Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Geeks Stereotypes and Their Origins
Deepak Saxena asks: "It seems that there is an inherent assumption that a lot of people make about geeks: They are liberal, they are open minded about meeting new people and trying new things, and they do not believe in God. Look around the web, and you will see that many geeks do fit this description, yet there are definetely those that don't. I know many computer geeks who are very religious, abhor violent displays of any form (games, movies, etc), and don't fit into this mold that seems to have been created for us. I also know geeks who are absolute rednecks. So the question that I have is where did this image of the leftis geek come from and why has it become the stereotype for geeks? Is this a result of so many geeks living in California, which is considered very liberal by mainstream culture? Or is it because in many people's eyes education == liberal? I'd like to hear other's thoughts on this." My answer: the mainstream media. I don't think
I've seen any other geek image portrayed to the bulk of the American public by Hollywood, so I bet this would go a long way into creating, and enforcing, this stereotype. What do you all think?
Anyways, I'm Anonymous Coward. So I can say and be anything I want to. *twirl*
But you're no statistician. Not a social scientist either. Definitely a theoretician, though. Uh-huh.
Einstein had some pretty darn liberal beliefs.
You are root. You're stuck down in the dirt, beneath even the weeds. Better hope trunk, branches, bark, and leaves let you have some photosynthesis, or you're SOL, dude.
I work with lots of people who believe in religion. They believe in God and the likes. Me not.
Oh wait, I work on the Windows platform.....
(Could not resist that one)
ooh! guilty!! I have done that with my church's projector. It was very sweet.
Leftists support fascist laws designed to prevent people from being "bad" to each other... For example, hate-crime laws designed to ban evil thoughts. Right-libertarians frequently oppose such laws. Leftists/liberals never do.
LIBERAL? LOL! I know more libertarian/republican/conservative geeks then I do liberal ones. And whats this blech about "educated == liberal" LOL!?@ WASSAT? I CANT HEAR YOU, YOU SOUND LIKE A MORON. Jesus christ the author must be a total fool. Im not Liberal Im not Conservative I AM NOWHEREMAN --NowhereMan spam@nowhereland.net
Any chance you could tell me the name of this company so I know to avoid working getting a job there? If geeks are fiercely indendpendant of thought and don't like being told what to do then that pretty much rules out the brainwashed masses that are Christians. Sorry - flamebait - but I've been out socialising tonight and am a bit tipsy :o)
Listen to Jon Katz: A geek is anyone whose goals in life are seeing violent movies, downloading porn off of the Internet and pirating software and music and movies/ TV shows. In case you are wondering, I'm not a geek. I'm a libertarian, a Christian, and I just happen to spend most of my time in front of computers running UNIX and family.
Pax.
Scipio
I used to have an open mind, but my brains kept falling out.
When I was about 9, I fit the formula reasonably well. Then I grew up. The more you know, the more you know that you have left to learn. You cannot be liberal once you recognize that actions have consequences. You do one thing which only looks good, and the whole world takes the reaction to some degree. I've simply known too many victims of apparently 'perfect solutions.'
Anti-theists rely on not looking behind the curtain. Beyond a point, there simply is no why, and no how. The search for truth must lead away from socratic denial or you'll end up trying to prove everything based on nothing. All evidence has to be proven before it can be used, thus you end up at a point where you simply accept things. God is a more realistic explanation of this behavior.
People who preach about the panacea of tollerance have never endured it. Our forefathers were running as much from tollerance as intollerance. In the end, everybody wants to be at home. We established 13 colonies so that we could be a single nation, but each have a place where he belonged. It is not wonderful to live in a world where you are allowed to be simply because your neighbors put up with you.
Limits are what you find when you reach the 'real world.' Anything that you learn discredits its opposite. Anything that you see eliminates the reality of alternatives.
-Robert 'Admiral' Coeyman
admiral@corner.net
I guess the reason why otherwise politically apathetic geeks would turn to libertarianism is because they don't want either the right-wing bible thumbers nor the left-wing feminazis taking away their on-line pornography...among other things, of course. ;)
Do you mean, the social aspect is what makes us a geek, the fact we are talking something technical that average people don't understand what we are saying, makes us geeks.... That is probably the one thing I like..... :)
Oh, yeah, check this out. Shamir is breaking 512-bit keys in days.
....So I would imagine some Linux geeks being either democrat or alt....
geeks tend to be educated in the sciences, and at least in the US only 40% of "scientists" believe in some form of goat^wgod as opposed to the ~95% of the normal population which does.
I wonder just what the male:female ratio is in the geek world... Unfortunatly I have met very few female 'geeks' of any stereotype. I wonder why the computer world attracts mostly us guys... hmm... perhaps /. could do a poll on gender :) Then we could at least find out the m:f ratio of the /. readers, most of which I'd venture to say are geeks ;) -Anonymous Chicken Waiting for my Miranda to wander by.
I am posting this as a response to some of the replys.....I am a linux geek, and do believe in some form of a god, or higher state, and life after death. BUT, I am not christian, more of a home-made religion based on my beliefs, and I am starting to agree more and more with taoism. So stop assuming the only religion with a god is christianity.
Don't hide behing this Cliff persona!!
Actually, your model fits populism pretty well. Which had a great deal of steam prior to the cold war. And don't let these weenies call you a fascist -- the only people who buy that social right econo-left "Authoritarian" crapola are LP lackies who never thoroughly examined the issues
The moniker 'geek' is just another self-defeating stereotype. Taken in the context that a clueless media person or accquantance/co-worker/etc. would use it as (negative), it serves no purpose but to stigmitize you for your passions in life. But if take the title 'geek' on yourself and embrace it, you have just defeated the whole notion of stereotypes and can move on with your life and code.
This can be applied to any stereotype thrust on you. Im a self-proclaimed computer geek if people ask me, and my girlfriend is a self-proclaimed 'freak'. Normally a stranger calling you this would be negative. But realize that your passion and actions are stereotyped by 'normal' society, and get over it. Wear the stereotype freely and it's like a subtle "Screw you buddy" to those who would hate you for it, or live your whole life arguing about if the stereotype is right and how you appear. IMHO, stressing out is someone will accept what you like is pointless and leads to ridiculous arguments.
where did this image of the leftis geek come from and why has it become the stereotype for geeks?
I dont know where it came from, and I dont care. Let small minded people try and classify everyone and watch them miss out on experiences while the computer-literate keep having a good time.
I guess I feel priveliged to go to my church (that's where I actually talk about that stuff the most). We even have a lan party there.
... was the Gulf War. As you may recall, on August 2nd, 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, crude oil prices skyrocketed, and continued to stay high until January 17, 1991, when the counter-invasion began. This meant five months of inflated oil prices, which sapped the economy of other spending and/or saving. Also, the winter months of December and January typically have high oil consumption due to the heating oil requirements in the north-eastern U.S. (Summer air conditioning, relying on electrcity, uses more hydro-electric and nuclear resources). The recession started to be felt in the late spring and lasted through the fall of 1991. A very slow recovery started in late 1991, but was not felt until late 1992, after the election. So oddly enough, the event that caused Bush's highest poll ratings (the Persian Gulf War), also led to his lowest ratings. Of course Bush's biggest error was his tax increase, which exacerbated the situation and caused the recovery to lag.
Gee, I too would love a society where no one worked. Too bad we'd all starve. You are obviously not a geek.
D.C. Talk -- JESUS FREAK!@$
ETARNAL DAMNNATION IS NOT SOMETHING TO JOKE ABOUT! IT IS NOT FUNNY AND YOU WILL NOT BE LAUGHING IN *REAL* HELL. FOR REAL HELL IS LITERALLY FIRE AND BRIMSTONE AND BURNING FLESH, THERE CAN BE NO LAUGHTER THERE
Well, if you want to regulate what people do with their professional lives (tax them up to the eyeballs and spend it yourself) and also regulate what people do with their private lives, then you ARE an Authoritarian. Being a Christian, I thank God daily that America is free from the iron fist of the likes of the poster and that wiser minds prevail, even if the current leadership has its flaws.
faith is not something that can be taught or given to someone, although seeds can be planted. Also, it's not very intelligent to try to lock God out of schools, since he's God, not some random person who can be locked away in a dark room. Also, school lasts anywhere between 6 and 8 hours in the US, which is approximately 1/4 to 1/3 of one's day, leaving the other 2/3 to 3/4 of the day, and 2 full days a week to go do other stuff.
Stereotypes are products of human ignorance and unfortunate convieniance. Initially used to simply classify people, more recently are becoming limitations which young people grow into. Having labels such as geek, nerd, jock already in place, by conforming to those stereotypes young people are guaranteed immiediate association with similar people. That's wonderful, however, that also removes the neccessity of developing social versatility and in fact limits personal growth.
o ughguy...punk...metalhead...bully...softie ...clubkid...beefcake...clown...loser...cockybasta rd...partyanimal...a$$hole...
Some of the most intelligent people I've ever known are extremely well rounded and very open minded people. They were/are very successful athletes, ingenius programmers (call them nerds/hackers if you must), brilliant business minds and quite extensively socially developed open minded, tolerant individuals.
And it is individuality that I consider most valuable about myself and other people. And although I am very hesitant to use stereotypes to describe other people, I have been personally labeled/mislabeled in so many ways that it really makes this whole stereotype issue quite ridiculous.
and here some of them
nerd...jock...meathead...hacker...superstar...t
but in the end I could not be described/classified using any one of those "terms".
mark
to put it as simple as possible, there are four basic categories: Libertarian: Believe in little government regulation of social behavior or economics (such as taxes, redistrution systems, etc.) Republican: Believe in less government control of economics but more government regulation of behavior Liberal: Believe in more government control of economic situations and less government control of behavior Populist: Believe in more government regulation of economic stuff and behavior. I guess the stereotype is supposed to be that they are liberal. Personally, I am sort of in the middle, although I may be close toward libertarian.
DAVEO thinks too much in terms of how things should be as opposed to how things really are. "...they still cannot steal"? heh? DAVEO says they cannot steal, so we must take his word for it. Stealing is bad. Tsk, tsk.
Hey, I'm a Christian, but I'd tell all my friends I was an atheist if I thought they'd think I was a freak. Unfortunately, this isn't the case. I'd say almost half of them are atheists anyway.
Yes, I am a nerd. Yes, I am Christian. I infact work at a computer company where ALL but one of us is Christian. We all love the Lord with all our hearts. Its nice to finally see some pro-Christians posts on here. After the kansas board of education posts on here being all anti-Christian, I had considured not comming back to my favorite site.
I guess thats why it went out of business. Great ideas always fail.
Gun control means using both hands.
Isn't it obvious what ESR is? He's a neo-pagan eclectic. I've known so many of them that it baffles me that nobody ever figures that out about him. I don't mean that label as an insult, btw. Ask him in email if he's a neo-pagan eclectic. Stop dancing around the issue.
And the freedom to arm bears is an Animal Liberation Front goal. Whatever. Oh, and junkies believe in the freedom to not bare arms. In front of the police or their counsolors, anyway.
I can say 'damn fool who didn't say "yes sir" to the policeman' if you mean that when you say David Koresh.
