Slashdot Mirror
Net-Set to Replace Jet-Set as New Elite
toe bee writes "An article at the Merc claims that some social scientists believe that folks like slashdotters, the geeks of yore, are going to be the social elite of the next century and that the 'geek/nerd' facade is quickly fading. There is justice... or is there?" Uh, oh. I can see heads starting to swell already. Well, at least it's easier to become a member of the meritocracy-based "Net Set" mentioned in the article than it was to make it into the old-fashioned "Jet Set," and (IMO) the average 21st Century Net-Setter is more likely to be worth knowing than most Jet-Setters ever were.
The ability to use the Internet does not grant people social skills. I think we can all find an example of this in someone we know.
And why were the "Jet-Set" so popular and envied? Because they provided society with some service? Because they were masters of new technology? Because of their tans?
People don't envy the programmers who build products or create new ways to interface, etc.- they envy the CEOs. They envy money.
But of course, to quote the article: ``A central fact is that wealth and social power, which mattered most in the old jet set, does not matter at all in cyberspace.''
I keep forgetting. (Of course, you have to be in the very small minority of the world population that can afford a computer and has access to the Internet.)
If your ability to use the Internet is what makes you popular, expect your conversations to consist of offering advice to clueless newbies, et al.
When cars became mass-produced, did auto mechanics become celebrities? Think about it.
Zonker Harris "There is not, nor ought there be, any food more exalted on the face of god's grey earth, than that
It does make sense on a certain level.
To be socially elite, one must posses things that society values above others. Money and power come to mind. Money can buy virtually all posessions, power included. Good looks open doors to money, since they make people tend to be nice to you. Connections, who you know and how much they like you, this matters. Intelligence is required to make use of looks and money, otherwise they don't last, but it's a means, not an end.
To be socially elite, one must endeavor to be upwardly mobile through the strata of society. One must have the drive to achieve the things that society values.
Geeks don't got that drive.
There's a difference in mentality, ideology and set of ethics. To a geek, doing the job right is key. Achieving a clever solution, producing, earning merit - these are the things that drive geeks. And of course, the challenge of it all.
The 'popular kids' are always looking for the easy way out, the free ride, the thing they can hold up to the Joneses face and say "Lookee what I got, and you don't!" They strut around, looking good, spending money and time on being popular. They are living in a world of things, of material possessions. Their world is defined by what they have (money, clothes, a jet, an Esq after their name, a trust fund, an Ivy league diploma, a trophy wife, etc).
A geek's world is defined by what they think. Geeks don't particularly care about the brand of their sneakers, or cars. They'd rather have a good conversation with their wife, than watch someone watch her on a tennis court. They define themselves by the life they lead inside their head, and in the heads of other geeks. They share ideas, and if they can share them as code, all the better, because it codifies their cleverness.
Can a geek really even begin to relate to a former cheerleader? What would a geek choose - a week in Aspen of a PalmV.
Don't get me wrong, geeks like nice things too. But geeks get nice things for themselves, and for the utility they provide. Not for show. I think that was the point.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
This article is for the most part true, but who cares? The problem with eleets is that in a very short time, it degrades into snobbery and putrid stagnance. The jet-set were lame yuppies, and if (when) there is going to be a net-set, they will be lame yuppies too. You can see the signs of it already, aol-user-bashing, stigma for people who use services like hotmail and geocities, bashing people who use microsoft software, etcetera.
But I disagree with the article when it says that the general public will look up to a general type of lifestyle which the net-setters live. I dont think the general public will care. Individuals will always strive to be better at using new technological mediums, but they will not strive to achieve the particular lifestyle set by the net-setters. Rather, than 1 elite dominating the scene, there will be a fragmentation into multitudes of different groups with their own focus and agendas, and people will find refuge in these countless groups rather than in the mainstream. The ultraconservatives, the fundamentalists, the libertarians, the pedophiles, the socialists, the hackers, the crackers, the neo-nazis, will all have their representation, for better or worse. So again, who cares about the net-setters? They'll do their thing, just like everyone else.
-Laxative
The world belongs to those who can shuttle between websites with the ease of a speeding gazelle. I have in my hand $126.37 USD. I will give it to anyone who can show me a gazelle capable of surfing the web - even web-tv will count. I'll make that an even grand if you can get the gazelle to surf while loaded on meth as the article specifies.
