The biggest hypocricy of geeks

[Sebenko]

So am I non-conformist for thinking that I conform?

Firefly and The dark knight are crap
Radiohead sucks
as do Terry whoever and Tim Burton.

Have that, article!

Though yeah, Monty Python is awesome. But I have to say that, I'm British.

Also, conformity rules.

Spoiler: Spoilered for post length.

My money is on the guys who brought armour. Except for fats on the left there.

 

[Taerdin]

There are tons of "what geeks love" articles, each very true and highlighting the TRUE stereotype of a geek. The conformity one is one of my favorites just because geeks pride themselves so much about being "alternative" or "different" from "the main crowd" (who usually ignores their pitiful cries for attention) yet geeks are EXTREMELY conforming.

It's a fun read, I'd recommend all the blog posts.

You have to be proud of who you are ESPECIALLY if you're unlike everyone else, because you don't have that gigantic population of other people surrounding you and constantly showing you that who you are and what you like is okay. I'm pretty proud of who I am, and I am different from "the main crowd" and "the geek crowd" and basically everyone else ever. There is no one with my exact preferences likes or dislikes ever. I do love Firefly, but I don't think that says much of anything, its just one tv show among the very few I watch (I never watch tv shows on TVs anymore).

But I guess its interesting to think of the hypocrisy of someone who is unlike most people but then like most people who are unlike most people... if there is any there to begin with. But you have to remember that who you project yourself to be to others is not necessarily 100% of who you are.

I'm not sure if geeks are the biggest problem on the hypocrisy front anyways, but I won't dare propose anyone else as I don't feel like getting into a debate just yet.

 

[Zacharine]

It's not geeky, but it's bullshit. If you really didn't care about the world's opinion regarding what you get called, you wouldn't ask if you're geeky in fact you wouldn't even bring it up. ^

Or perhaps I simply seek to understand the labels others use to generalize human groups, in order to better facilitate communications and terminate hostilities.

The mere fact that you seek to understand IF you are geeky means that you DO care about what the world thinks of you (also you're a human being). We all naturally care what others think of us and we use that information to better ourselves.

To a degree yes, I care what the world around of me thinks. I care if they think I'd make a good employer or employee. I care if they think I'm dependable and trustworthy.

In other words, I like it how you lump up together feedback to ones actions and attituted, with the inherent prepensity of humans labelling other humans by whatever labels happens to trendy at that moment on basis of increasingly nitpicky characteristics.

Attempting to repel ANY judgment makes you a stagnant unchanging creature.

True only because you talk of the impossible extreme of shutting oneself completely out of the world. Just as using nothing but the judgement of others to direct ones change makes you an amorphous changeling who has no idea who he/she is deep down. The solution, naturally, is to go for the shades of gray. Ignore some comments, learn from others.

I simply ignore it if others talk of my possible geek-status. Because if I'm a geek or not, is not important to me. But if others note behind my back that I'm untrustworthy and a poor friend, the situation is different.

Another of the blogposts in what geeks like (about "status quo") touches on the geek's innate nature to resist change.

This is quite interesting, because 'geeks' are on one hand wonderfully adaptive (just give them a new movie, a new gadget or even a new idea to play with) and simultaneously quite set in the ways that have served them well so far. Of course, it depends what kind of change we are talking about. Cange that comes with education? Or change of perspective and ideology that comes from growth and maturing?

Remember, humans are creatures of stability, geek or not. We want to know where we shall live one month form now. We want to know if we will have our paycheck in two months. Any change that even slightly threatens the predictability and stability of the functions that allow our basic needs to be met, is met with resistance that is proportional to the expected severity of the change.

 

[President Moocow]

See SakSak? You do care, and that's fine. It's impossible NOT to care what people think and really, that's what I was trying to point out.

I would have to disagree with geeks being "wonderfully adaptive" considering what the article about status quo says (any new material is dismissed automatically). I'd say the most defining attributes of nerds and geeks is to stay unchanged. They found what they like and goddamn they are sticking with it. Whilst most people grow out of comics or old series, geek love them. Whilst most people try new kinds of things, nerds remain in their safety bubble, where there are fewer variables, where they KNOW they will have fun. When I try to get nerdy kids to try new stuff the first question they always ask is "Why would I want to do that? I'm perfectly content with what I have".

I also disagree that humans are creatures of stability. On the grand scheme of things, humans have been unbelievably adaptive. It's that adaptability that's made humans rule the planet, it's part of evolution. In a more down-to-earth approach, I'd agree that everyone likes (and takes for granted) the most basic needs like food and shelter. Beyond that, I'd say it varies. Some people (BIG group, but also inclusive of nerds) prefer to schedule everything. They know what their life is like and any slight change of schedule is stressful. A lot of people love this lifestyle. It suits them. Other people, however, prefer to be more spontaneous, less organized and typically don't plan anything out. They find excitement in last-minute descisions and find schedule-making a tedious stressful process.