But, you brought it up. FTR, I'm considered geek
/.
by myself, family and friends.
Deepak Saxena spewed about stereotypical geeks:
>They are liberal
Ooooh, me too!
>they are open minded about meeting new
>people and trying new things
Yeah? So? Why do you find that strange?
>and they do not believe in God.
Again, Is that strange?
I'm an atheist and look upon all theists with
suspicion (I do NOT infringe upon their rights).
I observe geeks tend to be rational. What rational
adult would depend upon a toothfairy?
>I know many computer geeks who are very
>religious, abhor violent displays of any form
>(games, movies, etc)
My fundie-meter tells me you don't enjoy Quake.
> I also know geeks who are absolute rednecks.
You mean rednecks aren't "leftis"?
Why don't you define redneck for us?
>Is this a result of so many geeks living in
>California,
Myself, I've only lived on the east coast and in
the midwest. Can't I be geek too?
> Or is it because in many people's eyes education
> == liberal?
I think you hit the nail on the head.
Time for you to go back to school.
Please, please, can we keep religion out of
discussions? Is there any need for it here?
I wasn't seeking threads about gawd, but when the
sheep start to bleat, I must protest.
Well, I can't vote for a representative who supports one and another who opposes the other because they can't simultaneously occupy the same seat in Congress....
If only the ACLU supported all the amendments. But that's what the NRA is for.
Religion is inherently anti-rational. It demands unquestioning faith in the existence of intangible forces, for which there can be no evidence and thus no informed reasoning about their existence. Science doesn't dub religion "unacceptable", merely unsupportable by science (and intentionally so). I believe faith is delusional (it's simply a variantion on hedonism that centers on ignorance rather than pleasure), and do not believe in any God because I see no motive for choosing any over all the others or none, not because I wouldn't enjoy the consequences.
Any non-reproductive sexuality is of course irrational, as is romance and friendship. Yes, there ought to be strong selection pressure against homosexuality or any other motivations that inhibit breeding. That homosexuality still exists therefore tells us that either it's *not* genetic, or the gene is resilient because species that have it outperform those that don't for some reason. It doesn't need to be "excused," it's no more harmful than left-handed-ness or red hair unless you value maximum sustainable breeding.
The sort of people who "denounce" private victimless behavior have no moral basis whatsoever (in our overpopulated world, replacing those people with more breeders would be an evil act) (there's no such thing as a religious basis except among believers) and are likely to damage the free society they find themselves in rather than cooperate with those who disagree - the one offense that merits death, in my reasoning.
Ah yes, the great VGA Plants game.
Guess what? The government has no money. Their money is given to them by US the people. I realize you are stupid, being religious. But that really takes the cake.
>It says where our universe comes from
>(IE this REALLY huge thing that was everywhere,
>suddenly expanded and this expansion became our
>universe), but that doesn't say where the initial stuff
>came from
>I find creation easier to believe than that.
Then you're being wooly, because you've just changed a hard problem (where did the Universe come from) to an even harder one (where did the Universe and something so complex that it is able to create such a Universe come from).
Occam's Razor tells us not to add variables into a problem when they have no obvious use. Introducing a creator adds an extra unknown and suceeds in pushing the problem back one level (who created the creator, and who created the meta-creator, and who created the meta-meta-creator, etc.)
The Flat Earth brigade suffer from the same problem - what's the Earth resting on, and what is *that* resting on, etc. They never stop to consider that maybe the question they are asking simply doesn't make sense, because their assumptions are wrong.
Rob Lowe was in a movie called _Hostile Intent_, in which he played a computer geek. He created a chip that the government couldn't crack, so they decided to kill everyone involved during a paintball match. Riveting. Late-night Cinemax at it's best.
Sure, thats why about all the geeks I know (including myself) drop their dirty clothes of at their parents house to have them washed :)
If have met prescious few hackers who aren't crackers or like to talk about being crackers. The distinction is rather artificial, and also rather pointless (see some posts by others above). Maybe I just live in the wrong area of the country...
I guess homeless people don't exist then? Or what about the millions of people working in slave labor to make products cheaper for US corporations?
Also, of course living conditions will be worse off in an isolated island which doesn't get to exchange much with the rest of the world since the capitalist countries basically run everything. The US is extracted resources from all over the world, mainly with force, and the using people for cheaper production.
However, I certainly do not favor totalitarian communism or any form of STATE socialism.
Well, I have a lesbian feminist friend who's now become a Linux freak. She's also a member of the NRA. And she knows the meaning of the Slack in Slackware. If you don't you're every so slightly clueless.
I, for one, have never thought that geeks or the state of California were liberal, so I think the image of geek/liberal is in the mind of the author. Witness the hundreds of "me too" replies to the Katz articles. All the geeks assume they will be rich, have big houses, expensive cars, and will be the boss of their mocking jocks. This is hardly the image of a VW Beetle driving flower child liberal.
and how are we determining the "greatest good" again? would there be a steering committee to direct the course of events? seeking out the opposition's voice is a hallmark of quality, imho ;j
In my experience, they know they don't really fit into mainstream society and don't expect normal people to be interested in them, Tag on: Very defensive about their low self-esteem and willing to actively rationalize why it isn't so.
Leftists and right-libertarians share a concern for "civil liberties" issues (like free speech, freedom of religion, drugs, etc.) -- what is sometimes called "social issues" liberalism (not to be confused with "social democracy") or "cultural" or "lifestyle" liberalism. This area of agreement is a common thread among many geeks: that it's important to protect the right to be weird and to engage in advocacy and activities which are outside of or abhorrent to the mainstream culture. The right to be weird or alternative if one so chooses is upheld by many geeks, whether economically left or right.
Nickname L298. But not got my password yet.
I believe that NT==geek. Not all geeks are computer geeks, not all are creative, not all are into computer games or star-trek. The INTJ and ENTJ profiles are geeks too.
The defining thing about NTs are they are thoughtful (==intuitive !=immediate) and head rather than heart people.
This 'rational' temperament make them more likely to want to figure things out for themselves rather than take conventional wisdom. So they tend to be more sceptical, less conventional, more fiercely independant.
So they are less likely to fit-in, and likely to go for jobs and hobbies with computers.
Try and spot the non-computer geeks: unconventional, following stuff to its logical conclusion, intellectually obsessive about their current interests. Especially spot the girl non-computer geeks, they are harder to see!
The atheist geek is likely to follow a geek personality, but needn't.
I'm currently as much an amateur psychology geek as a computer one - I'm an ENTP. Watch out for the SFJs (immediate, heart, judgmental). They don't tolerate geekness easily - we don't fit in. This could be your worst boss.
I agree that the media is the major factor in creating stereotypes -- it most always is. But that still doesn't answer the original question, which was where did this stereotype come from -- it just explains how it spread. So where did the media get this image from?
Better yet, just think of a big stupid bird with a left wing and a right wing. It flaps around in the air, not realizing for a minute that it's in a cage, gets no fresh air from outside, and is as crazy as any other bird. It's one damn animal. The right wing and the left wing just need to oppose each other to make it's pathetic flight possible.
If you don't understand what a 'fascist' is go read some early 20th Century social history. Hitler, for example, was definitely not a fascist. Mussolini was.
They think all geeks get get harrased, are social outcasts and are angry at the world. Therefore, they are collectivist, socialist, oppressed, whiny left wing liberals.
There was a slogan "Don't vote, it only encourages them". It's funny, but it's true.
God does not exist you friggin ignoramous. Now go away. I know, I'm going to worship the algalwoerzowee. because I want to falsely believe he is real.
It may have been associated with the term "libertarian" at some point, but that was not, nor espcially is it now, a mainstream usage...
You forgot to add "...inside the USA." The world is much bigger than the USA. (Americans and their "our way is the only way" attitude, sheesh.)
Well, you say you're well read. Bu tright off the bat you assume socialism means state socialism...rather than the general meaning which is public ownership of the means of production. MANY socialists of the time felt state socialism is a contradiction because it isn't the workers who control the things, but the ruling party that does.
Also, Anarchism supports no unjustifiable hierachy, which certainly includes governments.
Taking socialism by it's real meaning Anarchism is a form of socialism. The workers control the means of production. This does not mean a state must exist.
If you take the original meaning of libertarian, "a person who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty especially of thought and action," apply it to the untainted definition of socialism (see above), there is absolutely no contradictions whatsoever, an such combinations prove more "libertarian" than the combination "capitalist libertarian."
The is certainly a contradiction between state socialism, or more specifically totalitarian communism, and libertarianism. There would also appear to be a problem with corporations (capitalism) and private ownership in that it does control your free will. If you try to tell me your free will isn't restricted in a corporate job, you're out of your mind. If you tell me that not having access to neccessities of life like food, clothing, and shelter (being homeless or very poor) aren't restrictions of liberty...of freedom...what is?
And when you're telling me that libertarian socialist is an oxymoron, you're basically saying the top US (even world) linguistics professor doesn't know what the hell he's talking about since he uses those combination of words to describe his political beliefs. Let's see, should I trust a political party that formed within the past 30 or so years or a few books (likely capitalist libertarians, even if not, just because some author writes something doesn't mean that's the absolute truth)...or should I trust a linguistics professor and real history (there's even some old propaganda and pamphlets from different periods that use the terms libertarian socialists on them...this was prior to the US Libertarian Party's existence). Hmmm. For some information on this MAJOR contradiction of terms that you know so well about take a look at http://www.tigerden.com/~berios/liberty.html
Socialism and libertarianism are actually pretty broad terms. Communism is more specific, Anarchism is more specific. To say socialism means state socialism is to rewrite definitions. To say libertarianism only means capitalist libertarianism is to rewrite definitions. It's also a smack in the face to philosophers who wrote and lived their lives around such ideas. Just because it's common in your exposure that such terms are used in a certain way doesn't mean that is how it is globally, or even outside of your little bubble. I'm on a few political mailing lists, and people outside of the US have said a few times (when topics come up) that being called a Libertarian in the US is much different than being called a Libertarian elsewhere. Maybe all of these people are out of their minds, and you, these few modern authors, and the US Libertarian party are in fact, the ultimate truth. Whatever. Believe what you wish.
But this position is more consistent than mainstream left or right in the US.
If there was sufficient evidence to prove Christianity, then fulfilling the tenents of the religion would become trivial
/.? Or reply to a /. post? Kay, thanks.
Two words: Doubting Thomas.
Christianity does not require blind faith, but states that Blessed are those who have it. Thomas received proof, before he would believe. Does this mean he was not a christian? not at all. Do learn something of the situation before you comment on it. Such as if you are going to argue against christianity perhaps you should read up on it.
John3:16 might be a good place to start. Oh and another question, wouldn't geeks be the only people to read
Why don't you ask him yourself instead of trying to descredit me with silly tactics?
Oh, jeeze, a shoe wasn't made in the USSR, that surely discredits everything pro-Soviet Union!
And, by the way, I do not support totalitarian governments of any kind, communist or not. I don't even support governments at all, or any unjustifiable totalitarian-like/hierachal institutions. So please don't assume I'm something I'm not because I was supporting another person's post.
Wow, you're a fascist.
