Slashdot Mirror
Closet Slashdotters: The 'Intellectually Curious'
An anonymous reader writes "Slashdotters are certified geeks, but apparently there's a bunch of other people out there who are very interested in science, technology, politics and culture but they don't want to be known as geeks. A media consulting firm called OMD did a study for the company that owns Space.com and LiveScience. They conclude that 60 million Americans can be called "intellectually curious." Intellectually, I'm curious what that makes the rest of them."
Intellectually, I'm curious what that makes the rest of them.
In-duh-viduals.
sig has been sent away for a few small repairs...
Space.com and LiveScience found out that 40% of their test population likes SCIENCE and SPACE related stuff?
That *is* curious.
Thank you, that is brand new, surprising information.
--
graphicallyspeaking
graphically speaking
Just an observation.
or people that watch Friends or people that listen to top 40 music or people who watch the OC or people who read People Magazine or George Bush or people that don't vote or people that watch American Idol or people that believe in Creationism or people that follow celebrities closely or etc...
If the dollar is an "I owe you nothing", then the Euro is a "Who owes you nothing." - Doug Casey
What is interesting about the article is how it gets this interesting result and then does nothing with it except to speculate. That they do not share the actual poll questions forces the reader to speculate themselves what they asked. So, yes, we know that they asked if people where intellectually curious about the world around them. But what else?
Parsing into what the article reveals is a certain "would you talk about science/etc in Social Situation A" (they keep mentioning cocktail parties) or other habits (e.g. what sort of television they watch).
But the implied conclusion of this article is "more people are geeks; they are just in the closet" which I think is a big leap in logic. And I think this article is very liberal with the terms geek/nerd.
Personally a "geek" isn't just someone "intellectually curious" but also someone who exhibits Nerd Myopia: they follow their geeky passions at the expense of all others. More so they find all other topics inferior (and will demonstrate subtle vitriol to outright belligerence). The article talks about how the Science and Passion [S&P] group will bring up science topics automatically while the other groups (Money/Success/Science [M/S/S] and Style and Science [S&S]) are interested but unlikely to discuss it. All of these groups are unlike the Other People group in that they would approve of a topic of conversation switching to a geek topic.
So what about the inverse? The article mentions "Desperate Housewives" and going out and careers. What if a geek topic switched to one of those? I'd suspect the M/S/S and S&S groups would be fine with those too while the S&P would not and probably get angry or dismissive. S&P geeks like their intellectually curious topics at the expense of everything else. All those other non-geek topics are shit and should be treated as such. For geeks "Desperate Housewives" is for secretaries and HR drones. Going out is mentally numb behavior and a scam by the liquor and clothing industries. Career talk is for PHBs. All of those things are commanded by simple deterministic logic of hard sciences. They're all "soft" and defy the ability to rule lawyer and one-up in the perpetual game of nerd battle-of-wills.
And for all this talk of "in the closet", that's the real barrier keeping people out: rabid intolerance for all things outside geekdom. Geeks, nerds, whatever aren't very big tent in approach. They make their bones by being exclusory. Everyone else is "Other People" and either an enemy or some sheep who can't be trusted to do anything. And attitude like that will keep most of that 40% (and a significant proportion of that 53% of the Science and Passion who are female) at arms reach.
What is music when you despise all sound?
it makes the rest of them sheep.
Lack of intellectual curiosity is the quickest way to piss me off. Admitting you don't know something, or that what you know is wrong, and then *refusing* to do anything about it makes my blood pressure rise so fast that i have to close my eyes to stop the blood from spurting right on out.
filter: +3. Hey, look! all the trolls went away!
And sometimes what people see as innuendo is more telling about the observer than the observed.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I think the answer you were looking for was, "elitists".
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Ah, the naivete of youth.
Did you notice that the group that commissioned the study was a marketing group? Ever hear of the expression "astroturf"? Do you really think that those people who are like that are of concern to us?
Even your contention belies inexperience. Anything that requires interaction with other human beings, whether its promotion, acceptance in social niches, or management of subordinates, requires cultivation of "image". One first has to understand what is important to them, and then adapt their behavior to what best leads them to their objectives.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
I'm sure that was meant as a joke (atleast I hope it was), but that's taking it too far.
The Republicans have some very smart people in their party, just look at Rove. When you take away your bias towards him, he's a great political strategist. He'd have to be to get Bush elected.
Just because you don't agree with someone's views, doesn't make them unintelligent.
Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
This is no surprise to me. ANU teaches a course in science journalism on the understanding that more people would like to read about science than sports in the newspaper, if only someone knew how to write about science. With so many interesting new discoveries and new technologies, it's interesting to find out what is going on. Not everyone thinks the science news is the most important news to read, but I've never met anyone who wasn't at least interested to know about the most glamourous or practical news items.
So why are the numbers so low? Maybe because the people who are most interested in science might not be very bookish, prefer to get their news from the telly and might not even have a computer. The person who most liked to talk about science news to me as a teenager was my school's bus driver and part-time gardener. Many farmers are illiterate and innumerate and resent other people using their brains while they toil like peasants, but generally they love technology even if they hate pure science. The people who are least interested are office workers, public servants and history teachers, whose work is less tangible and feel less connection to science and tech - but they are more likely to be the ones able to seek out internet news sources on their internet appliances.
Obviously this is just generalisation of my own personal experience, and probably very harsh, but I think it's valid to maybe 70% - I think it explains a lot of those numbers.
It also occurs to me that you need a certain density of people with a particular interest, otherwise the message doesn't get through that certain websites and communities exist or what jargon to use in order to find them. I didn't find slashdot or even google until I got to university because there was no starting point in the countryside. We got told the "best way" to search, "most respected" websites, etc. at high school, and that was all we had. And since I was the only "odd one out" I had nobody to compare notes with, except maybe my dad, and he lived in a different town 150km away. At that time, the 2nd most popular internet search was music, so I found some wonderful new cultural influences from mp3.com (back when it was relatively free and indie) which was easy, but it was really hard to learn about computers and technology on the internet - I didn't even know what to look for and unless it's related to something I have learnt, I still don't.
*#*#*#*#*#******* I love peanut butter sandwiches!
... the percentage of intelligent people out there is FAR FAR lower than that.
Yeah, but note that the OP said "intellectually curious", not "intelligent". The two are unrelated (and orthogonal) properties.
A mouse or sparrow can be intellectually curious. But curiosity doesn't guarantee that they can understand what they encounter.
You can find a lot of people whose curiosity leads them into astrology or religion or a thousand other things that intelligence would lead them to sniff at, discard, then continue looking for something more worthwhile.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
It's not so much any one of those things but rather some combination.
You are so boring that when I see you my feet go to sleep.
I can't imagine people who have abiding interests in science, technology, culture and politics having an inclination to care one way or another what other people call them. Putting out energy to preen and groom yourself to the dictates of the tribe doesn't jive with the energy and mental facilities capable of embracing such a wide swatch of knowledge.
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
There are many things out there to learn about besides computers, networks, and hard science
True, but then there are many more things that would still allow you to be "intellectually curious" apart from these. Examples might include literature, art, philosophy, music, to name just a few "big" topics. I doubt that creative people could be counted as among the non-intellectually curious, usually you have to be in that bracket to be creative. Sitting in front of a TV set isn't creative, though nor is reading a book - though the latter is more likely to make you think.
What's so tragic about these figures is that most people are born intellectually curious, and the system that is their parents, their school, their peers and their environment bleed them dry of it, often by the time they are only 7 or 8 years old. Something is very, very wrong with this.
But, only an intelecutally curious man wants to learn how to fish.
...
Boy, did I just mangle that or what?
Obligatory Soundbite Catchphrase
I'm not sure you could find a better article for bringing out latent feelings of superiority among Slashdotters. This is just what we need, another excuse to talk about the differences between "us" and "them." We are smart and inqusitive. They are stupid and lacking imagination. I'm a geek, not a nerd. Geeks are cool, nerds are dorks. Jocks are stupid. NASCAR lovers are stupid. Americans are stupid. The label I apply to my in-group is superior to the label I apply to those outside my group.
The fact that there are a lot of "intellectually curious" people out there, even if the term is ill-defined, should come as a surprise to nobody. Geeks, nerds, gamers, programmers, hackers, brains, smart kids, rocket scientists, and Slashdot readers are not the only people in the world who are smart, curious, and interesting. Think of it this way, how many non-Slashdot reading people do you know who truly interest you? How many of those people are intellectually curious, imaginative, and full of insight? I know a lot of people who have never even heard of Slashdot and would never imagine themselves as "geeks" but are nonetheless very curious about the world and very stimulating to be around.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Calling tech support is the last thing an intelligent person would do.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I also happen to disagree with the whole "expertise" issue. I would say that true 'expertise' is a 'nerd' factor, not a geek one.
