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."
Slashdoter? One who dotes on slash? Cool!
www.sjbaker.org
Intellectually, I'm curious what that makes the rest of them."
MySpace users
Intellectually, I'm curious what that makes the rest of them.
In-duh-viduals.
sig has been sent away for a few small repairs...
i for one welcome our...uhhhhhh
Satanists get good grades too...suspiciously good grades
They didn't intend any sort of innuendo there. "Intellictually Curious"? ...reminds me of that "Most females are secretly bicurious." study a couple years ago.
I am a science fantasy fan
Only idiots would hold back on knowledge and securing their future job-compatibility on basis of image alone.
To paraphrase the BOFH... War's too good for them.
Intellectually, I'm curious what that makes the rest of them.
Stupidly ignorant?
Wow, 60 million, that's impressive! Until you remember that 60 million is less than 25% of the population, at which point you slit your wrists.
Intellectually, I'm curious what that makes the rest of them.
Wal-Mart Shoppers
I've always found it interesting that a 'hack' is an insult in music, probably from writing (hack writer), usually meaning someone who plays standard stuff and not very well. A hack in IT refers to a code workaround, and can be good or bad. A hacker (you get the drift ...)
Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
Intellectual curiosity doesn't make you a geek. Intellectual expertise - in any field or discipline, especially technical - makes you a geek. If you've got the rest of the package, like less physicality, fewer friends, insomnia, "microculture", Aspberger's symptoms, you're just a nerd. If you've got none of those, you're just a "normal". In that case, I feel bad for you.
--
make install -not war
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
Why should this come as a surprise to anyone? Just check out the number of cable/satellite channels that are Geek oriented: Discover, National Geographic, Science, etc. There has to be a reasonable market for that kind of programming to support this.
Well, I have to say, being a geek is a good thing. Im sure what people are afraid of being is nerds. Geeks have social lives, nerds do not, plus a few other minor differences. Geek is a title to be honored. I say this as I take a sip of a famous caffinated soft drink out of my "geek." glass I bought here: http://www.thinkgeek.com/homeoffice/mugs/5f01/
No need to hide anymore! Come out of the closet (it's too small for a soldering station anyhow)!
t hing!".
Cast your pretensions! Rise and walk proudly from the dark of the TV room into the bright flouerescent of the computer lab!
No more hiding copies of Make in a cover of Hustler! No more awkward stammering that you were just surfing for gay porn and somehow accidentally stumbled upon perl.org.
Testify! Say it: "I am Geek, hear me Mumblesomethingintelligleaboutapreprocessororsome
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Or, even better, both.
I study the rhetoric of science and scientism in grad school. I read slashdot to get away from the television and celebrity gossip that my other colleagues seem to dwell on as "sources for cultural research."
Just an observation.
Considering that curiousity killed the cat.
I am curious, but yellow.
>> "Intellectually, I'm curious what that makes the rest of them."
Why not create a MySpace account and ask them...
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!
Trying to compare the intellectually curious to subaverage Slashdotters is like saying that everyone on Digg is a genius.
Oh You POS
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=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Intellectually, I'm curious what that makes the rest of them
Worthless meat. (You can't even sell it!)
There are many things out there to learn about besides computers, networks, and hard science.
Being a technical geek is a little on the narrow side for many folks. Some of the most brilliant people I know do their best work with things like pencil and paper, stringed instruments, needle and thread, or the like. Though I wouldn't consider them geeks, I would say their intellectual curiosity has led them to develop their own talents far beyond what a non-curious mind would be capable of.
-- lk t lv ll th vwls t f wrds. T svs lts f tm t wrt bt ts pn n th ss t rd nd mks m lk lk cmplt dpsht.
See being thrown out of a Vogon airlock for more details.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I think the answer you were looking for was, "elitists".
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
"i-curious."
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!
considering this is slashdot article about slashdot have any of the servers caught fire yet?
I Predict A Riot
Not all, certainly. But I'm sure that applies to many.
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
The same people who don't distinguish properly between nerds and geeks also typically fail to distinguish between hacking and cracking. Or between producer and director. The failure of normals to accept nerds or geeks, or their differences, does not require me, a geek of many colors, to deny them my gifts.
