurseNight102]

Do the stereotypical nerds and geeks really exist? I am talking about socially awkward timid loners who are also highly intelligent in Science, Mathematics, and Problem Solving.

 

What happens to them later in real life? Do they really end up as unemployed or menial workers because of their lack of social skills?

[Bufofrog]

6 minutes ago, CurseNight102 said:

Do the stereotypical nerds and geeks really exist?

Yes, there all different types of people.

7 minutes ago, CurseNight102 said:

What happens to them later in real life? Do they really end up as unemployed or menial workers because of their lack of social skills

Most of the stereotypical nerd types in my company usually worked in research or modelling, most people who are good at math and science have high paying jobs in my experience.

[iNow]

10 minutes ago, CurseNight102 said:

Do the stereotypical nerds and geeks really exist?

Yes

10 minutes ago, CurseNight102 said:

What happens to them later in real life?

Depends. While many paths are similar, none are identical. 

11 minutes ago, CurseNight102 said:

Do they really end up as unemployed or menial workers because of their lack of social skills?

Some do. Some don’t. 

[MigL]

17 minutes ago, CurseNight102 said:

Do they really end up as unemployed or menial workers because of their lack of social skills?

I don't know.
Ask Bill Gates.

[Moontanman]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

Some do. Some don’t. 

Some will. Some won't. I always held my nerdism as a badge of honor. 

[Sensei]

Nerds and geeks are not antisocial. They simply don't want to waste their time on talking with lower form of intelligence i.e. people who mock of them..

Nerds and geeks are spending time with other nerds and geeks. Likewise people understand each other, have common worldview, have common subjects for discussions etc. etc.

 

Edited March 11, 2021 by Sensei

[swansont]

11 hours ago, CurseNight102 said:

Do the stereotypical nerds and geeks really exist? I am talking about socially awkward timid loners who are also highly intelligent in Science, Mathematics, and Problem Solving.

To a certain extent, sure.

11 hours ago, CurseNight102 said:

What happens to them later in real life? Do they really end up as unemployed or menial workers because of their lack of social skills?

Some of us end up with jobs like building atomic clocks.

[Phi for All]

11 hours ago, CurseNight102 said:

Do they really end up as unemployed or menial workers because of their lack of social skills?

They really aren't a homogenous group you can stereotype that way. Do you know what a spectrum is? We're all on many of them, about many things. This particular spectrum you're poking at goes from unemployable at one end to founding Facebook at the other. So your question is fairly meaningless, sorry to say, since the answers to it don't support the correlation you thought existed.

[Hans de Vries]

Do you guys consider Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson to be nerds?

[swansont]

57 minutes ago, Hans de Vries said:

Do you guys consider Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson to be nerds?

Yes. So does Tyson.

 

[joigus]

23 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes. So does Tyson.

 

Beautifully put.

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, Hans de Vries said:

Do you guys consider Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson to be nerds?

I think part of "nerdism" goes beyond enjoying intellectual pursuits. There is a tighter focus on knowledge, sure, but also a broader view of life in general. I'd say most nerds, even though there may be some social anxiety present, tend to have a more inclusive worldview, and understand better how individuals work to help their societies. If you simplify behavior down to compete or cooperate, nerds seems like the better cooperative operators. 

[swansont]

I recall a discussion in which it was suggested that nerds/geeks place a high value on information, which is why there is this conflict with people that place a higher value on manners, and the situation where someone being corrected might be considered rude. The nerd accepts and perhaps welcomes the correction, rather than getting upset.

This explains the tendency of scientists being nerds.

[Phi for All]

We all tend to focus on what stimulates us. Low-information people are bored by facts and data, and prefer emotionally charged stances they can passionately embrace. Nerds love knowing things, and prefer the depth and nuance that more accurate information gives them. Nerds get bored with unfounded claims and bad reasoning (if they're repeated after the nerds have nitpicked them rigorously).

[CharonY]

8 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I think part of "nerdism" goes beyond enjoying intellectual pursuits. There is a tighter focus on knowledge, sure, but also a broader view of life in general. I'd say most nerds, even though there may be some social anxiety present, tend to have a more inclusive worldview, and understand better how individuals work to help their societies. If you simplify behavior down to compete or cooperate, nerds seems like the better cooperative operators. 

I think the term "nerd" is very broad which makes such statements really difficult. While the stereotypical nerd tend to be more knowledge-oriented, it does not mean that they are free from the biases that influence how the knowledge is interpreted. Quite a bit of it is simply a matter of competence, i.e. nerds that like to expound on areas that they are limited knowledge in. Gender roles is one of the things where I have met an astonishing number of nerdy folks who like to explain why precisely men are superior in science (granted, the number have reduced over the last few decades, but it still left a lasting impression on me).

I think the danger is if you are used to be the smartest person in a room, you might assume that you are it in every room and every topic. I think other underlying personality traits, such as empathy and the ability to view things from a different perspective are important to inclusivity whereas being data-focussed alone could go either way.