By your def you are a geek. You know html, sql, css, and bits of Perl. This makes you above 99.9% of internet users. I work as a sys admin/web dev ... mentioning learning html to the college professors that I serve makes thier blood run cold. The article confuses knowledge of science as "geeky" with what it means to be a computer 'geek' these days. Geeks are computer people, not science people, calling science people 'geeks' is so off the mark, it really is insulting. It is like calling any religeous person a 'fundie', or anyone who lives south of the Mason-Dixon line a 'Hick'. Your intellectual curiousity launches you up above the general populace. Enjoy that, you are a geek, we have reclaimed the word, and it is OK. Part of geekdom is to be thoughtful about all of the sciences without being a scientist - and that is great too.
You sir are a geek, you may not look, act, or smell the part, but you are, and that is a good thing, welcome.
Sera
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
Yeah, but note that the OP said "intellectually curious", not "intelligent". The two are unrelated (and orthogonal) properties.
That's not true. All intelligent people are intellectually curious and I would argue all people who are intellectually curious are also intelligent.
Of course there are varying degrees of intelligence and some will understand more than others. However someone who is stimulated by intellectual pursuits will be more adept than someone who is not.
Compare it to athletics. Someone who is athletic will have some skill in athleticism. They might not be an athlete but they can still be athletic. As someone who is intelligent does not have to be specifically a genius.
You can find a lot of people whose curiosity leads them into astrology or religion or a thousand other things that intelligence would lead them to sniff at, discard, then continue looking for something more worthwhile.
Well there are tons of intelligent people who believe in God but that's a separate matter. People forget that thinking is a skill. Yes, some of us are born with a higher talent for certain kinds of thinking but without rigor and training our thinking becomes soft. It's important that people are given certain critical thinking skills. To be able to analyze ideas in depth. You give someone who finds ideas stimulating a little spark and a simple yet critical set of tools. You'd be surprised with the results.
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
I think you may be wasting your time with forums like slashdot....I know I am, but that's kind of the point....
I don't care what youre doing so much as the idiotic way you're doing it.
I know I'm going OT, splitting hairs, and am in fact technically incorrect (at least according to dictionary.com), but I'm still going to point out that in common usage ethical and moral have different meanings. Morality functions in regards to your personal behavior. Ethics relates your behavior towardsothers, particularly in regards to a proffesional setting.
One can be an immoral person, to use your example say they are a homosexual, but still behave ethically (i.e operating a buisness honestly, informing people of conflicts of interest). I would argue that Rove is ethically stupid because his behavior is damaging his industry, politics, by damaging the ability of the parties to work together in the government. The whole point of a democracy is to create a system in which everyone has a voice, not just the 51% of the population which supports the leading party right now. Rove is creating a tyranny of the majority.
I think Rove plays his game very well, but it's not the same game everyone else is playing, and thats the stupid part.
Having read a classic comics adaptation of Machivelli's The Prince does not constitute intelligence. But seriously, Rove's sucesses have largely derived from his complete disregard for conventioal limits of political discourse. For example, his strategy for pushing bills through congress is to ignore the dissent within his own party and achieve a bare minimum of votes. Effective initially, but the long term implications are horrific for the party if their majority is diminished or eliminated. In the same fashion Iraq seemed to be ruthless brilliance until the shit hit the fan. Lysenko was smart this way.
It's just like Enron, if you are sufficently ruthless, and cook the books with no thought to tommorow you can look like a genius.
As for initellectual curiousity, this is the administration who had a college dropout overriding world class experts in NASA. This was the administration who put a VC in charge of the NSF. Rove has stated in the past that "If they have a doctorate they are a democrat" (I have to paraphrase this one no tabbed browsing on this hotel connection).
But, more to the point, not everyone who is athletically curious is an athelete. Look at the average football fan.
I have no problem with people who believe in Creationism.
I have a problem with people who insist on calling it "Creation Science", or "Intelligent Design Theory", as if closing your eyes and imagining an invisible, all-seeing, all-powerful man on a cloud is on a level equal to, you know, actual SCIENCE.
Creationism is based upon belief. Science is based upon proof.
The problem arises when certain people - Creationists, to be more precise - start bashing science. The only reason they do that is because (scientifically proven) facts do not agree with their literal interpretation of their holy texts.
Most religious people and organisations do not have issues with science and they accept that their holy texts need not always be interpreted literally. Creationists are just the opposite.
The mistake you made is confusing the belief in a god or some other kind of supreme being, which most people bashing Creationism have no issue with, and literal interpretation of some holy text or another. The two can, but need not coincide.