According to the movie "Freaks", geeks are freaks by choice, not by nature. And according to Slashdot, fake nerds are nauganerds.
--
make install -not war
Are you a slashdotter, or just a little I-curious?
were the result of misspelled Google pr0n searches gone bad!
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Watch this South Park video clip if you missed my joke.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
So, about 25% of Americans are "intellectually curious".
We must remember, these are ADD-diagnosed depression-suffering obese Americans.
I'm thinking about half this number thought the question was asking if they were curious what the word "intellectually" meant.
"Everything worth innovating today will go to court tomorrow."
"Intellectually, I'm curious what that makes the rest of them"
um hows brain dead sound?
Intellectually, I'm curious what that makes the rest of them.
vi users
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Taco, think of the potential revenue.
"News for the intellectually curious, Stuff that matters to your ego."
Of course the color schemes will have to go; replaced with subtle earth tones and pastels. And the icons, well, OK we were all young once, but we're talking 60 million intellectually curious upscale yuppies here, we're gonna have to bring in artists dressed in black and too cool to have a clue.
Hey! Are you intellectually curious? Can you see it now. Cowboy Neal hosts a reality show for the intellectually curious. IPTV jumps the shark at /.
OK so rereading the above it's obvious I'm just a nerd and never will I be among the intellectually curious.
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
I don't know anything about ancient Egyptian recipes, and, believe it or not, I could care less.
You don't care about beer? Well, OK, you are probably better off for that.
I'm also not interested in football.
Me neither, but going to games is fun. Never going to a big SEC game is your loss.
Feminine hygiene products?
Once again, your loss. Maxi pads are cheap ways to clean up a big mess.
An engineer is someone who can do for a penny what any fool can do for a dollar. You have it or you don't.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
But, only an intelecutally curious man wants to learn how to fish.
...
Boy, did I just mangle that or what?
Obligatory Soundbite Catchphrase
"They conclude that 60 million Americans can be called "intellectually curious.""
;)
Wow, I didn't know that there were that many atheists in the United States.
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
See Subject!!
Bottles.
That's honestly a stereotype. There's many more types of geeks than your typical science/engineering geek.
For example: I'm a political science/philosophy major. I may not be able to discuss particle physics on a PhD-worthy level or build a working radio from spare parts, but I've immersed myself in what I'm studying for the past several years. Does that make me a non-geek, or a political-philosophy geek?
Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
Well yeah, when you are (a) God, you can do things like that.
Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
You claiming to be smart in such a straightforward manner is like an auto mechanic trying to compare Shakespeare to Marlowe.
English is easier said than done.
I want to see a study done about whose job it is to create and fund frivolous studies.
I'm too old to worry or care anymore. Lay it on me, man.
Maybe a lot of the non 'intellectually curious' folk are working long hours, raising children, and so on. Maybe, just maybe, not everyone has the luxury that we do of having the time, energy & mental capacity to be interested in areas outside the domain of their work. Maybe some of you lucky people, who have the time & resouces to engage in these fields should try a little sympathy, rather than sitting on your high horses and insulting the people who work in the factory that made the twinkie you're eating while you scoff.
That's what they think about US!
So, in sum, you're the snob in the sea of snobs? Welcome to Slashdot, you'll fit right in!
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
/me looks at amount of male names on current course roster
I don't know where this comes from, I majored in biochemistry and chemical engineering at school, and my graduating class in ChemE was nearly half women (45% I'd, say) and in biochemistry it was more than 50% (7 of 13). Mind you even good odds did me no good.
"If no one has ever been able to describe you as 'intellectually curious', you might be a redneck"
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
"A media consulting firm called OMD did a study..."
Ochestral Manoeuvres in the Dark have come quite a long way
As one post pointed out thats 25% percent of the population. What scares the hell out of me is the reaction of the other 75%. There is little tolerance out there for either curiousity or intellect. Too often the "curious" are labeled as attention deficit (or otherwise) disordered and drugged back into the mainstream.