You think its funny that theres a bunch of religious zealots out there who are choosing what children, should, or should not know? you think its humerous that they believe that the only way to help these children have faith is to NOT teach them?
Hollywood always portrays its heros as Liberals So the geek heroes in movies are Liberal. Those geeks in the X-files didn't appear to be Liberal. (or did they?) Do you think the Heaven's gates people were considered a band of lefties?
Since you're plugging (Capitalist) Libertarian books, I should suggest some for (Socialist) Libertarianism (Anarchism). The Kingdom of God Is Within You - Leo Tolstoy. There was a semi-famous jewish Anarchist who I think wrote a book relating Judaism and Anarchy and my mind is blank at the moment to who that person is. Also Anarchy and Christianity by Jacques Ellul (http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/ellul/a ac.html). There are many current Christians (among other religious followers) all over the world who support Anarchism...don't think it's somehow limited to a select few authors who wrote books relating the subjects.
Yes, but geeks are just as much driven down a path as anyone else if they conform to their stereotype. Poor social skills and so on. The trick is as much balance as anything else.
Brillient and unconventional minds like those of Richard M. Stallman and Noam Chomsky are at the root of the stereotype. In other words "Geeks" used to be intellectuals and scientists with a spark of genius. Thus questioning of conventional thought (including agnostisism), and openness to new ideas came naturally to these people.
Now that the term "Geek" includes script kiddies, VB programmers, and everyone who knows how to install RedHat Linux, the term has come to refer to a far less exceptional segment of society.
These new "Geeks" are far less likely to reject "common knowledge" stereotypes from outside of their narrow area of interest. Thus the susceptibility to short sighted, bigoted, parochial, or religious socio-political agendas.
My god, I'd never seen so many unkempt nerds in one place before...
I am gay but don't fit the gay stereotype. I'm a geek but don't fit the geek stereotype. Go figure.
Slashdot perpetuates the image described above, with its focus on articles on the effort to relax export restrictions on cryptography so that terroist organizations can have easy access to crypto.
When trying to discover just what is responsible for the identity associated with geeks, we have to ask ourselves just what it is that defines a culture. Look at jocks, for example. They're stereotyped as being arrogant, sports obsessed jerks more often than not. Yet, in my personal experience I have found several jocks who were actually fairly pleasant to be around. It seems to me that the entire jock culture was defined using its most memorable characteristics. Some jocks were sports obsessed, arrogant jerks when their culture was being defined, and that's what people remembered. Perhaps, then, with geeks the same may be true. When the whole culture began geeks were identified as intelligent because no one else could figure out how to use DOS. Intelligence is associated with atheism, as anyone who has read Snowcrash should know. Perhaps some of the other characteristics geeks are identified by were prominant when the culture was developing as well. Another point I would like to make here is that oftentimes the media does not spread or create stereotypes; it plays on what people already think, exaggerating and dramatizing to draw our attention. This effect is probably what crystalizes people's oppinions, once they see that their ideas are a shared with the media.
What is he then? Open Source borders on communism which is about as far left as you can get. What about his Jargon File? Does it not describe geeks as being liberals?
Like I said, this isn't black vs. white. I think you're assuming because I am not trustworthy or supportive of totalitarian corporations, that I MUST want big government. I want neither. Corporations have economic control over people, governments have direct control over people. Put them together and you got the mess that exists in the world today.
Also, you say you're libertarian but you seem to be saying you want no government. From my understanding (I was a US Libertarian for about a year) the libertarian party wants the government to exist to keep people in line and protect the country (wars). I never remember reading them completely eliminating the government.
Now, if what I read is correct, the government still exists, the difference is they don't bail out/support corporations and fight wars for them. The government still has the power to control you if you aren't being a part of the capitalist system.
The elimination of any government, with class differences is a recipe for disaster. Capitalism needs a body of control to take care of those who rob and steal because they do not have enough wealth. The bottom of the class scale. Are the prisons equally full of wealthy, upper class, middle class, lower class, and the underclass proportionally? No. It's mainly the lower and underclass. Why do you think they're there? They're all born genetically incorrect and are prone to commit crimes? This is the only argument I can see in order to avoid the fact it has to do with class differences (wealth).
Now, take away all of the non profit charities that exist today, and imagine how statistics would be different. If these things didn't exist today, I'm sure the world (this country as well) would look bleaker. Why do these charities have to exist to help people destroyed by a socioeconomic system that only favors the extremely welathy?
I'm sure you want more quality and freedom. I doubt many Joe Averages become interested in the Libertarian party because they love the fact a very small portion of the world's population continues to get richer and richer. There are other systems, ones that have even been put into practice in recent history.
http://www.infoshop.org/
We've been taught through mainstream media propaganda that Anarchism is IMPOSSIBLE, it'd be total chaos, violence, destruction, rape, etc. Just listen to the news and when the term comes up, watch to see if they use the word correctly or if they use it incorrectly to be synonymous with total chaos. This is rewriting definitions. Or like how we're told the US is a perfect democracy when in fact it's a republic. Or that the Soviet Union was socialist, which is to completely degrade a once powerful word.
Wonder why Orwell seems right on the money? He wrote 1984 only 51 years ago. What he was writing about is the US and Soviet Union. His political beliefs were libertarian socialist and democratic socialist (from my understanding he changed or something like that). This is the kind of power the media and governments have.
http://www.fair.org/
The Libertarian party draws people in mainly with the arguments we are pure greed and therefore we must become cogs for the rich because we couldn't live any other way. Which of course is complete balogne. Much of what they tell you is "greed" is just human need (the basics of life...food, water, shelter) and curiousity (like listening to new music, reading a new book, using new software, using a more powerful computer, etc). If we were so greedy, the desire to possess everything in sight would be so overwhelming, we couldn't live life. We'd all be in a state of stealing and acquiring. Whether we wanted to use the product or not, we'd just collect everything. You say law prevents this state perhaps...but come on, how hard is it to steal something if you really wanted to? There are many places that don't have fancy security, and even in those places ways around it. Poor people (not because they're so damn greedy, but because they are poor and either need the product(s) or money they can get from selling them) and kleptomaniacs steal all of the time.
Anyway, that's enough.
I want to reply, but I have to wait for eternity for the page to load, another eternity to get a comment page, then the darn thing eats my comment. Who has time for this crap? Slashdot had better get its act together or it will lose me. Can you imagine how much time you are wasting out there? Man-centuries!
I'm a geek and I play three sports! Water polo (hellishly harder than any other sport), swim team, and track. I got my Varsity letter my freshmen year in swim. So there.
Yes my apologies, you are quite correct, It turns out I had mis-remembered what the CTT actually stated when I made the post, (I guess I should check out my facts before merrily posting next time:-)
Still it's a fascinating subject area...
--Liam.
Well, I have lived in Silicon Valley, Boston (beautiful) and New York City (which was really rather nice, if a little dangerous, but that was almost ten years ago), and of course Texas, where I have spent the bulk of my 36 years, and I have to say that California is the most provinvincial place that I have ever lived. In Texas, if people are ignorant, they know it and they are a little careful about running their mouths. They don't like appearing stupid, unless they don't care, of course, but that is another issue. Yankees are, in all reality, generally better informed than Texans (literacy is higher -- only about 60% of Texans are funtionally literate at any sort of -read-a-daily-newspaper level, and this is a lot higher in the Northeast and it shows) but not a lot more willing to appear stupid, so they are similarly reticent about shooting off their mouths. In California, ignorance is "attitude" and "opinion" and everyone is entitled to it. Everyone seems to have enough self esteem to say whatever they want. And this includes people who should know better, like geeks who think enough to know what they don't know. Not in California. This gets old. I have never lived anywhere where drug use was as high as in Silicon Valley (and I remember Austin in the 1970s, man) or people were less willing to not stereotype you. Look, I have a pronounced accent. I am from Lufkin, which is pretty deep in East Texas. I am also a tall, gangly redneck who looks like a tall, gangly redneck. I am 6'4" and weigh 170 and I cannot put on fat if I tried. I look like I was build for manual labor. I don't fit in in a crowd of tanned California people. I fit in fine in Barstow, which I noticed when I was driving the deisel back to Houston, but that only served to give me a chuckle. I know I look like I belong in a trailer park. It doesn't bother me anymore and generally makes me laugh. It never failed to amaze me how people would assume that I was a janitor and/or stupid because of how I looked and my accent. They didn't in New York or Boston after a certain period of suspicion (a day or two in Boston, 30-45 second in New York) -- they cared if I could do the work. In California, they seemed amazed that I had a)teeth and b)shoes. They seemed to not believe that I could have gotten a doctorate. They didn't belive that Texas had some decent universities. This got old. They (and I am talking about relatively senior people at O ... a major database company) really seemed to think that people like me (white rednecks) went out on slow evenings and killed off local minorities. Really. I never knew how to approach that. ("Yup, them colored peoples' good eatin'"). How do you approach someone secretly believes that you are a homocidal maniac? I never recovered from being seen reading Guns 'N' Ammo at my desk, either (yes, I have guns -- I like to hunt)(and I eat red meat THAT I HAVE KILLED)(OOH AHH ARRGH!!!). It was really uncomfortable. And this was when I was being paid about $260,000 a year. And I found that a very large number of managers (many, if not most, native Californians)with MBAs felt that my status as a Texan (they would say "southerner", not at all understanding the huge differences) made me receptive to their commiserating with me about various and sundry minority groups that they disliked. Erm ... I can't say that I have ever found any of them that annoying and I didn't like hearing about it. I got to know that basically everyone who seemed to be from California and with a non-Stanford MBA disliked blacks and Mexicans. For that matter, I never understood why people in California disliked blacks and Mexicans so much. I was always depressed when blacks and Mexicans would looks startled when I would speak to them normally, like I would anyone else. They just weren't expecting that. Weird. So I don't know about all the liberals in California. I must have missed them over the four years I was out there.
I agree with you, i live in a third world country called Argentina, im studyng sociology, when you hear the "healty" of the first world country (US, Europe), you cant forget that is all blood leeched from their workers and the third world countries, and, in the case of Europe, dont forget the blood licheed from 1492 to now. Btw: Im not nacionalist, i believe in the International Anarchism, im not sure if is possible, but i will fight for that.
Yup, I worked with a satan-worshipping dude who shared a cube with a born-again ex-Mafia enforcer, right across from the gay alcoholic ex-spy and the earth-mama with two husbands and ten dogs, next to the perfect normal Solaris nut with a kid, a house, a wife, 2 kids, a dog, and two American cars and the womanizing Bloated-Scrotes-Administrating Lesabian. On my end (AIX), there was a PhD in Latin and Greek, an old army guy, an old country boy who just liked UNIX, a part time clown, a libertarian activist, a deaf webmaster, and a woman who had been a Playboy bunny (miss something-1967 or close to that)and a nun (Catholic, the whole deal)and a cop (she passed the physical requirements) and a shrink, all in 20 years or so. I got here to autograph a copy of the magazine. I have it somewhere around here. And me. I used to work for the government. I used to fix problems. I don't do that anymore. The one thing that they all had in common was intelligence and a searching mind. This has been true in other places, but those years were the best example of it.