[ScienceNostalgia101]

The trouble with "geek" and "nerd" is that they're somewhat ambiguously defined. I considered myself a nerd because I was really into video games and edutainment; and sometimes edutainment video games; growing up. However, I was never bullied for that, even though I was bullied for other things. As well, as I discovered the hard way on gaming chatrooms, so-called "nerds" can be just as prone to the same kinds of vile, mean-spirited and sometimes bordering on libelous behaviours as anyone else, if not more so. People who were overweight and people who were underweight alike, people who were into games and hip hop and into games and anime alike, etc... were brought together by their common ground of smelling my blood in the water. Being babyfaced and medium weight does you no good online.

 

I wonder if there might be a bias in TV and video games to portray nerds as innocent and/or underdogs because filmmakers themselves are "nerds" to whatever extent that term can be defined. So, all else held constant, they'd rather portray other nerds as underdogs than suppress their own biases. Competition is tight, sure, but not necessarily tight enough to weed out even the most sincere of biases about what sort of stories they think viewers will be the most willing to believe.

[MigL]

I will never understand this need people have, to 'label' other people.
We label them according to perceived aptitudes; those with athletic aptitude are 'jocks', those with technical aptitude are 'nerds'.
We label them accordng to the government they need; 'liberals' need a government that takes care of people, 'conservatives' want a government that gets out of their way.
We label them according to their roles in society; 'enablers' allow bad stuff to happen, 'complainers' bitch about bad stuff happening.
We label them according to their station in life; successful people are seen as 'capitalists', people in need of social assistance are 'socialists'.

Most people are not so dogmatic in their personal self-assessments, and realize tht they fit in a 'spectrum' ( that word is becoming overused ) between the extremes, yet on assessing others we often see, and 'label' them, with the extreme.

I have always loved 'tinkering' with electronics/machinery, and some have called me a 'nerd'.
At one time I could disassemble a laptop, and solder/desolder on its motherboard, or disassemble an auto transmission, then my vision went bad, and such things have become very difficult, so I'm no lnger a nerd.
I started working out with weights, and joined a gym, in 1976, and it became a big part of my life, so much so, that girls used to accuse me of spending too much time in the gym; but I'm 61 now and no longer that dedicated so I guess I'm not a 'jock' anymore either.

[iNow]

[John Cuthber]

5 hours ago, iNow said:

I always wonder if that was meant to be ironic.
It is, at root, a commentary on people...

Nearer the topic; Someone once described the House of Lords as "A very civilised way to look after the elderly".
I sometimes think that government research labs are a very civilised way to look after us nerds.

[Hans de Vries]

I subscribe to Baron Cohen's systemizing-empathizing theory (although "empathizing" is an unfortunate name as it refers to cognitive empathy which is not the same thing most people mean when they say "empathy").

Basically brain uses different networks for analyzing people and for analyzig the material world. People high in systemizing are good in logical thinking and they pay more attention to material world and how it works. People high in empathizing pay more attention to social rules and other people's feelings and thoughts and are bored by facts. 

This however does not have direct relationships with intellectual ability. Your average Star Wars fan probably isn't smarter than Kim Kardashian

[dimreepr]

10 minutes ago, Hans de Vries said:

This however does not have direct relationships with intellectual ability. Your average Star Wars fan probably isn't smarter than Kim Kardashian

Smarter than what?

[Hans de Vries]

You got me.. O.o

Anyway I don't think she is stupid in terms of pure intellectual ability. Her maternal grandfather was an engineer and her father a lawyer which does require some brains so I think she is actually above average in intelligence. She simply does not use it because her personality (hyper-obsession with status and other people) prevent her from doing so.

Edited April 7, 2021 by Hans de Vries

[Prof Reza Sanaye]

It should also be taken into consideration that some guys (or gals) feel so empty from within. What post-Lacanians may prefer to call Void. So they purposely make a nerd of themselves. This makes them a bit more noticeable. Some researchers have suggested that geek media is specifically attractive to narcissists. But on the other hand , I could hardly believe nerds are among the most anti-social people here on this Earth. Geek culture tends to be a way to play out delusions of being smart and privileged, allowing people to briefly forget about their problems by disappearing into another dimension. 

 

[Prof Reza Sanaye]

4 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Right, you need at least 6000 posts, iirc, before the forum software gives you the title. Right now, you're a Lepton. 

You see how nearly everybody is duped into the Desire Machinery for socio_lingual titles  ?? ! 

Works  ALMOST  like a system ......... Something like systems theory  ...........

[Phi for All]

5 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

You see how nearly everybody is duped into the Desire Machinery for socio_lingual titles  ?? ! 

Works  ALMOST  like a system ......... Something like systems theory  ...........

Right, because we're all dying to be Atoms, right? Or Primates? I don't think so. It's an artifact system from over a decade ago that we haven't bothered to elaborate on. 

Fortunately, it's easy to tell when someone is posting junk simply to advance their post count to get a better title.