They conclude that 60 million Americans can be called "intellectually curious."
Total US Population: apx. 299,000,000
Literacy: 99% male/female age over 15
US Population within ages 15 - 64: Apx. ~200,500,000
Apx. 60,000,000 comes out to ~30% so called, "intellectually curious" among US population between ages of 15 - 64.
Hence, 70% of the population is what you are asking about.
"Intellectually, I'm curious what that makes the rest of them."
Potential source of Soylent Green(tm)
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
Looking for permish before I snag this for my new .sig - that is the amazing leap of insight I have just never cared to put into those 4 words. Really makes you stop and go, now what am I doing this for?
2^3 * 31 * 647
How about "intellectually challenged"? - And I'd wager those who conceived that term might be among them - "intellectually curious", just the sound of it makes some of my braincells want to through up..
And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
political-philosophy geek
while geek is traditionally math or sciences, that is not a concrete definition. it's the love of the subject matter that's at stake
2^3 * 31 * 647
It's all about branding. You can create these criteria, group people based on them, and label a group "intellectually curious", but doing so makes you a nerd. Since the point seems to be to get beyond the "nerd" label, we can't be creating an un-cool label to replace it, especially when it's longer, more complicated, and not generally understood.
I propose "sci-curious". Short, chic, descriptive. Of course, it doesn't cover the politics geeks, but they'll just have to get their own term.
High-speed Road Trip (18.000KPH)
They heard "Are you intelluctually curious?" as "Are you sexually curious?"
For the latter, 25% doesn't surprise me.
"They conclude that 60 million Americans can be called 'intellectually curious.' Intellectually, I'm curious what that makes the rest of them."
heterolectual, homolectual, bilectual, and transliterate.
Intelligence has to do with many things, not just your ability to win in a strategic or tactical game(politics). Emotional intelligence and ethical intelligence are high up there on the list for me as things to look for when asking whether someone is intelligent. Remember, ethics is a field of philosophy; it is possible to reason through to decide whether your actions are just and right. Karl Rove fails in this aspect; he will do anything if it means winning (there is a long list of questionable tactics he has used to win). In my mind, he fails the intelligence test because he fails to see the consequences of his own actions, and to reason them out within any accepted ethical system. Granted, truth-functional logic is limited when it comes to deciding a course of action, but that does not mean you have to abandon it completely as Karl Rove has been shown to do(Remember push polling against McCain in the South Carolina primary? There are numerous other things that fail to pass the ethics test ). It's really easy to win when you cheat.
Wasnt it something like 90% of surveys taken are just made up and are not even true ? 8P
Does double-majoring in Computer Science/Engineering and Mathematics, with a minor in Electrical Engineering count as geek enough? That should get me a couple points at least.
You all have Oo.o and Firefox, so get World Wind.
Now, the real dilemma is found when you compare the girls who are in my physics class to the girls who are in my econ class...note: the intro-econ course has 230 people in it (largest course here) and assuming half are girls, there are still so many that the ratio of attractive to unattractive coudl be the same as the physics class but you just wouldnt notice it as much. I dont think this is completely the case though.
Bottles.
I am intellectually curious, and also ADD, which is why, between /., Digg, and other tech news sites, I often have 25 Firefox windows open for days at a time.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
(FWIW I found the person I ended up marrying at Cornell.)
We're all born with nothing.
If you die in debt, you're ahead.
You'd be a pol-sci-phil geek. Kind of like a gaming nerd. Not a really truly pure 100% geek, but some geek involved.
Sort of.
You all have Oo.o and Firefox, so get World Wind.
I can't believe that I'm defending Karl Rove.
Partly basing someone's intelligence off of their 'ethical intelligence' isn't a good idea. Take Leonardo da Vinci for example. He was a homosexual. If I was inclined to believe that homosexuality was ethically wrong, I would then believe that Leonardo da Vinci wasn't smart.
I'll remember that ethics is a field of philosophy so long as you remember that what is considered ethical changes from person to person. It just so happens that Rove believes that the ends justify the means. Karl Rove is a political strategist. A very effective one at that too. His job is to see the consequences of his (and other's) actions and to plan around them. To me, he's a classic Machiavellian politician.