This is a bit deeper than that. If all of these people were unable to live in their enviromental conditions in the past, the civilizations likely wouldn't even be there in the first place.
What ends up happening is a bit complex. First off, we look at the world and we have enviromental conditions and natural resources. Places with little natural resources and are generally unfit for humans are also less populated...like deserts and Antartica. Now, just like animals we live in places that we can survive in (prior to mass governments and all). A good portion of the world is habitable...and if you can imagine a anarcho-primitive world without ANY of the modern things today, you'd realize living in say Africa or many areas in Asia are more healthy for human survival than the resources naturally available in the US. The US (N. America, but primarily the US portion) happens to be pretty even...whereas in other continents there are are large deserts and things like that.
Anyway...from the natural view of things, if the entire world was anarcho-primitivist (I certainly do not support this system but it's neccessary to describe the natural conditions of the world) the US ISN'T the center for natural resources...in fact other areas are more abundant than the US. So, are these people all in desperate need for US corporations because only Western nations are habitable while the rest need the help of US corporations for their survival?
So, we move on to examine governments and how US/western capitalism works. Many "third world" nations (who, if you look at history, prior to US dominance WEREN'T third world) have tried very hard to set up nationalist or socialist governments so they won't have their natural resources sucked away and be forced to work for US corporations. The good ol' US for the sake of capitalist "democracy" uses the CIA, private militaries, money, drug smuggling etc. to support the capitalist friendly fascist governments. They always succede...basically because the US is so god damn rich and it's military and intelligence force so extremely powerful.
If you've never heard of these things and were too young to follow politics in the 80s, you can find a TON of books on Amazon relating to the US's dabbling in other countries governments and you'll also see how many of those that the US supported and put into power were actually democratic governments and how many were fascist (from my knowledge, all were/are fascist).
So, if your argument is the people were poor because they didn't have adequate natural resources, and the US corporations using them for labor is actually helping them...You might want to examine statistics/analysis of these areas now and prior to ~1920 or so.
What happens is the US corporations a) suck the natural resources from the lands (of course the citizens of that land are upset but our government and the fascist governments of those countries doesn't have a problem suppressing them) b) destroy natural business and trade, the main sources of the local economies requiring the people to work in their factories, which by the way do not meet US human rights/health and enviromental standards...but that's okay because it's not in the US.
So, you say...well, then we don't have enough people in the US to work for all of these factories anyway. This is true if they were all moved back now...Our consumption rates have been continually increasing requiring more production (not that we need to continually consume more, but because we are bombarded with advertisements to do so everyday of our lives...as well as products being purposely made not to last too long) and most of the middle class (non computer) jobs are sales related, middle men, and the "coordinating class" which is doctors, lawyers, etc...who provide needed services to citizens (and corporations) of the country.
The lower class/underclass dirty jobs still exist like automechanic work, cleaning houses, mowing lawns, etc...stuff that is needed and couldn't be exported to other countries for cheaper prices.
There is also a very large portion of people in the temporary work class...the amount of temporary work is increasing, not surprisingly as it saves corporations a bundle.
So, in the US we have the lower class working in temporary work positions (often service), and the bottom of the barrel work that can't really be exported to other countries for cheaper labor, and a great deal of the middle class working in sort of in between positions...somewhere between the people who make the product, and the people at the top of the company...and what most of the average middle class considers the upper class, which is mainly the "coordinating" class which is doctors, dentists, lawyers, etc.
The actually "upper" class, the super-elite is actually an extremely small portion of the population. They are the ones benefiting from the global capitalist mess. Since these institutions are created by people, and are people, they are also subject to the dumbness of humans..in that the rich, the rulers (government officials) are short sited and only care about what they can get now and as much as they can. This means, if we stay obedient to things as they are...within 100 years, we'll probably be in an economic mess...and the US/west nations will be some sort of fascist dictatorship. I'm being extremely pessimistic, but with a HUGE military, world dominance, all sorts of government intelligence agencies...and capitalism coming to shambles, who do you think will take power? Who will stop those with the nukes among other things?
ANYWAY...the real lower class...the slaves...no longer exists within the US. We have managed to perform sort of indirect capitalist imperialism. We set up, or find, governments supportive of what we (the western corporations and the puppets in the government) want...which is cheaper labor. If we directly occupied lands we'd a) look bad b) be the enemy of the people in those lands...and they, and the current citizens of the US wouldn't tolerate them being used that way...if they became states they'd have to automatically be treated "fairly" (as fair as the US government treats it's own citizens right now). So, indirect imperialism is MUCH smarter and less of a hassle.
that was the reason I was calling him stupid?
Actually I haven't met a single geek who refutes God. Although *our*(Yes I do consider myself a geek. Hey I understand all the jokes in UF :) ) idea of god might not be the traditional view of God.Remember PI?
American individualist libertarians are right-libertarians, as contrasted with the left-libertarians or libertarian socialists (leftist anarchists). Among libertarians in general, there are leftists (who, roughly speaking, don't believe in private property and markets), and rightists (who, roughly speaking, do).
I'm sorry sir. Tell that to people outside of the US. "Libertarian means laisezz faire capitalism! Look, it was defined as so in the 1960s!" Perhaps read up on socialist history (this is not referring to a political party). There's plenty of material on the Internet if you don't want to buy books. http://www.infoshop.org/ The term Libertarian was used to refer to what are now called libertarian socialists before Ayn "Racist and Government Rat" Rand was even writing "philosophical" material and the US Libertarian party existed.
Oh please, where does this supreme logical analysis come from? Right wing think tanks? Helping the poor who are in that condition because of capitalism is what's ruining the world! Everything would be perfect otherwise!
Addressing 6...quality of life for whom? You, who I assume is middle, upper middle, or upper class? What about the lower class and homeless? Several million people just in the US. I guess they're that way because of welfare! Hey, if the government didn't help them, everyone else would because they'd feel sooo sorry for them! "It's unfortunate several million people are homeless in the US as a result of this capitalist system, I think I'll donate a large portion of my pay check to homeless charities to make up for this problem!"
What about the quality of life for third world labor working 60+ hours a week to make products for US corporations? I bet they're enjoying life! Hooray for US capitalism!
I would take someone's word who actually lived in the country (USSR) over someone who is telling me that the 15% "socialist" part of the US is what's causing all of the problems...and that somehow the stock market is logical and healthy.
I am no way supportive of the Soviet Union. I am glad it's gone. One less terror removed from the world, but we still have the US, Britiain and China (among others). And now all of the former communist citizens of the USSR will become cheap labor for US corporations as they return to the third world living they were in prior to communism! Hooray!
There are other choices besides totalitarian state communism and capitalism. Anarchism for example (http://www.infoshop.org/) or even democratic socialism if you feel you can trust the government enough as long as it was very democratic (I certainly don't, but that's just me).
Before you retort with your supreme knowledge of why Anarchism couldn't possibly work (as almost everyone on this website seems to do...and of course not realizing history proves them wrong) read through http://www.infoshop.org/
Your diety *answers*? Have you ever convinced anyone else of this? Are you certain you aren't hallucinating or dreaming it? Doesn't such proof "deny faith"?
And it's an urban legend that "fascists made the trains run on time." Instead they merely shot people who pointed out how ludicrously late the trains were, and some of their engineers while they were at it (which didn't improve matters).
There are more points I'd like to make, but I haven't time at the moment....
I suppose all this could be looked on as faith in Occam's razor (use the simplest explanation that works) and the scientific method, but I've seen it working and yet I'm ready to dispense with it as soon as I see another way of thinking that gives theories that better explain and predict my experiences.
If you have feelings or experiences that were most likely created by God (rather than your own mind), I'll agree that's as good as any other evidence, just not demonstrable or very convincing in a debate. Actions that lead directly to good results only show those actions are useful under these circumstances. Actions that merely happen to be followed by good results only show those actions don't prevent those results. Beliefs that the results were a reward for the actions, or that your motives somehow reached out and affected the world, are in themselves leaps of faith.
I use "delusion" in what I understand to be the common meaning, which I'll paraphrase as "a belief that is supposed to reflect reality but does not." Evidence isn't relevant - you're only deluded if you're wrong, even if there's no way you could have known you were right. "Ignorance" probably wasn't the right word; I view the heart of faith as an active disinterest in whether that faith is misplaced.
By "motive" I meant which religion to accept, since there are many mutually exclusive ones and I don't see any evidence commending any of them.
I don't see how. Every gender-specific disease I've heard of can be (asymptomatically!) carried by the other gender. Risk depends on previous exposures, how well adapted the body parts involved are, and how much force is being used, not on whether my partner's genitals match my own. Most lesbians are safer than even the least daring of heterosexuals. Some gay couples don't practice anal intercourse for safety or aesthetic reasons, and the ones who do (gay men are about, what, 5% of the population?) are outnumbered by heterosexuals who also do (in fact this has been a form of birth control since antiquity). And no matter how you wear your wedding ring, it doesn't qualify as safe sex.
I think 10% more new mouths to feed would be a big impact in many if not most regions unless you spread the additional childbearing out over several years with lots of warning to let the economy scale up to handle it.
80 billion is by far the largest estimate I've ever heard. I find myself wondering where the diminishing returns begin. Once you destroy the rest of the ecology and near the capacity of the earth, is there a point at which the species too busy feeding itself to accomplish anything?
That is certainly not my stance, and I apologize for giving the impression that it was. I privately poke fun at the especially poorly-thought-out aspects of just about every religion (I loved Dennis Leary's rant about hat size as a measure of Catholic authority, for example), but I tolerate believers fine and I'm a peaceable guy. I reserve my hatred and opposition for people who work to twist our society into imposing their unfounded beliefs on the rest of us regardless of the motive involved, not because they're religious (they often are but certainly not always) but because they can't coexist with a free society.
I don't think faith can be understood; either you share it, or it just resembles sloppy thinking or brainwashing.
Well, that's simple. The second generation of geeks came out of California, mostly Berkley. The first generation came out of Boston abd Tech Square, sure, but they never made any headlines... they didn't start personal computing and present to America "what it was to be a geek". If you feel you really need to research a stereotype that refers to you, you obviously believe that it does, especially if you feel offended if it applies to you or if you feel offended because its wrong. Whether you are dependent on such a stereotype to define you, or you just want to make sure "your" brand of geekdom is the one people think of, or whether you simply don't think of things like these, but you find the history of the computing life, I suggest checking out "Hackers: Heroes of the Digital Computer Revolution" by Stephen Levy. Its not the basis of the movie "Hackers", its about the real people that started this whole crazy idea of people using computers without an enormous beureaucracy stopping anyone, the ones that started in the 50s. Very good book, not some businessmans projection on to what things meant or will mean, but stories from the people who were there.
Hail Bob!
I think that the perception of geeks as mostly liberals is probably based to a high degree on fact. Before anyone who happens to be conservative and a geek starts flaming my tookis, let me explain *why* I think that's the case.
