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."
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
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.
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.
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."
>> "Intellectually, I'm curious what that makes the rest of them."
Why not create a MySpace account and ask them...
"i-curious."
I don't know anything about ancient egyptian recipes, and, believe it or not, I could care less.
Hope the blood starts spurting. In case it doesn't: I'm also not interested in football. At all. Feminine hygiene products? Nu-uh. Understanding ancient germanic dialects? Not really.
You are, of course, an expert in all of them, or at least strongly inclined to read up on all of them now, right?
Hopefully, there's a large pool of blood now, and this post takes care of one more self-righteous hypocrite.
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!
Q: How can you tell an extroverted computer geek from an introverted computer geek?
A: The introverted computer geek will look at his shoes while he talks to you. The extroverted computer geek will look at your shoes while he talks to you.
Q: How do you tell if an extroverted computer geek is Russian?
A: His shoes look at you while he is talking.
I like my way of telling Geeks apart from everyone else.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
I understand what the grandparent was trying to say, and I'm sure you do too. He just didn't phrase it well enough for it to endure the sort of nit-picking that so often goes on around here.
The thing that frustrates me is when people want something done, and can't be bothered learning how. The sort of people who say "I know nothing about computers. Can you setup my email program for me?". Now of course, once in a while that's fine. After all, people need a bit of help when they're getting in to something new. But when the same person consistently asks for help, not because they're novices but because it's easier to ask for help than it is to learn to do it your self, that's what gets annoying.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
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
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).