The current state of politics (in America atleast) is one where there are very few restrictions on what is acceptable. Do you rememeber Lyndon Johnson's "Daisy" ad, the one with the girl and the mushroom cloud? Do you remember Cheney implying that if Kerry won, 'the terrorists' would attack the United States? Can these be perceived as 'unethical' to some? Yes. Were they smart moves? In my opinion. Did they work? They worked perfectly.
I believe that Rove is a very intelligent man, and I respect him for that trait. I'd rather have someone intelligent running the government than some clueless fool. However, I do not agree with most of his views. Once again, a man can be smart, and believe the opposite of what you believe.
Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
You can't be a geek without the double E!
Because this age will be described as the cartesian catch phrase era, I feel that we should stop putting so much weight on words. Some of these "closet nerds" are just regular dudes like me who for whatever reason, diverged off the nerd path one day, but still share the same old interests. I happen to play in a big rock band or whatever, but the truth is, if one of those days 20 years ago I would've dropped the violin for a chemistry set (as I was tempted! Well, further computer research, really... even nerdier!), then today I would be as nerd as any body else in a "nerdy" field. Simple fact is, we the nerds, and we the farmers, artists, and others who support your lavish lifestyle while you improve our species, all better have a piece of nerd in ya, and be damned proud of the Einstein's, Edison's, and Davinci's that got us here.
I suspect we do anyway.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Out of "intellectual curiosity," any chance of giving out the band name/url? That does sound kinda cool...
Yeah, whatever...
Everybody ends up doing something. Nobody ends up doing everything.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Unfortunately most people have a mythbusters attitude towards science and tech. ie.
1) Lets not use the scientific method, or anything resembling it
2) Lets make wild generalisations which go well with our overinflated egos that say we're rarely if ever wrong
3) Let's blow stuff up! Cause it's cool man! Yeah I'm mature (which is why I hide my curiousity in the first place).
Trying to work out what the new offspring of celebrities X and Y actually means does not make you intellectually curious.
If anything I've noticed the science shows on TV, science columns in the paper etc. are being dumbed down EVEN MORE than they were when I was growing up - and that's saying something!
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
"To be great is to be misunderstood." - Jim Rose of The Residents
--
make install -not war
Death by snoo-snoo!
are most likely the decerebrials.
I think the Neocons are probably wrong about a lot of important stuff, but they certainly argue for their ideas well. And the Realists like Kissinger and (maybe) Rice are certainly smart, even if they have a somewhat pessimistic world view. Economically, ideas like school vouchers and tax cuts are not a bad idea in themselves.
In fact, the Republican party reminds me a bit of the Tories in England when Thatcher was in power. They're not short of ideas, but that might not be a good thing for them in the long run, since tax cuts and a project to democratise the middle east are not mutually compatible if you want a stable economy.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
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.
It depends on the specific major, and we've made some significant progress - but a lot of the physical sciences are still overwhelmingly male, particularly as one climbs the academic ladder.
According to the APS report, "Women in Physics and Astronomy, 2005," in that year women earned 22% of the bachelor and 18% of the PhD degrees in physics, and made up a total of 10% of faculty, with disporportunate representation on the faculty of institutions that do not grant graduate degrees. Astronomy does significantly better, but women still make up far less than 50% of graduate students and faculty.
(http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/gendertrend
That's certainly borne out by my own anecdotal experience at a student in large physics departments at research universities. From a hand full of experiences in other departments, I get a sense that both chemistry and engineering tend to be less skewed, which is certainly a good thing.
This whole argument revolves on the distinction between ethics and morality. Morality is subjective - ethics are a universal, logical system based on things which can be discovered through pure thought alone. I'm inclined to believe that while we do not know what the ethical or even meta-ethical system that governs the universe is, we can still discover pieces of it through reasoning, as Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Locke, Kant, and present-day philosophers do. The problem is that when we contaminate our logical process with our own personal desire to win - well, that destroys the purity of our thought process. I would call Karl Rove "clever" - he has a high "general intelligence" score, if you will. While he may be very capable at reasoning through the game of political strategy , it takes a different level or type of intelligence(and sanity) to be able to soundly reason through the ethics of any decision. You may be perfectly right that this isn't a matter of intelligence - he just lacks the sensitivity or goodness that would compel a person to want to act ethically. I would argue that he does have the desire to act ethically and simply cannot.