All the Creationists I've had contact with did at least bash evolution... some even tried to prove Earth was some 6000 years old etc.
Those people are either willingly and willfuly ignorant or simply... ah... set in their peculiar ways.
I do not have a problem with anyone's beliefs; I only protest when they try to present them as facts. These two, I feel, need to be carefully separated in the minds of men.
Ignore this signature. By order.
"Just because you don't agree with someone's views, doesn't make them unintelligent."
Here at Slashdot, not following the group think will get you branded as a fool or a religious nut. Trying to explain to these sycophantic, narrowminded people that someone with a different view on a subject has considered their position with intelligence is a pointless effort.
e.g.
Think that unborn children should be afforded the same rights as newborn children not only a minute old? Religious nut.
Think that the very idea of the Big Bang and the subsequent formation of the universe and all it's complexity is ridiculous at best and easily disproven with any number of astrological phenomina and physcial laws? Religious nut and/or fool.
Think that the religious crusade on human caused Global Warming is entirely politically motivated and backed by some of the most dubious science to have surfaced in modern history? Fool, ugly oil guzzling American.
Individuality is only accepted here as long as you toe the line on all issues of science, politic and hatred of religion, Bush, Republicans, Conservatives and Microsoft.
Each period has had it's low-culture entertainment, something stupid that is there purely for entertainment.
To make a paralell with your example, what you would say had you been the friend with the shoe... Benedick comes to me and starts railing on how much he hates Beatrice. My answer:
- Dear God, man! You're in love with her, you ninny! And she's in love with you! It's so obvious any school child can see it! But nooooo, we have to concoct a stupid ass plan to make you realise what's so darn obvious to everyone else! Now leave me alone, I am a prince you know, and I have an army to run, and parties to attend to!
So stop railing on TV. If you don't like it, fine, but it's not some lower form of culture, only for the poor, dum serfs. To diss TV is not insightful, it's not some badge of honor ("I'm so educated, I don't even have a TV!"), it just makes you look like a jackass.
religions insist you take things on faith rather than science and hard facts
I would urge you to consider taking a course in philosophy. The kinds of knowledge that you take to be "hard facts" are in fact neither hard nor nessicarily facts.
No scientist can reason from first principles, he can only assume certain things and attempt to show that they hold in a given setting. This is not a deductive proof, but an inductive one. In other words, even if gravity works for all time, it is possible that gravity was different at some point in time and space for a particular observer. Science can only ignore this evidence or attempt to integrate it into a new story about the world.
Placing all your faith in such an institution is like asking a blind man to tell you about how the world appears.
Thank goodness you didn't say "the truth is", since a fact can be false. In this case, I'd suggest that it *is* false. Entertainment isn't exclusively present across societies simply because a lot of people hate their job and need distracted so they don't realize they hate their job.
And that's apparently where the elitist jackass opinion comes in - because you claim that anyone who enjoys a form of entertainment that you don't personally enjoy must, therefore, be a foolish victim of a brainwashing scam. You've somehow avoided this and become more enlightened, because you're able to "fully engage your brain", while those who watch TV obviously can't engage theirs. Shockingly, that comes across as insulting to some who use a different gauge for measuring how fulfilling their life may be. Odds are good that most people use a different gauge than you do. Consider how many people look down upon those who *don't* watch TV...
HTH.
Are you trying to suggest that television isn't an important tool, perhaps the most powerful tool, in the arsenal of propagandists and marketeers? I'm not trying to insult those who watch TV, I'm just suggesting that there are more fruitful ways to spend your time. People are smart when given the chance. TV robs you blind of all opportunity to be engaged... It's a purely passive medium. Sit down, shut up and watch this - there's no other way to do TV... The Sky News text poll does not make the experience two-way.
I'm not looking down on anybody. Most everybody I know watches TV a lot of the time - my brother is one of the smartest people I've ever encountered and he watches what I would consider an inordinate amount of television. He does realise that the point of it is to titillate and satiate base consumer desires - I think he watches out of a morbid fascination rather than some desire to be entertained.
As for me, I've endeavoured to make my life something I can enjoy most of the time so at the end of the day I feel no need to numb my senses at the cathode ray teet - I'm already fairly entertained already by evening time and the rest of the time is my own. I mean, it's really my own time - not some advertiser's, not some ratings-chasing exec's, not some powerful lobbyist's...
Because you know that when TV channels sell advertising they're really making money off your time, right?