Beyond what "liberal" stands for now, and what "conservative" stands for now, there is "liberal" the principle and "conservative" the principle. "Liberal" the principle is "Don't keep clinging to something just because it worked yesterday. You have to keep re-examining whether something's working *today,* and you should still be looking for ways it can work better." "Conservative" the principle is "Let's not abandon that which has proven to work in the past, and certainly let's not go charging off in every direction everytime someone gets a new and unproven idea about what *should* work." (The fact that unproven ideas put into practice get proven or disproven is why the things "liberals" stand for in one generation are what "conservatives" stand for in the next.)
Now, if you subtract politics from that equation, it's quite easy to see that the liberal philosophy is far more aligned with the hacker ideal that many of us aspire to: the desire to improve, to find something new that works even better. Good geeks temper it with conservativism as well, so that mission-critical systems use what's tried and true rather than what's sexy and bleeding-edge. But I think even politically conservative geeks can agree that the "it's the way it is now, ERGO that's how it should stay" attitude is far more likely to be found in a PHB than in a geek.
I also know geeks who are absolute rednecks. Hoo-Yea!! That's me. You should see the cube dwellers scatter in fright as I yell "Hey y'all, watch this!" and hit keys to run my latest network crusher!! Forgive the anonymous post. There are reasons why.
128 == 2**7, if anything; ^ is bitwise xor. not trying to be geekier than thou, just geeky *as* thou, which is just as bad anyway . . . :)
In order to earn your respect you are asking us to deny what we know to be true and to ignore whatever path we took to obtain that knowledge. You might as well ask a doctor to deny the existence of red blood cells. Of course I can question the existence of God - that is what free will is all about. I can also question the existence of gravity or the inability of two solid objects to occupy the same space at the same time. I would be wrong, but I could do it. I believe in gravity because I've seen and felt it's effects on physical objects. I believe in God because I've felt His effects on me. Like gravity, God affects everyone's daily life. You can acknowledge one, both or niether. Both will continue with or without your acknowledgement or approval.
regarding our imperfection:
Would you prefer that he made us into mind-numbed robots with no free will?
Doing good would have no meaning if we didn't also have the option of doing evil. In the case of doing evil, God gave us a way out when he sent Jesus Christ to earth to live a perfect life and willingly take the punishment for our mistakes. Therefore, we can ask God for forgiveness, and he can grant it. If God created the world for his own gratification, why would he have let Jesus die for our sins instead of punishing us like we deserve, and then saying "see, I told you so."? I see no reason to question his motives.
regarding Christianity and science:
I don't see the Bible and science as contradictory when looked at in the proper way. The Bible describes an all-powerfull God who designed the universe and can reprogram its rules whenever he chooses. When an atheist comes along and says, "HA, the Bible can't be right - it says that a great flood of water covered the earth about 4 or 5 thousand years ago. Where could all that water have come from?! Where did it all go? You people are so unscientific and irrational! Science has disproven the validity of the Bible and the existence of God." we wonder what the big deal is. God doesn't have to live within the rules of the universe he created (I don't subscribe to the blind watchmaker theory in which God creates the Universe and then sits back and watches everything happen without changing anything), but we do. Therefore, science is worthwhile to study because of its practical applications, but not universally reliable for discovering absolute truths in all circumstances.
jim
cs.georgefox.edu/~jsnow
I don't know. just about all ther posters on Anandtech's 'General' forum, seem to be lining up, with there 44 magnums & their 'I hate poofters' T-shirts on, to be George Bush Jr's bum boys.
How about a Christian, centrist politically, Psychology/Biblical Studies BA who sings opera and loves 100+ mile backpacking trips when not working as a Lan Administrator? I am rather antisocial, however :) A geek, IMHO, is one who is always willing to learn new things, at least in the tech fields! later
Ooooh... This is one of the most misunderstood things about Christianity today, I think. So many people think that "faith" means "believing something to be true, despite total lack of evidence, and to fly in the face of all logic and reason." This is an incorrect, though commonly held, definition of the term.
Faith is really not about believing something despite a lack of evidence. If you must relate faith to belief, a somewhat more accurate way of putting it would be: believing something despite a lack of proof, because somebody you trust told you it was true. This is closer, but still doesn't really quite capture the essence of faith.
A close synonym to "faith" would be simply "trust." Faith is placing trust in somebody/something that you have reason to believe is trustworthy. Every time you take a walk, you are putting faith in the ground to hold you up, and in gravity to keep you down. Notice how faith is exhibited through action. It's the action of setting foot on the ground that demonstrates your faith in the ground. It's the same thing with God. Faith in God is simply trusting Him to follow through on His promises and acting upon that trust. Belief in his existence is really another matter entirely.
-Joel Nordell
If he is then he's a tad bit hypocrital then don't you think?
True that the stereotype is not alwyas correct. The media probably does have a lot to do with it. Either way, I no longer fit the stereotype (I did in HS), and if someone called me "geek" or "nerd" today, I'd waste a 2-hour lunch vrying all the way to the bank.
Science does tend to be an influence on anyone who works with programming (there's a reason they call it computer-science). It influences me in that I can be a Christian without being a literalist about the book of Genesis.
The stereotype in the media is changing. There's a lot less negativity. Movie like "Hackers" (despite its inaccuracies) and "The Net" reflect that in the 90's, it's the ones with the computer skills who have the power.
--WH
Seattle, WA
I've heard that the myth of a great flood is present in many cultures worldwide. (No, I don't have any examples, this is one of my memory's many dregs). It seems that it's a common subconsious theme, owing to the fact that we remember our time swimming around in the woumb, and subsequent release. Well, that's how I remember it being explained, at any rate.
Anyone else heard of this?
Republicans "technology-friendly"? That's funny. Republicans only want to screw the little guy. If that's "technology-friendly" then so be it. Bunch of domain squatting, big business losers.
I think that you need to realize that stereotypes don't apply to people as much as you wished. I hang out with people at my job that are getting degrees at MIT and Stanford (in EE, CS, or both), and I have yet to meet one that meets the stereotype. There are some elements of the 'geek' persona which they hold to, but there are no generalizations about them that i can make truthfully, it really varies between people. It would be nice if we could classify people into 'geek' or 'jock' or 'nerd' or 'goth', but unfortunately people aren't manufactured like computer parts are. Please, don't try to make a stereotype correct, get RID of the stereotype. I am not saying that I am perfect, either. Upon first glance I, too, make assumptions just as easily as a lot of people do. I think that we need to not focus on how correct the 'geek' stereotype is, for the problem lies in our attempts to classify people into molds which they do not fit. People will really differ depending on the environment in which they were raised. You can't say that I am a 'geek' because I like and work with computers and am intelligent. Geeks don't play guitar or go mountain biking, and geeks most certainly aren't social or go offroading, or run track. I guess I'm going to have to work on fiting into the 'geek' stereotype better, so that out lame classifications can work out well. Something funny I have noticed: When I tell people about only a portion of my activities, they immediately will assume something. I tell my barber I run track and mountain bike (he likes sports), so he thinks I'm a 'jock'. I work at a software company, so everyone there automatically makes the assumption i'm a 'geek'. People I know well don't know what to make of me. Think, people, Think! "A problem cannot be solved with the same kind of thinking which created it." - Albert Einstein
Your use of this term only highlights your ignorance on the subject. Reagan and Bush were completely different presidents... primarily Bush's economic policies simply weren't sound, which led to recession. I invite you to take a closer look at 1981-1989 and see how both the poor and the rich benefitted from Reagan's policies. As for the stereotypical geek... well, I think it's obvious MANY of us don't fit so nicely in that round hole. :)
"Liberal" and "conservative" are both historical, not political, terms. Liberals want to change whatever currently exists, and conservatives want to keep it. The meaning of the terms change over time. Last century, western "liberals" wanted laissez-faire capitalism and maximum personal liberty. Conservatives wanted monarchy and social stratification. Today liberals want government control of everything (for our own good, ha ha) and conservatives want what they think is capitalism as we had in the past, but is really a half-hearted type of fascism with some remnants of capitalism in it. The "Liberals" in Russia want freedom and capitalism, and the "conservatives" want a return to totalitarian socialism. The conservatives are always the liberals of the past, confused a little -- they tend to want to return to "the good old days" -- some point in the past 20-50 years when things were "better." Neither one is an ideology, a philosophy or anything else rational or stable. They're both reactionary. The labels are meaningless, and stupid. They're used by the media and politicians to obscure real political issues. The Libertarians chose their name to reflect what they are -- the party of *Liberty*, not of 'liberalism' or 'conservatism' or 'reform'. "Republicans" aren't for a republic, "democrats" aren't in favor of democracy. And the "reform party"? That name is as meaningless as 'liberal' -- they want things to change, but how? to what? A GEEK typically tends to think him or herself is the most -- and often only -- person qualified to run their life. This often means they are basically libertarian types, but doesn't preclude a geek being a Jesus Crispie or anything else. The idea is that people get to decide for themselves what to do with their lives, rather than be pushed around by other people. Geeks who have decided to be followers of Jesus have made a personal decision and are sticking by it. Geeks who think religion is a crock have made a similar decision. Geeks who think they know better how other people should live -- like the poster who thinks people "should be taxed to their eyeballs" and that the government needs to "fix society" are really just busibodies who like technology.
There seems to be some confusion over this Church-Turing Thesis issue, perhaps this will help... Given the Predicate Calculus (logic), and the ZF Set theory axioms (w or w/o the axiom of choice), it is possible to prove both the internal consistency of the formalism (i.e. that no proposition can be simultaneaously true and false) and Godels completeness theorem, irrefutably. (i.e. as irrefutable as you take the predicate calculus + Set axioms to be, but they are the basis of most modern mathematics!). There is no problem accepting provable theorems as true per say so there should be no problem accepting Godel's theorem. The Church-Turing thesis is a Turing Machine (Halting problem) statement of Godel's theorem, and one can be derived from the other (it's a bit non-trivial!). So the CTT is as irrefutable as anything ever is in mathematics. Just because we find a theorem/halting problem that we know to be true by GT/CTT doesn't mean it can't be solved by a newer consistent formalism with EXTRA axioms/instructions, in fact that are standard ways of constructing such systems, the argument gets REALLY GROOVY when you start considering what happens if you try to formalise this procedure recursively..... You basically end up back at your starting position a level of ordinality further out! (and so on ad infinitum...) I believe this has BIG consequences for physiscs philosophy and the way we understand the universe and/or God if you are so inclined, but it starts to get pretty MINDFUCK.... See Roger Penrose's Emporer's new mind for a good non-technical introduction. Hope this helps - Liam (if you didn't guess I'm a mathematician :-)
I'm a geek and I'm white, and I'm proud. I sincerely look forward to the day when I can participate in RAHOWA and help (in my own geeky way) our side win the racial holy war.
If I have to dress up, it's because my circumstances are so tenuous I need to do expensive pointless things to impress very shallow people; it's humiliating. Casual clothes and long hair show that I can get away with them, that I'm valued for more important things.
I am a thinker. A college drop out. I am trained in physics. People would probably classify as a liberal, but I'd like to refer to demopublican. Voting only to give tax cuts to corporations. I am geek. Oh yeah and I work at microsoft and hate myself.