You coined a nice term, thank you.
They conclude that 60 million Americans can be called "intellectually curious." Intellectually, I'm curious what that makes the rest of them."
;)
The rest are "socially curious". The two groups are mostly mutually exclusive.
Prejudice maybe. It's entirely possible that my hometown had a secret society of farmers who sat around discussing science, literature and philosophy instead of getting drunk and fighting with the nearest person. But I always had to deal with the retarded peasants. Perhaps places with organic farmers, clever business farmers and hobby farmers have a higher average education/intelligence/etc. than people who farm cotton and rice in arid zones, farm animals on limited space, and stuff up their soil by spraying poisonous chemicals all over wheat, grapes and apples.
Ditto for the history teachers, but with less fighting. Actually, they're alright, just interested in different things.
*#*#*#*#*#******* I love peanut butter sandwiches!
40% of Americans admitted to an interviewer that they are dullards? Woo.
I mean, I'm a very tolerant person, but if you're not interested in politics, or culture, or science, then what exactly are you good for? Soylent Green?
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
This group contains the geeks and nerds. [...] Prime interests: nature, medicine and the environment. This group is 53 percent female.
I had to share the pain...
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Depends on what the views are based on - if they're based on stupidity and ignorance as is the case with a host of politicians, then yes, they are to be shown as the idiots they are.
And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
Hey, I'm sure this is gonna get modded flamebait, but what the heck... I don't consider myself a geek / nerd / whatever but I do enjoy reading slashdot. I'm into linux, i have a CS degree and I enjoy Star Trek. That doesn't make me a geek though, I just have those interests. IMO, being a geek isn't defined by what you know or do, it's defined by what you don't do. All the people I know who I'd call geeks lack basic social skills. That's the defining thing for me. A lot of my friends call themselves geeks just because they're into computers or run SETI@home or something like that but they can go to a bar and have a fun conversation and enjoy all sorts of other things too (Friends, football etc) which don't set them apart from the norm (whatever that is). I don't really think that many of the people on /. are really geeks, they just adopted the term cos that's what they think computer-liking-SciFi fans are called. It doesn't have to be this way.
So, flamebait over... I think we (people who like tech stuff but still have social lives too) should reject the term geek. It's completely NORMAL to like these things and be "intellectually curious". Let's not make ourselves look like some weird section of society that most people don't belong to. It's only going to scare more people off [star trek, linux etc] and contribute to further dumbing down of society.
Does anyone agree?
Pete.
I'm sure that was meant as a joke (atleast I hope it was), but that's taking it too far.
Too true. It'd an insult to the non-intellectually curious to compare them with Republicans.
As a male I have no interest in the Arts, so of course I don't want a push for us males getting stuck in the arts ;)
1997.
When you get to hell -- tell 'em Itchy sent ya!
Brought to you by the department of redundancy department.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
...of /. right now.
Reading all the messages about how stupid the population is for not being interesting in intellectual pursuits, I'm downright disheartened.
Remember that 50% of the population is of below average intelligence. Of those 50%, the bulk of them cannot follow a serious intellectual discussion---AND THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.
Different people. Different gifts. Why must you assume that your gifts (being in the upper 50% intellectually) are somehow superior to theirs? It's no different than the jocks who picked on you for not being athletic or the cool kids who picked on you for being less attractive. Why would you continue that cycle?
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/
-Tom
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).
I find it sad that some of the comments presuppose that intellectually curious people would, of course, be well-versed in the computers as we know them today.
The world is much bigger than your pathetic tech-support landscape, fools. There are many other things to be interested in, no one can follow it all-- let alone the one particular sliver that slashdot computer-wankers live in.
The proper contraction is "in-curious"...no, that's not going to work.