This is a whole other topic, but I'd say these two sides of the spectrum each have their advantages and disadvantages. The schedulers are typically more reliable, more "safe" whilst the spontaneous types are more exciting and thrilling. Some people like to be more reliable, others prefer to be more thrill-seekers (everyone can do both those things, but usually there's a preference). Nerds/geeks are on the far side of the stability side. They are methodical, systematic and very good at long-term planning. I really haven't met that many wild, spontaneous nerds.

Everyone conforms to some sort of social behavior. If we didn't, societies could not form. The only people who are TRULY independent are those locked up in a mental asylum, or getting psychological therapy 24/7. If human beings could not form cohesive groups or conform and live together with some shared ideals and behaviors, in the best case we'd still be living in caves, and in the worst case we'd have all gone EXTINCT.

Numbers are our strength. The individual human, no matter how strong or smart, needs others. Building the space shuttle is NOT a solo job. Running New York City is NOT a solo job. Building a decent house is NOT a solo job. We NEED each other, we NEED others - to survive, and to have nice things. A lone human being, no matter how strong or swift, is Lion chow the minute he or she goes to sleep on the Savannah. But put TWO humans together, and one can guard the other while the other sleeps.

Look at all the technology around you. Look at all the social institutions around you. Could anyone do that by themselves? Of course they couldn't - it's ludicrous to imagine a lone human being building the world. Even the best architect needs builders and artisans to help them put the house together.

Humanity is powerful because of our numbers, because of our ability to work together. It's not a weakness to be sociable - in fact, it's a strength. Science is also one of those aspects of humanity that benefits from numbers. Imagine if only one researcher knew the secrets of DNA - wouldn't get very far researching it now would he (or she)? But if thousands of researchers are researching on DNA, then they will get very far in much less time.

So - to summarize - unless you live in the jungle with no clothes or technology of any sort, then you owe a debt to society and to your fellow man. And even IF you lived in a jungle with no clothes or technology, you'd still owe a debt to your mother who gave birth to you.

Society is a great thing. Human beings have accomplished so much. We know more about the universe than ever before, and our accomplishments were only possible due to our numbers.

Now I'm not suggesting that we should all be like ants and obey whatever the government tells us. But by being reasonable, pleasant and sane to others, and by obeying some social norms, your chances of having a happier, more successful life increase. My own experiences with "nerds" or anti-social people like Goths and loners has led me to believe that they actually really do what human contact and support and friends, but their inability to blend in has led them to become frustrated - and in a classic display of Nietzsche's "slave morality", they angrily denounce what they can't have.

No, no - the average "loner" or misanthrope WANTS friends. They just simply can't get them. Your average Goth isn't "mis-understood" - just disliked. And a truly wise, intelligent outlook on the world would realize that your fellow human beings are to be embraced. For it is only TOGETHER that we can achieve something or worth or value.

Unless you're a nihilist. In which case, I must ask, why do you bother to do anything? Nihilists believe there is nothing of worth in this world - so I wonder why they bother even trying to keep themselves alive. The most logical course of action for a nihilist is suicide. Which is why I'm not a nihilist and I don't advise anyone else to be.

Now that's probably one of the most insightful well-written posts I've seen on this thread yet. It's very true, a lot of times nerds and geeks try to make it seem like they "reject" society or act like victims of the "system" when really they are really seeking it's affection. Another thing, you're absolutely right that no matter what industry you're working towards (even computer programmers and engineers), you'll ALWAYS be working with people. Teamwork is the most important thing in the world. I've worked in a variety of environments (even ones that would appear nerdy) and every single time the one thing they all had in common was that teamwork was essential.

 

[NewfieKeir]

A friend of mine called himself non conformist the other day and I just about shot him.

We like what we like, other people like what they like. If you don't like it because someone else who wears their hair differently says it's good, you're an idiot.

 

[Iron Criterion]

No, no - the average misanthrope WANTS friends. They just simply can't get them.

That's not true, I am misanthropic and have plenty of friends; and I'm able to forge meaningful relationships. I just don't feel anything for these people since they are merely a mask, if you will, to hide my hatred.

 

[Zacharine]

See SakSak? You do care, and that's fine. It's impossible NOT to care what people think and really, that's what I was trying to point out.

And I was trying to point out that I couldn't care less if others call me a geek or not.

Notice the difference.

We were talking what makes a geek... a geek. I disagree with the notion that "You're not a geek because of your interests but rather your attitude."

And my response was "But what if my attitude is 'I do not have a slight care in the world regarding what you call me?' Is that geeky? Is that conforming to the non-conformist geek stereotype? I don't know. And I don't care."

Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I would have been. You see, I do not care what others label me as, what social group they box me in. I care what they think of my actions, my work. It dodn't care if someone calls me a geek, or a nerd or a history nut. I care if they call me (un)trustworthy, (un)intelligent, lazy/productive, (un)dependable, morally decripit/good and so forth. Social labels do not interest me.

I also disagree with several portions of the article presented in the OT. And I simply tried to make known my reasons for it.