Only so long as getting value from the community's work is difficult, which it still is (to some extent) but has never intentionally been.
geek, nerd, redneck, etc. I am probably one of the "odd ducks" out there, because I like scifi, action/adveture, gore, mystery. I love games like wolf3d, doom, quake, etc. I have been into electronics since I was a kid! I have been using Linux for a few years now and before that I was into other UNIX-like systems. I like to code and I also like to just play (games). I know/use(d) many different platforms: Alpha, SPARC, PowerPC, and of course the awful x86 crap. I like to build my own systems (as any other geek does). I like guns - and no I have not shot or killed anyone - yet :-D
My point is, is we come in all shapes/sizes.
Ohh, and on top of all this, I am a Christian!!!
Eric Raymond has a violent hatred of Communism. Feel free to ask him by e-mail if you need this confirmed.
Not all geeks life in California or the U.S. chap.
Personally i spend most of my time on a computer; i have been using a computer since i was 6 and in that time, the main thing was dos and windows 3.1; i can and am called a geek but for some reason, i do not understand, is that a computer geek is a short, fat, ugly, and unhygenic male who is hornier than monkyes in their mating season. The "typical" geek also does not believe in god as so stated in the article. I believe in God and I'm a geek. This damn world needs to stop making such stereotypes about computer geeks, etc.
I AM ROOT.
I DEMAND A SACRIFICE.
Hollywood believes there are 3 types of geeks: 1. The angel. He's a goody-two-shoes who refuses to cheat, lie, drink, or do anything sly. He's easy to take advantage of. 2. The demon. He's a Jeckyll/Hyde mad scientist. 3. The dope. He's a social misfit, an out-of-touch wimp. The reality is that geeks come in all shapes, sizes, colors, and sexes. They come from all religions, races, and nationalities. Just like "regular people." But that's not a useful fact to Hollywood, who prefers stereotypical everything: jocks, bimbos, nerds, etc. etc. Visit http://www.os2hq.com/ for more "Warped Perspectives."
as long as it isn't government totalitarianism! Governments are made of people too..and totalitarian governments are evil! But corporations....no way, they're okay! Democracy? Who needs it! We don't even need a republic system. Corporations are splendid! They're JUST a group of people!
What is a geek? A computer nerd. Rednecks who sling code are just rednecks slinging code. A geek is us - with our fully manufactured environments, cubicules full of toys, star trek fetishes, et al. I look around my IS department and i see a whole lot of people, but only a few geeks...
That philosophy about EXACTLY matches mine of "I don't think. I know."
Jeremy
Epipo- make money while surfing
Folks, please think twice about moving to the Silicon Valley. I came here expecting it to be cosmopolitan and fun, but instead it's been provincial and boring. If you crave the cosmopolitan, go somewhere else. I don't have the experience to tell you where; maybe you should try Europe or Japan or the East Coast. If you want a liberal atmosphere, try New England (or, better yet, stick to Europe).
Wow, that was a nice spleen-venting. I hope someone out there will benefit from reading my complaints. If nothing else, at least think twice about coming here, and do a lot of research first. Happily for me, I'm getting out of here in a matter of months. I won't miss it.
Anonymous Code Drone
Disclaimer: Things seem to be different in San Francisco, at least on the "sense of community" score, but it costs a serious bundle to live there. I can't speak about anything south of the Valley, either.
The original anarchists often referred to themselves as (and were called) libertarians. Later, the term Anarchism/Anarchists pretty much replaced the usuage of libertarians. However it is still very often used by people to refer to their beliefs or others...usually synonymous with Anarchism.
In the US however, a laisezz faire political party was formed and used the term for themselves. Now you'll often find poorly informed, self-described US libertarians declaring their usuage of the term is the only correct way. They own it! What they say it means, it means!
So, now people have to say left-libertarian (usually referring to libertarian socialists aka anarchists) and right-libertarian (laisezz faire capitalists) when using the terms.
And adding my opinion here...I find it extremely ridiculous right-libertarians complain about big governments, totalitarian governments, yet they support these hierachal extremely totalitarian, non democratic institutions referred to as corporations.
If you argue corporations are just a group of people, so are gangs, mobs, totalitarian communist governments, armies, and any government, any hierachal institution.
I try not to go with authors names when discussing theories. Anyway, are we comparing state socialism with libertarian socialism (anarchism)? I definitely see Linux as a model of libertarian socialist interaction. Sort of a mini model of such a system. The only way I can see support for the belief it is state socialist is who develops the kernal...which is actually just a piece of the overall structure. Working on the kernal doesn't mean they have to review and approve every line of code written for Linux as a whole, and manage who develops what software and so on.
I try not to go with authors names when discussing theories.
Anyway, are we comparing state socialism with libertarian socialism (anarchism)? I definitely see Linux as a model of libertarian socialist interaction. Sort of a mini model of such a system.
The only way I can see support for the belief it is state socialist is who develops the kernal...which is actually just a piece of the overall structure. Working on the kernal doesn't mean they have to review and approve every line of code written for Linux as a whole, and manage who develops what software and so on.
I was the only person in my entire hick town who knew RAM from ROM Did you know then that ROM is really also RAM?
Maybe 'geekitude' has more to do with being obsessive about something? And perhaps these traits arise from the kind of thinking that is required to be obsessive about computers?
I think you just hit the nail on the head. One of the true geek characteristics in my mind is obsessiveness. Who of us have not run into a problem with our 'puter and not obsessed over it until the problem was figured out?
It's almost as bad as a bunch of Libertarians talking like they'd have a clue what to do if they gained power. Anarchists Unite! heh
I've never actually met a liberal geek... I've seen a few post here, but it seems to be rare for someone to be a geek, yet not be intelligent enough to see through what passes as liberal politics... My guess is that that's why the Republicans have set themselves up as the "technology-friendly" party most of the time.
i believe in god
i hate meeting new people, in fact i dont leave my house because i hate people.
i am not open minded because i dont give a shit what people think, if i want to do something, screw everyone else!
so maybe im not a geek, im just a bitchin' nerd!
So you prefer to help a few individuals even though it works against the greatest good for the greatest number of people? That's ridiculous. And learn to spell.
maybe you didn't know this, but the government had a fire department, fine roads for the time (which could certainly be kept up, even better by private organizations, who do other methods of transportation), and fought off the best military in the world, without any problem, all this, with no income tax for the first century of its existence. the income tax is reserved for things like echelon, the wod, and various other programs that don't work and/or infringe our rights and privacy
-DAVEO
well daveo would just lik eto say, (not disagreeiong with you) that he is anti-guns and will never own one, and does not like large corportations like nsi, but realizes that they should have a right to do as they wish, and if daveo does not like them, he will not deal with them, instead of trying to confrom them to what and only what he sees fit, as do many other political parties
-DAVEO
daveo is not a liberal, he is a libertarian and believes people should be to do what it is taht tthaey want, but does not believe in a god.
-DAVEO
hmm an interesting attitude. daveo just means he wishes people would share, meaning they would possibly divide equally land at first, and trade things that they would have without having arguments or theft of things or who owns what, and this is what communism and some forms of anarchism are about. unfortunately, this is so extremely far from the way humans think and act, and as long as there is ever any desire for the self it can never happen (daveo is sorry if he is wrong about communism, he is not very familiar with it, and has started reading some more lately)
-DAVEO
the libertaraians are not right, nor are they left. right wants encomnic freedom and infringes many personal rights, left want (supposedly) nmore personal freedom but less economic. the libertarians will favor *both*. they do not tend to either of the sides
-DAVEO
well, as daveo cannot speak for others, only for himself, he will try to explain his believes. he is a scientific person and as some one says, he does what hje sees fit, meaning he will believe what things lead him to believe, and he has been led to believe from what he has learned and read on both sides that he does not exist
-DAVEO
it is too bad that we cannot work things out and share together so property would not be needed, but the slightest amount of want or greed in the hearts of men would be to preclude that.
-DAVEO
daveo does not see how a libertarian could force to tell people what thjey "own" and do not own, private ownership and leaving all affairs up to the people , and keeping the government out of all of these type of affairs is the difinition of a liberarian. what you are speaking of sounds just as a socialist government to me and libertarian in no way, since that would keep most control over the people, the opposite of that group's position. is this not correct?
-DAVEO
now a coportation is composed of individuals, and by telling a corporation what to do, you thereby tell the real _people_ that are running it how they can and can not operate with other people. do you disagree?
-DAVEO
wow, these fit daveo exactly!! amazing how true it is, all of them. anyway, daveo was like this ever since he heard his parents talking about politics when he was a small child, and he disagreed with them at heart (before he ever heard of the lp or got his computer when he was 14), so maybe it is just a result of the personality, more closely that curiousity and desire to work with things, to know how they work, to manipulate these amazing pieces of machinery to do what we tell the, and the great challenge, and above all, the logic that goes into thinking about how we must do it, it's just so much fun ! :0)
-DAVEO
Some of you have heard this, but If you haven't, I believe that some of the stereotype of "geeks" is derived from the way others observe our temperament. Temperament is the "nature" side of yourself, the part you can't change.
I think a lot of programmers have what David Keirsey (a psychologist) calls the Rational temperament. In particular, the Inventor ENTP and Architect INTP temperaments. see www.keirsey.com for the whole site.
The basic idea is that everyone has a natural gift, though they come with different frequencies, and they are related to the life choices we make, so a lot of people with the gift of understanding complex abstract technical systesm are attracted to being programmers.
There's a tradeoff though. In order to have a strong imagination, you can't be too content with finding and adapting yourself to norms and standards. And if you're really analytical, you'll make decisions based on what you think is right, rather than what other people feel, because to you, the"truth" that is obvious to you is more important than making someone feel good.
Well, the problem is that being social is about accepting norms and paying attention to what other people feel. Being social is related to accepting norms because for a group to do something and stay cohesive, some people always have to drop their own independent desires.
A "geek" is told to go to a movie with everybody, and he says, "I've already seen it." It's true and logically, there's no point in going to the movie twice if you don't expect to derive enjoyment from a second showing.
A "normal" is told to go to a movie with everybody, and he thinks, "oh, yeah, it'll be a group thing", and goes. He may have planned to do something else, but unless it's something really important, he'll go. he might forgo the movie if he has a socially acceptable task like a church meeting.
As far as politics goes, someone with these temperaments (myself included) is going to try to think about things in terms of what the correct thing to do is. There's a problem-solving orientation. In addition, that independent thought factor is going to make the "geek" to be not too inclined to set up systems of control, eliminating a lot of desire to be conservative. Conservatism is oriented towards protecting something, and often to protect something, you have to enforce control. (passwords, access priveledges in the computer world, laws and tracking systems in the real world.)
Finally, I'll get to the issues about religion. The way I see it, most "geeks" are going to do their best one way or another. If he decides to be an atheist, he'll try to disprove God as best he can from a rational standpoint. If an agnostic, he'll focus on the fact that it can't be proven, and maybe be passive when asked to seek more. His situation is more interesting, I think, when he does believe. I myself am a Christian, and the thing I find is that I see myself focusing what I think are the "real" issues when I think about faith. I.E, how do I know I'm "loving" someone if there's no feedback in it for me? (Sometimes people think I'm being that way, but I may not feel that way internally, because I'm unsure of it due to the lack of a measuring mechanism). I'll also get frustrated with the social aspects of church but not because I'm anti-social. Actually, I like having friends. But church gatherings are often situations where little happens as far as individual activity, and since a geek doesn't naturally identify with large organizations, he finds himself alone in a group of strangers. Even if he's an extrovert.