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
I hope they didn't spend too much on that research. That didn't seem very groundbreaking or particularly informative. Intellectually curious? Who is going to say "No" to a broad question like that? That being said I suppose I'm surprised the percentage of "intellectually curious" is that low.
"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.
yeah I'm going to have to disagree here. I know plenty of Literature Geeks and Music Geeks, Linguistics geeks, librarian geeks, etc etc etc.
||:|::
"Geek" is an emptier term, one that can mean "obsessive or heavily involved but not necessarily intellectually curious." People who follow motherboard and video card reviews are geeks. But that's more like a guy who lives in a trailer coveting a Trans Am with a big engine. Similarly, people who obsessively surf the web and post in dozens of forums are geeks, but that has nothing to do with intellectual curiosity. Ditto for reinstalling Linux all the time.
This is a groundbreaking piece of research! They discovered that some 60 million Americans might be high in what in psychology is called "openness to experience" (or on some reports, "intelligence").
Imagine that!
This is, at best, derivative crap; at worst, it is dubious science and misleading statistics. Personality research should be handled better than this, especially since we have a precisely defined term for exactly what they are talking about already. We don't need another. "Intellectually curious" trivializes a person's being open to ideas down to a parlor curiosity, not a central trait. And that is not correct.
Ok, I have to ask... How is it possible to be such a thing as "religiously lazy"? Since religions insist you take things on faith rather than science and hard facts, there's really no point in making an effort to "find out the facts" about religion, is there?
Religion can *always* be used to support whatever personal beliefs a person holds. I don't see how that's restricted to this "god as cosmic watchmaker" idea.
For example, I grew up with Catholic parents. In the Catholic church, you have a bible packed full of stories that speak of everything from the creation of the earth (Genesis) to insight as to how it's supposed to come to an end (Revelations), yet *very few* Catholics (priests or parishoners) would try to claim that any of it is more than stories written to get general ideas across. (EG. The church may say the bible is the "word of God" and irrefutable, but they sure aren't going to defend your position if you run around claiming everyone really did come directly from 2 humans, Adam and Eve, who sat around talking to a snake about this apple.) That means, all of this is open to all sorts of personal interpretation. Sort of a "whatever explanation sits well with you and allows you to keep coming back to our church, feeling good about yourself" mentality. Given that, one may as well be "lazy" in a religious sense - because all the effort in the world to find a "right way" to interpret it all holds no more value to anyone than another of the "faithful" rattling off a quickly thought-up summary of his/her own beliefs.
Carry a notepad & pencil around with you for one day.
Write down the name of every stupid person you come across.
At the end of the day reflect on the fact that most of those people are actually more stupid than what you thought they were.
I've experiments to run, there is research to be done on the people who are still alive.
I for one welcome our TV overlords.
I wonder what is the intersection of these two groups.
Intellectually curious vs Functional Illiterates
For those who don't know, functional illiterates are those guys that can read, write, do math, but don't know how to use this on a day-by-day basis.
NO! They are not dyslexic...Here is an example:
"Joe, what that sign says"
"It says 'Don't step on the grass'"
"Why is that?"
"Humm... don't know, someone put the sign there"
They cannot think on the situation and conclude that if thousands of people step on that patch of grass would make it die soon. They just read and speak, and, not very often, obbey...
Another example:
"What is the name of that book there?"
"Hmmm... Computer Networks"
"What is it about?"
"Dunno... never read that"
Shockingly, these people make a significant part of the population.
"There is always an easy solution to every human problem -- neat, plausible, and wrong."
H. L. Mencken
While I agree with the basic theme of the parent -- that there's more to life than one narrowly defined technology -- I don't necessarily agree with the subtext that a liberal arts formal education is better than a more specialized one.
By a specialized education I mean a university level course in which one tries to acquire as large a fraction as possible of human knowledge in a field and an appreciation of its limits. Such an education is necessarily narrower than can be achieved with a bunch of bird courses in humanities. Yet the general skills of analytic thought, investigation of *primary* sources, experiment, and argument, I suspect are better learned in the specialized environment. In the end, you can pick an encyclopedia (or even read Wikipedia for anything but a politically hot topic) or a text book or Scientific American or National Geographic and get pointers to way more interesting stuff than you'll ever have see in Sociology 101.