--Shoeboy
The "Jet Set" had style, beauty and class. Everyone turns on the TV and appreciates the beautiful people on there and wants to be like them. Who wouldn't want to be Brad Pitt or Julia Roberts? Bill Gates is rich and talented (hey, to make that much money you have to be), but he's a fsking dork. Everyone pokes fun at his glasses and his haircut and his goofy expressions. They call him a dork: Who would call Brad Pitt a dork? Who would call Brad Pitt anything but good looking and a good actor? (Don't argue, I'm just using him as an example). The only people who can appreciate the knowledgable "net set" are people in it already. To the rest of the world Linus Torvalds is a funny looking geek with an accent. They can't understand a word we utter once we start speaking geek, and the only thing we do to ourselves when we do that is ostracize ourselves further.
The only geeks that are going to be in any sort of elite are the ones like the people in 'Hackers' or 'The Net', the ones who say "I'm not a geek, but I play one on TV."
so in highschool the nerds will pack hunt & beat up the jocks? that would be a change...
Not sure I like the idea of being popular.
It's too much of a pain to figure out who is really your friend, and who is just using you. Usually I think it's both. Leastways that's what it is like on 90210.
Misfit
Well, we wouldn't rely on our physical strength alone! We'd use those kickass sharpshooting skills we learned from playing Quake and the bombs we learned how to build from surfing the web! Duh.
</satire>
--
First off, the price difference between the two is quite large and I already own a IIIx, but that is just on a literal level.
I, being a geek, like utility and gadgets and all, but there's one other thing I spend money on that has nothing to do with bragging rights: enjoying myself. I love to ski, among other sports like backpacking, kayacking, mountain biking, rock climbing, etc.
I would suggest that the chief difference between the geek community and the social elite is that geeks base the level of "eliteness" that they consider people to be at by how much they respect them. I respect people based mainly on intelligence, honesty, friendliness, and how good they are at whatever they happen to do.
Hollywood and the social elite is based not on respect but on envy. It is not the goal of the social elite to be respected, but envied. Hence the lavish lifestyles and trophy spouses.
Geeks climb by making themselves more respectable, such as by getting better at something. The social elite want to be "the envy of all they see".
Vidi, Vici, Veni
and "shuffling between websites with the ease of a speeding gazelle" is just hilarious.
Watch me as a I click that Submit button with the ease of a speeding gazelle.
A bunch of overweight, pimple-faced, poorly dressed Linux users in one room do not constitute a gathering of the future social elite.
Timur Tabi
Remove "nospam_" from email address
Excuse me if I am not looking forward to a future populated by chat rooms and disconnected OS wars.
This is just another in a continuing series of articles that are simply trying to attract readers who style themselves 'geeks'. Katz suffers the same symptoms - by glorifying the ideal of 'being a geek' (without truly understanding what he's saying - i.e. that anyone who is different on even a remotely intellecutal scale is suddenly a 'geek' according to the new Geek Chic social forces), and by attacking old social structures (not realizing that any new ones that get built will suck just as much for those who aren't a part of them) he feels he is now sufficently rebellious and intellectual to hand down 'Geek Manifestos'.
This article is just more of the same, just not from Katz. It's writer is just trying to appeal to geeks that have inferiority complexes, without really realizing what a 'Net-Set' crowd would be like (i.e. sitting around trading pr0n and playing Quake is what I would imagine a 'Net-Set' get-together would be like).
How can you have a social elite comprised of a (by the classical pop definition of 'geek') socially inept group of people?
(The social elites of the future, btw, will likely be those who further mutilate thier bodys and minds in order to become physically and sexually attractive - and most of us will care less and less, just like it's always been) (because, when you get right down to it, the social elites are the ones that you see on the cover of tabloids and on TV tabloid shows, etc. And I wouldn't wish being a 'social elite' on my worst enemy.)
I would suggest that the chief difference between the geek community and the social elite is that geeks base the level of "eliteness" that they consider people to be at by how much they respect them. I respect people based mainly on intelligence, integrity, friendliness, and how good they are at whatever they happen to do.
The social elite Hollywood culture is based ot on respect but on envy. It is not the goal of the social elite to be respected, but envied. Hence the lavish lifestyles and trophy spouses.
Geeks climb by making themselves more respectable, such as by getting better at something. The social elite want to be "the envy of all they see".