If you're a Christian geek (I should follow this advice myself), I think what helps is activity with a small group of intense people. That's our social style, and most of the world just hasn't figured that out yet.
So I hope this stands to explain a lot of the stereotypes and situations we deal with. I've been thinking about these issues for about a year, so this is really only the short version of what I have to say.
Shoot, I never heard the religious or political stuff about geek either.
Personally, I'm Wiccan, but my religion doesn't interfere with or drivethe way I interact with my interest(s) in computers and technolog(y|ies).
Personally, I'm a Republican, and the only way this relates to my 'geekiness' is in how the candidates stand in relation to my pet (peeves|projects).
Mark Edwards
You might be a redneck pagan if your sacramental chalice says 'Budweiser', your sacramental dagger says 'Buck', and your High Priest's name is Billy Joe Bob
You say that as if being on the football team or a cheerleader is a good thing? You have to wonder at someone's priorities when their idea of success is nearly getting the carp beat out of them on the football field, drinking lots of beer, and getting laid. (Well, ok, I do kinda envy the getting laid part of it.) I mean, sure, these things are fun diversions, but they don't mean squat in the real world (TM). I'd be interested to see a study comparing overall income/quality of life versus attachment to the "jock" crowd. Also, I do realise that I am making some massive generalisations here, and there are a few jocks/cheerleaders that I respect.
Cheerleaders overall (in my experience) don't hover quite as far down the evolutionary ladder as jocks, but you still must recognize tht these girls aren't being recruited for their minds, as much as their bodies. To say that this doesn't affect where they take their lives is more than a little naive. On the positive side, even over the past four years I have been in high school, I have seen more cheerleaders excelling on their own, and shifting from the stereotypes placed on them. Perhaps this is a new awakening, or maybe just rebellion. Regardless of the cause, the effect is definitely a Good Thing TM.
I guess what I'm trying to say here is that, while the jock/cheerleader demographic seems to enjoy more superficial success at an early age, they are being channeled further away from developing their selves, and towards pursuing the "social ideals" imposed upon them by the media.
I don't feel any contempt for these people, although I do pity them. I won't lie, I do look down upon them. I believe that I am creating something greater out of myself, by expanding my mind and my identity. So what's so great about being a meathead?
Of course, this is very much my opinion. If this bothers you, drop on by here.
Adam Schumacher
cybershoe@mindless.com
Dude, did you set up your account just so you could make that post?
Adam Schumacher
cybershoe@mindless.com
Uh, isn't the CTT an unprovable statement? Or even more precisely, how could one possibly formalize it in order to prove it? I mean, you would have to show that each and every one of the infinitely (indenumerably?) many possible computational methods that meet the relevant criteria (i.e., computing functions using only a finite number of definite steps, each involving only a finite amount of work) turns out to compute the same class of functions?
You could refute the CTT, though, if you found just one counterexample :-)
---
Yes, it's about time! We need to unite! If there are any other Jesus Freak Geeks out there, please E-mail me (remove the obvious from my address). I'm brainstorming about something you may find interesting...
Thanks,
Micah
I'm with you on two of the three!
:-)
I am fiscally right wing. If I was made dictator of America, I'd ruthlessly hack the budget of EVERYTHING! Lower taxes to about 5%.
Everyone would be fuming mad at me until they realized they had a lot more money in their pockets.
I was going to make some pithy comment, but you took all the fun out of it with that statement. You have summed up all religion in one statement: claiming you "know" something a-priori is not thinking.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
For your sin of assuming "hacker" always implies "cracker", your pennance is to write "hacker != cracker" on the chalkboard 500 times. (No fair writing a program to do it either.)
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
OSS is hardly communism... Some of us in here need to start acting on that "willing to try new things" B.S. and take a government class.
If OSS was communism our software would be provided by one source, and the software that we used would chosen by another. Hardly "Open" by any sense of the word.
The better definition is an anarchial one, or socialistic-libertarian. (note: for the unwashed, socialism still is not communism and never will be, so drop it). The users and authors of the software make their own choices, while being represented and guided (but not CONTROLLED) by leaders approved through popularity..
Please, please, get it right before you ASS-U-ME like that.
-Erik-
I think you're mixed up.... Generally the loonies out there are of some religious sect, and while I'm not accusing Christianity of endorsing this by any means of the word...
They are the largest group. People don't tend to need to defend their right to lack religion in this country....
Can anyone say "David Koresh" with me?
-Erik-
One good philosophy class will turn you in to an athiest because you realize that no one can have the right answer.
What made you think there's only one, or even finitely few, right answers?
I bet there's a logical reason where the typical liberal/atheist/open minded stereotype got started. It probably has something to do with the ultra-intelligent folks at MIT and Caltech in the late 60's/early 70's.
:-) )
Liberal: things need fixing, you don't trust the government to fix them, and you know better than to think they'd get better with no government.
Atheist: has found that the local branch of the church he was raised in doesn't meet his spiritual needs, if he thinks he has any, and either hasn't met the right priest/church/religion or can't manage enough suspension of disbelief to get at what he really feels and implement said right religion. Persuit of "logic" and being raised male (if you are) both lead you to underdevelop the "feeling" side, making such matters that much worse.
Open minded: when you're wrong, you'd rather learn from it and be wrong again; a few times around that block, and it turns into a habit...
Religion limits what you can do; it does so for good reasons, but they're limits nonetheless, and I should be able to decide what is right and what is wrong.
I would substitute "organized religion" for "religion" in most or all of what you say. I might even substitute "authority-based religion". It's not the geek accepting the limits of what's right that's the problem, but accepting somebody else's enumeration of what's right and what isn't when that enumeration conflicts with what the geek feels or finds bloody obvious.
From that standpoint, limiting yourself (as best you can) to what you yourself feel is right is much like not writing ugly code or not resorting to nasty kluges without good cause. When you have to, you do something "wrong". But those limits come from, or echo what comes from (if you find a religion/church/priest that fits you) within you. Your sense of right and wrong is no more optional than sexuality (whatever yours is) or bipedalism in meatspace.
I wouldn't knock religion. Some of us like the one we were raised in and find it rewarding; others have to find the right religion, or work out what "right religion" for ourselves then find compatible religious traditions. Some of us don't like what we've had, but don't need religion enough to find another, or don't want to.
For some of us, religion is good; others are plaged with incompatibilities, implementation problems, and even buggy platforms.
(Followups comparing Microsoft to the previous-millenium Roman Catholic Church, and Windows to Christianity, should not appear here but should be posted to a newsgroup I don't read.
People need to be aware that at the point you are taking things on faith, you are getting lazy.
Faith so blind as to constitute laziness is not faith in my book, just unchecked assumptions. If you really have faith in something, you know it's right, you can feel that there's a reason behind it. It needn't be rational, it needn't be something you can articulate or verbalize ("The Tao that can be spoken of is not the true Tao" and so on). But it feels right, so much so that you behave as if it is right, because your heart and your instincts and your feelings all confirm it.
I just extrapolated what I felt (and wasn't able to feel) when I was younger. What I guessed as to why many geeks are atheists was that they just didn't feel the drive or have the opportunity to find something new to believe in; it took me years as it was.
:-) I personally like Wicca better than Lutheranism for its performance, reliability, and open source traits, but then again I don't have as bad a time with Windows as most /.ers because I don't futz with nasty drivers and don't develop for it.)
The last half is just an elaboration on "geeks don't like being told how to do things" in the context of religion.
Alas for you, I'm male and don't think of myself as single anymore. If you want to find more people like me, just look for Pagans, somewhere other than usenet. I think Wicca's combination of do-it-yourself attitude, powerful ritual technology, and good documentation makes it a good fit for the "typical" geek who doesn't require monotheism or Yahweh in his religion, and even non-geek witches tend to be interesting people.
(As for your beautiful draft, stick it on a web page.
If your religion includes idols, does that mean it's object oriented?
Thing is, it's not just geeks, and no one ever knows where it starts. Do you really think French people (yes, that's my white half :P) idolize Jerry Lewis? Go to France and ask kids who he is, most won't have a clue as to who he is. Adults who know his comedy think he's funny, but not to the point where they think of him as a comical genius. (I personally like Chris Rock and Eddie Murphy when he used to do stand up, but that's besides the point). Do you really think that all Ethiopians are skinny as a stick? You obviously haven't been there (I lived there nine years).
My point is, why should we take offense to this? We know that hardly any of us fit the exact description. It's statistically impossible. There are too many "geeks" (I don't really like that word) for them to all look alike, think alike, vote alike. Hell, do we all crap at the same time of the day too?
Stereotypes are nothing more than amusement to the educated and an innacurate picture to the ignorant. Hell, I've had more than one religious person actually tell me that they're surprised I have ethics! Some (notice the careful wording there :) seem to assume that because you don't have a faith means you're an evil anarchist. I like to help people out, I like doing favors, yet I think like Dana Scully- in terms of science, mathematics and facts.
So maybe I do fit the description a bit. I'm atheist and liberal. Is that really so wrong?
By the way, my other half is Algerian. That makes me an Arab. No, I am not a terrorist.
This is also a stereotype, but one I find to be true with depressing frequency.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
First I'd like to correct the stereotype if I may :) The stereotype that I've seen is that 'geeks' are arrogant and obnoxious libertarian neo-Social-Darwinists interested primarily in making money. From my own observation I'd say that a significant number of so-called 'geek's fit fairly well into this category. That said --
"They are liberal...they do not believe in God..." This is one of the more common examples of precisely what you are complaining about! I know a large number of extremely religious liberals; to assume that one must be conservative to be religious (or vice versa) is a pretty good example of either your own prejudices or the inadequacy of convenient categories to properly capture the range of possible human beliefs. I prefer the second option. (and I may have done a little of this myself in this very post -- it's a human trait to try to categorize the uncategorizable. That doesn't mean that it's any more accurate, but it always happens.)
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
Well, I pretty much fit the stereotype. A Libertarian wardrobe-challenged Zen Rastafarian Star Trek-watching guy. Possibly better looking of course. :-)
The revolution will NOT be televised.
I believe I am a liberal geek. I am open minded to
many things. But I do not vote and I hate the government. is this contradictary? maybe its just that most of us are young and confused. Like me.
Can you see Iron City here?
I was the guy the computer instructor always came to for help and had to kick out of the high school computer lab at night. I was also the only one our math teacher knew who got a perfect score on the math section of the ACT exam. I also was a first string lineman on our football team since I was a sophmore (the line coach joked that another tackle and I were the few that he never had to worry about qualifying because of grades). The latter certainly didn't help me out socially. I was in the geek section since kindergarten (I told the teacher I wanted to be a palentologist...she had to look it up =)
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
That test is actually being updated, and in place of "authoritarian" will be the much nicer sounding "communitarian."