In many ways it all boils down to the "intellectual curiosity" attribute alluded to in the original article. Obligatory humanities courses will not engender curiosity in the un-curious, and specialized education will not kill it in the curious. Personally, I think that mentors and peers -- from parents through professors and fellow students and life partners -- stimulate intellectual curiosity more than any particular subject matter. But of course, strong programs (in any discipline) will be likely to attract such mentors and peers.
hmmm...I'm a Computer Engineering Major at Penn State, and many of my classes are shared by the CS guys. From what i can tell, it's hard to pick out the CSs from the CEs by lookin at 'em; we're all geeky around here.
Yes.
*ducks and covers*
Take Slashdot, for instance, there are untold numbers of people in the forums, and while some of them are what would be considered "intellectuals" there is a vast portion (if not majority) who are perhaps intelligent, but don't do a very good job of showing it. I myself have been the subject of some pretty heated attacks for stating what someone from a scientific background would consider obvious.
Not only are the attacks pretty childish, they have very poorly formed arguments such as, "you're using sources that anyone could find with Google," and, "you've never done [something], how could you know?"
Arguments such as this are indicative to me of a person who has little experience in science, and little experience in formal debate/thesis argument.
That being said, I do enjoy carrying on with these people, not because I like fighting battles that I will probably never win, but because I hold out on a tiny glint of hope that the argument will get them to read into the topic a little more and get them to come around eventually. When I was 13 years old and trolled around in forums, I argued with people who were a lot smarter than I was too. I may have made an ass of myself at the time, but it helped motivate me into learning how to research topics and formulate solid arguments, a skill that serves me well every day.
I realize stating "not everyone on Slashdot is an intellectual" is probably not the wisest thing to say to make friends, and I realize that I'm pretty much stating the obvious to a lot of people, but I felt it needed to be said. Think of it as a little reality chaser to follow that stiff shot of self-promotion, and know that I'm fully prepared for all of the angry, inflammatory, and otherwise unpleasant replies that this post will likely receive. Just remember this: if you are offended by a post that asserts that not everyone in a forum with over a million members is intellectual, what does that say about you?
Our greatest enemy is neither a single man, nor is it a nation, it is, as it has always been, our own greed.
iDiot?
Defining Statistics and Social Research
Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians...
Sadly, in the U.S. people believe that since they can hold any view they like, that view deserves equal weight and respect to others views. For example, a moron slashdot reader with a bend to the right believes whatever he decides to post should be held in equal respect as that published by a highly respected climatologist. Or his view on the ethical basis of some political decision is just as 'right' as that of a faculty member at the Kennedy School of Government that has been spending a lifetime researching the issue and discussing it with other people who have spent like amounts of time and brain power on it. George Bush and his cronies are a wonderful example of this in their constant refrain "we are taking all views on this into account". I call BS. I do not comment on global warming because I am not up to date on the research in that field. Just because a possible view exists does not lend it any weight in either the philosophical or scientific realms. I do not tell my mechanic things like "Well yeah, you say it is a blown head gasket, but I dont think so. I think it is the blinker fluid."
It's a condition distinct from the healthy condition. When it's used as an excuse, it's an excuse. Alcoholism is the same way - it's a treatable personality disorder with many gross physical defects, as well as the subtle physical defects of the nervous and hormone system inherent in any psychological problem. Having a disease means responsiblity for getting treatment, when possible, not an excuse.
Your physical condition is perfectly healthy. Martial arts (if you're talking about East Asian, as the term usually indicates) were developed by smaller, unarmed healthy people to exploit their smaller size.
You've got some kind of resentment towards people with diseases, that equates the conditions with less responsibility. That's a disease, a personality disorder, whether you realize it or not. However minor, common and accepted it might be.
--
make install -not war
What is the percentage of the 60 M gender wise?
rajmohan_h@yahoo.com
I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
By your own admission, you think I am incapable of disagreeing or challenging your random "respected climatologist", but truth be told, many climatologists are just scientific hacks afraid to go against the politically charged demagoguery of the global warming doomsayers. And demagoguery it is, make no mistake.