Vidi, Vici, Veni
Sometime in the middle of the next decade, we'll all be sitting around a virtual cafe, talking on our cellular iPhones, paying for our Java applets with eCash, comparing notes on our vacations.
Say, Buffy, tell us again about how you were slummin' it with that computer illiterate English Lit major... Is it true that he really didn't know how to use Linux?? And did he really use one of those... umm, those, you know. Them keyboard things without a monitor... You know, where what you type goes right onto paper, and there's no UNDO or anything.. Man, I'll tell you what! That's down right arcane. Let them use T-1's is what I say.
So, Trevor ol'chap! How's that new IPv6 multicast router project coming along? Have you uploaded your IPO proposal to First Virtual Bank yet.. Oh, hold on, my PalmPilot is beeping:
[aside: talking to live vid on PalmX] Hi hon, no, no, yes.. Well just email the grocery store and have them deliver another gallon of milk then.
No thanks! The upper crusties will always and forever be the rich, pretty, Ivy and ascot types. We're Morlocks, and now and again we'll get to eat us an Eloi debutante. And that's fine.
Let THEM eat their damn cake. Let them play their golf and go to their cheese and wine shindigs. We have more substantial and satisfying things with which to occupy our craniums than social politics.
If we ever become da'shit, we'll probably be to busy to notice.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Let's take on one facet of social elitism: attractiveness to the opposite sex. Most geeks will remain unattractive to the opposite sex (in general) because of the nature of the geek community. To wit, geeks -- guy and girl geeks alike -- have a reputation for asexuality. Geeks live in a world of ideas. Non-geeks live in a world of physical things. It comes down to values. Maybe the article would be more accurate if it's point were that the geek community now is complex enough to have an elite and whatnot. Which is hardly a revelation, but I guess it sounds more interesting to compare them to the Jet Set.
Well most geeks respect and understand the IE/Netscape argument (current working versions, not future products or company visions.)
But if you try to argue the superiority of any of their products you deserve to be laughed at, just as I deserve to be lauged at when I state with pride that "I'm muscular, I'm cute, and damnit people like me." (as they are all lies and intended as a joke)
Does knowing how TCP/IP works get you a date? Not yet, at least not with the women down at TGI Friday's.
clothing optional for telecommuters
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Hey, last time I went into a bar wearing a linux shirt, thousands upon thousands of women came up to me and asked me if I wanted a dance. I had to fend them all off with a stick.
Shortly after that, I took the dollar bill off my nose and left "The Jiggly Room" only to go to a TGI Fridays. The woman there didn't seem to appreciate my penguin laden attire.
The moral is, I think it all depends on where you hang your hat.
Keep your stick on the ice,
Don =D
Worst Sig Ever
"Merit" can only be calculated in a context. I may have high merit as a programmer, but low merit as an administrator, for example.
What this means is that a "meritocracy" has to be sure to calculate merit on the relevant characteristics. Those characteristics are unlikely to be solely technical for anything but the most trivial of social groupings.
Therefore: FascDot's Law--As technology advances, the more technologically literate will become more powerful (politically, socially, etc), all else being equal.
Corollary #1: If Joe Random is technologically literate but not powerful, "all else" must not equal--i.e. he doesn't know the first thing about history, psychology, economics, politics, etc, etc , etc.
A good argument for 4 year degrees for computer nerds, no?
---
Put Hemos through English 101!
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
That explains why my new wife, who is incredibly attractive, married me, who is NOT.
:)
"You can never have too many elephants on your team."
I find it frightening, in a way. Whenever anything becomes trendy, rich kids with attitude push all the regular people outta the way and party. I'm not in any way pretending the net should or could be egalitarian, but watch for the poseurs to come outta the woodwork when it becomes trendy. (hasn't it already? Color bitmaps on shrinkwrapped Linux boxes at Best Buy??)
We're already seeing people (myself included) backing the heck outta 'the linux scene' for similar reasons. I hope the various BSD communities can bear the load when a lot of people with practical reasons for running a free Unix bail outta the linux party room looking for a quiet place to get some work done.
Meritocracy? Surely you jest. When the room fills up with newbies new things become more important like apperances, etc.
I remember when a similar social phenomenon happened in "The Punk Scene." (where, granted, there was no meritocracy unless there is merit in self-destructive nihilism) All kinds of new people with expensive punk costumes started dominating the dance floor at the club one night. Then I noticed cameras were filming them. I bailed outta there. Haven't wanted to go back much.