 

[teisjm]

I'm a geek, i don't strive to be alternative or different, i strive to do whatever i want/like, and honestly i could care less if thats what the majority does as well.

Trying to be different for the sake of beeing different is retarded IMO, as it's often basicly attention whoring, like the popular types most of the former group says they dislike, so basicly hypocrisy FTW.

 

[LogicNProportion]

In relation to the article:

Kirk > Picard

Stewart > Shatner

 

[Lullabye]

...........I'm a gamer, so what is this "geek" of which you speak? Is it a type of salad?

 

[darkfire613]

I don't try to conform. I don't try to not conform. I do whatever I want, listen to whatever I like, and have whatever hobbies I enjoy. Theses hobbies are typically classified as geeky, such as video games, computers, and games like Warhammer 40k and Magic. I still consider myself a geek. I don't deride the people who are "conformists," and I am friends with a lot of people who are in the "popular" group as well as people who are the typical social-outcast geek. What people don't realize is that these groups are starting to become more mixed together, and it's not as black and white as it was a few years ago.

 

[GreyWolf257]

I only slightly agree with that article. It probably didn't help that I scrolled down the page and the first word I saw was "Starfucking."

 

[quiet_samurai]

Two reasons why people don't conform.

1. They really are rebellious
2. They are social losers.

There is a distinctive line between the two, however, I think many of those in the number 2 category fancy themselves the be in the number 1 category when in fact they aren't.

 

[President Moocow]

See SakSak? You do care, and that's fine. It's impossible NOT to care what people think and really, that's what I was trying to point out.

And I was trying to point out that I couldn't care less if others call me a geek or not.

Notice the difference.

We were talking what makes a geek... a geek. I disagree with the notion that "You're not a geek because of your interests but rather your attitude."

And my response was "But what if my attitude is 'I do not have a slight care in the world regarding what you call me?' Is that geeky? Is that conforming to the non-conformist geek stereotype? I don't know. And I don't care."

Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I would have been. You see, I do not care what others label me as, what social group they box me in. I care what they think of my actions, my work. It dodn't care if someone calls me a geek, or a nerd or a history nut. I care if they call me (un)trustworthy, (un)intelligent, lazy/productive, (un)dependable, morally decripit/good and so forth. Social labels do not interest me.

I also disagree with several portions of the article presented in the OT. And I simply tried to make known my reasons for it.

Ok, so I was mainly pointing out the fallacy of saying "I don't care what people think of me" when, really, everyone does. To answer your question: I don't know if you're a geek. I'm not trying to find out if you're a geek but I can say for sure that your interests do not make you a geek, your attitude towards them and other people do. The article isn't a checklist for determining the percentage of geekiness of a person, it's demonstrating something that I find interesting: Many geeky people make the claim to be "non-conformists" and true individuals when, really, they are all like that and consequently end up conforming.

So many people on this thread are treating it like a checklist or saying "well I don't do that, so does that mean I'm a geek?". Nobody cares. It's besides the point. All the articles are demonstrating paradoxes:

The one about sex for example. Geeks are stereotypically known for being loser virgins and jokes are often made about geeks not caring (or getting sex). The article states that, in fact, geeks LOVE sex and will advertize the fact quite readily (just like the astounding number of people who are more than eager to mention that they have a girlfriend).

I don't try to conform. I don't try to not conform. I do whatever I want, listen to whatever I like, and have whatever hobbies I enjoy. Theses hobbies are typically classified as geeky, such as video games, computers, and games like Warhammer 40k and Magic. I still consider myself a geek. I don't deride the people who are "conformists," and I am friends with a lot of people who are in the "popular" group as well as people who are the typical social-outcast geek. What people don't realize is that these groups are starting to become more mixed together, and it's not as black and white as it was a few years ago.

Not quite. Truth is, it never was black or white. Ever. But the stereotypes, which is what you are basing "a few years ago" on, are always black and white. Actually, for kids, everything is in black and white. Part of maturity is understanding the shades of gray.

I only slightly agree with that article. It probably didn't help that I scrolled down the page and the first word I saw was "Starfucking."

Next article on "what geeks like": Close-mindedness

 

[darkfire613]

I don't try to conform. I don't try to not conform. I do whatever I want, listen to whatever I like, and have whatever hobbies I enjoy. Theses hobbies are typically classified as geeky, such as video games, computers, and games like Warhammer 40k and Magic. I still consider myself a geek. I don't deride the people who are "conformists," and I am friends with a lot of people who are in the "popular" group as well as people who are the typical social-outcast geek. What people don't realize is that these groups are starting to become more mixed together, and it's not as black and white as it was a few years ago.

Not quite. Truth is, it never was black or white. Ever. But the stereotypes, which is what you are basing "a few years ago" on, are always black and white. Actually, for kids, everything is in black and white. Part of maturity is understanding the shades of gray.

Okay then. I'll change my statement to: "What people don't realize is that these groups are stereotypical definitions that people rarely, if ever, fit neatly into, yet most people are all too eager to start applying these labels."