A great example of this in action is the foolish notion that Hurricane Katrina was due in large part to Global Warming, despite the emphatic disagreement from Max Mayfield, director the National Hurricane Center on CBS's Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer around the end of September of last year.
Of course, because I'm not a respected climatologist, I have no right to disagree, or even be appropriately skeptical of people who's political and personal motiations are crystal clear.
"many climatologists are just scientific hacks afraid to go against the politically charged demagoguery of the global warming doomsayers" Case in point. I would never refer to a fellow biologist as a scientific (or unscientific?) hack unless I were quite familiar with the field they are working in or discussing and have read their publications. Now if you have a biochemist (example would be the guy at Lehigh) making strong statements about modern evolutionary theory I feel that I may be able to offer a more reasonable opinion on the matter as he is not an evolutionary biologist. Now, if he told me that there are infact several forms of ethanol, some tasting better than others, I would have to defer, as that is not my field (even though I may know how simple the structure is). However, I would ask to see peer reviewed research on the subject of course, just for my own knowledge. I would not go on CNN refuting him though, that would be the job for another biochemist, preferable one who is well respected by other biochemists and who is intimately familiar with the molecule or others like it.
It works the same way from the backend - Discuss religion with a group on slashdot, and you're bound to get someone calling you a fool or a nut for 'buying into it'. But try to discuss how science affects religion to a group of religious people, and suddenly you 'have no faith' in anything. This, I think, is more related to the point - you get the closet slashdotters because some of us simply don't like to be drug into the mudslinging matches for having an opinion that differs from what's being spouted. Perhaps being 'intellectually curious' means you're open to ideas, but don't really want to get bashed over the head by any of them - or by any one person or group.
Just because you believe there's a god out there has nothing to do with the point. Creationism is about believing in the God of Abraham, and that life on earth originated literally as it is stated in Genesis. So quit bitching.
O~ Him that studies revenge keeps his own wounds green. -- Francis Bacon
You're right on. I'd refine it a little to say these religions aren't even about spiritual things, but instead the desperate desire on the adherent's part to FEEL SPECIAL. That's all it ever comes down to. "The world can't be round! And it certainly doesn't orbit other bodies, we're the center of the universe!" is the same as "Humans didn't evolve from nothing, hell no. The greatest being in existence Created us in His Own Image after practicing on all those dumb animals and fish and dinosaurs etc. We're His Chosen People." Special. Funny how these religions that espouse humility don't seem to work most of the time. Except for buddhism.
O~ Him that studies revenge keeps his own wounds green. -- Francis Bacon
What? That wasn't intended as a troll. Heh, when I'm trolling you know it :D
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
"But try to discuss how science affects religion to a group of religious people, and suddenly you 'have no faith' in anything."
s .htm
From my experience, the only scientific topic that usually degrades into mudsliging and name calling is when it concerns a theory of the origin of the universe. When is the last time you've seen a Christian and an atheist arguing about our understanding of molecular biology or whether the lift created by the wing of a plane is caused by faith and not air pressure?
It's a misnomer to claim that you can not rationally discuss science with religious people simply because people of faith have a hard time accepting the claims of Evolution as it concerns the origin of the universe. Evolutionary *theory* does not speak for the entire body of scientific information and experience.
If you are interested as to how people of faith think in scientific ways, you might enjoy reading some of the essays published here: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/newsletter
that makes the rest of them those that watch every network series that involves "reality tv". Watching people play out their lives for money on tv, do stunts like trained animals to entertain other people sitting on their couch or lazyboy. Socrates was right.
I'm 5'8" about 140 pounds and I compete in martial arts. And inevitably I'm the smallest and weakest not through lack of trying...I go to the gym 3-4 nights a week and I train.
So eat more. It should matter too much if your form is correct - beyond a certain threshold, mental prowess beats brute strength in martial arts. This from a 5'10" 200 lb martial artist. Of course, if you meet me in a fight, I'll use my weight to my advantage.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"