I'm afraid poster #1 is correct. (Most of) the american underclass has a middle-class lifestyle because the rest of the planet constitutes the *real* american underclass. Your happy meal toys are made by girls/women in Vietnam for a whopping $.06 an hour. That won't even buy them their lunch for the day. Your $120.00 Nike shoes also are all made offshore, mostly in Indonesia with a $5.00 total production cost. The same shoe would cost quadruple to make in the US. More if the workers were paid fairly. How do you afford your middle-class lifestyle?
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
I have low self esteem. I consider y'all to be my family! Really!
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
As to the flood, the Chinese have had a single contiguous history that covers the time the flood would have taken place. They strangely don't seem to mention it.
What I would like to see is evidence that some other civilization besides that of the Hebrews noticed when Joshua stopped the sun in the sky for an entire day.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
"It is by will alone I set my God in motion" -- Mentat SqueezeTruck
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
Another notation for exponentiation one sees more frequently uses the caret (^, ASCII 1011110); one might write instead 2^8 = 256. This goes all the way back to Algol-60, which used the archaic ASCII `up-arrow' that later became the caret; this was picked up by Kemeny and Kurtz's original BASIC, which in turn influenced the design of the bc(1) and dc(1) Unix tools, which have probably done most to reinforce the convention on Usenet. (TeX math mode also uses ^ for exponention.) The notation is mildly confusing to C programmers, because ^ means bitwise exclusive-or in C. Despite this, it was favored 3:1 over ** in a late-1990 snapshot of Usenet. It is used consistently in this lexicon.
there are two kinds of people in this world - those who divide people into two groups and those who don't
I think I was realizing this (re: geeks) in that last paragraph, because I have known a couple of people that absolutely would qualify... but they were into religion, not computers. And I was wondering if computers help to cause the other traits. Religion geeks are definitely obsessive but their other traits are very different. I don't know many of them so I can't generalize them well -- to me they are an alien species. :)
/. about geeks and nerds being ONLY computer-based is a good one. It seems like the prejudice level is very high in some; consider the reactions to Jon Katz, who did more to point out the fact that geeks *existed* and to legitimize them in mainstream society than probably any other single person.
:-)
I think your observation about the prejudice on
He left Wired when it went corporate... and hasn't received the warmest of welcomes here. He definitely qualifies as a geek, but it seems a lot of people here don't agree with that. It's kind of ironic, because in a way he's the one who redefined the term to be a positive one.
ANYWAY, yes, it seems like the obsessiveness with mastery of something is a primary geek trait, which is why I make the comment about insecurity, and stand behind it. In my experience, 99% of the people with big egos have them mostly because of insecurity, as a sort of self-treatment to avoid the pain of feeling inadequate.
In fact, I think a lot of the drive toward mastery of things comes from that basic place... feeling inadequate and driven to be more than you are. Being insecure isn't bad -- it just is. A lot of change in the world comes from it.
If we were all perfectly secure, we would probably still be in caves hunting wildebeest.
That said, Linus Torvalds strikes me as one of the most secure people I have ever seen, and yet at the moment he's sort of the ubergeek.
In other words, if you really don't think insecure applies to you, maybe it doesn't.
>The so called sedimentary levels that were formed over time are bogus. They're different depending upon where in the world you look. (they're in different orders).
Tell that to Exxon.
Another vote for "what are you smoking". Before the theory of evolution was even developed, oil companies discovered that the sedimentary levels, and the fossils they carried were always in the *same* order, and could use it to determine where to find oil. Finding oil during the last two centuries has been almost exclusively based on this one observation. It was the search for oil that led to the understanding of the fossil record and the development of evolutionary theory.
Apparently the gas you put in your car is an evolutionist myth. Better run your car on wood.
The only places where the sedimentary levels vary are where they are turned on end, flipped over, etc., by continental movement, and the relative positioning is maintained (i.e. the record is the same read upside down, once you figure out what orientation it's in).
The media's view of What is a geek? is in part due to the variety of geeks.
The one common property of geeks/nerds that I can identify is intelligence, an ability to conceptualize. In my limited experience, I've found that as intelligence increases the variety of people increases.
I'd guess that most geeks/nerds probably fit the category of "gifted", including (or perhaps especially) /.ers. I'll extrapolate that one step further. I'd guess that most geeks/nerds probably identify themselves as people first, and geeks/nerds second, along with other numerous secondary categories.
But even the above generalization is merely my view. I see the world through my eyes, and generalize through my experience. "The Media" does the same.
The "reporter/entertainer" with the attention span and intelligence of a gerbil might see geeks as computer crackers, though he uses the term hacker. When he reports on same, he gets lots of attention. It's sensational, and it sells.
The "reporter/entertainer" with an active cerebrum may understand the breadth of geekdom. Yet when she reports on same, she gets, "Huh?!" Just try to describe the average /.er in a sound byte or less.
(New oxymoron: average /.er)
The Media is for them, certainly not for me. They don't write to me. They don't understand me. They're irrelevant.
Graham
Graham
Linux - Fast Pane Relief
a) The vast majority of journalists are liberal.
b) Geeks are becoming "in".
c) Therefore, geeks must be liberal.
The recurring theme seems to be resistence to controls. For me, liberals have been screwing up my life since childhood, therefore I associate liberals with control. Attend your government assigned school, hand over half your labor in taxes, don't say anything we object to or you're a n -ist (racist/sexist/...), etc.
Republicans are much more geek-friendly. Steve Forbes is a geek. How are we supposed to buy the technotoys we need to survive if the left enslaves us with taxes?
---
There would have had to have been a large body of water covering the entire surface of the earth, that rose very quickly.
---
And this is where that 'flood theory' falls flat. Where did the water come from? To cover the entire earth would require an enormous amount of water (enough to fill the oceans, plus several hundred feet more). Where did it come from? 'God'? Where did it go?
The flood theory is just a myth that originated from the middle east, where large floods are common and present a great deal of source material for religious wackery. To someone sitting next to the Nile during flood season, it would appear that the 'whole world' was under water.
The bible may be many things - it may be the basis of many faiths, but by no means whatsoever is it even vaguely scientific. At best, you have so called 'Creation Scientists' whose entire basis of thought it to meld real science in such ways that help them explain their favored myth. If something came up that contradicts their belief (like, say, 95% of scientific findings), it'll never get published in their journals.
- Darchmare
- Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
- Jeff
---
Even though the theory of evolution is laid out in nearly every scientific textbook you'll come across, it, like Creationism, takes some degree of faith to accept.
---
Certainly - but there is a difference between science and religion, and a very important distinction to be made between 'faith' and 'blind faith'.
As a very atheistic agnostic, can I say that evolution COULD BE untrue? Certainly. Is there possibility that everything I've been told is BS? Sure. I can live my life by having a few ground rules (ie. gravity) that I believe in, but can accept that I may be fooling myself. Science in general works in this manner, as by its very nature - that of the Scientific Method - everything is and should be questioned. Without a few ground rules, nothing would ever get done. On the other hand, even those 'laws' can (and occasionally are) revised to better meet apparent reality. That's the best we, as fallable humans, can do. That's what makes us 'geeks'. EVERYTHING can be questioned, even those things that we feel are right.
Religion on the other hand has 1 single unshakeable premise that CAN NOT, WILL NOT be revoked (lest you be a heathen): the existance of god. In many/most religions, there are a number of other premises that are considered absolute - that cannot be disproved unless you 'unbecome' a part of that religion. With differing religions, you are EXPECTED to believe in those things with undeniable faith - questioning them to any degree is considered blasphemy, or at least a cause of concern. With some, this includes the creation myth. With others, it may be the trinity. Either way, there are questions you aren't supposed to ask.
If you consider yourself a geek, this should be strange and inefficient to you. Your mind, which questions everything, should immediately scream out "Why shouldn't I question this?". Someone saying that something is the absolute truth should provoke you to get to the heart of the matter. Religion is like an infinite loop where predefined constants ruin the flow of a routine to a geek - while this may seem fine to the average person, to me it seems like bad coding practice.
So, if you can sincerely state "there might not be a god, it's possible" without feeling the slightest twinge of guilt, then you are a true religious geek and I can respect that. Otherwise, you are merely an technologically competent religious follower.
- Darchmare
- Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
- Jeff
I believe that the vast majority of geeks tend to be liberal and also atheist or atleast agnostic. I also think that this is not a problem and that I personally work to reinforce these traits in myself and others that I meet.
There is a difference between liberalism as a philosophy and liberalism as a political view. Liberalism works to secure rights and equal treatment for all. This is vastly different than competing ideologies such as nationalism, which strive to secure rights and privledges for a specific subset of society.
In this respect, I believe that geeks are inherently liberal. For example, I did not see a band of US nationalist geeks opposed to the contributions to the GNOME project by foriegners or to a primarily international KDE.
This brings up why geeks (or most of them) are not religious. When so many true geeks collaborate over the internet on such truely awe inspiring projects as Linux or Apache, how can people not be filled with a sense that humanity is on the right track? This faith in humanity and the no-whining attitude that people should improve themselves is called humanism (for a full explaination see http:/www.secularhumanism.org).
When people believe in the positive aspects of people, there are few reasons to believe in gods. This realization spawns secular humanists who are highly moral and highly motivated. I don't wait around for gods to make humanity better. I don't believe that gods do good things. If you look back through history, gods are a leading cause of death!
Then comes the question about morality. How can you have morality without an objective moral code? My answer to that is that objective moral codes are not objective. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, the moral code is a tablet of set in stone rules. These are even the same for Catholics as Protestants! Is idolatry a sin? If you are Protestant then yes. If Catholic then no. Honoring thy father and mother? Yes if you mean that the woman is property and the man has the financial obligation to care for the folks.
After all the conflicting stories are read (geeks like to read). They make the (right) conclusion that religion is ethical bloatware. Religion only clouds judgement in moral situations. Just as that animated paper clip in Microsoft Office, geeks turn it off, or better yet use a humanist OS like Linux!
-Peter
. Penguins Surely Ca
"will be netcasted!!!!"
with banner ads.
(I believe the actual word would be netcast, think how awkward broadcasted sounds)
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
May I suggest the substitution of the phrase "sartorially challenged".
BTW, all props to Gil, but I'm afraid it will be televised. It'll be co-opted, corporate-sponsored, promoted, and ratings metered.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
I read Hackers. Excellent book, but I don't think the archtypes from that book match what was described in the origional post.
/. post, and get back to bus simulations...
The geeks in that book were anti-social and only associated with their fellow hackers. I remember the line that went something like 'Those that even were aware of the opposite sex seemed to have the idea that one day a woman would just appear, say "You!" and drag them away...' The old anti-social, no girlfriend stereotype.
I don't remember anything about the politics or religion of the hackers. I thought the idea was that hacking didn't involve politics.
Anyway, I'll just pass it off as another weird
The enemies of Democracy are
It actully kicks ass here :P.
Commodore 64, Loading up the dance floor!
I could have sworn I too had seen at least one study demonstrating a negative correlation between education and religion. But for the life of me, I can't come up with the evidence.
In fact, the 1996 National Household Education Survey on adult civic involvement in the US seems to counter that idea.
According to that study, the percentage of people who attend religious services at least once a month holds pretty steady across all levels of education. Unfortunately there's no breakdown of how conservative/fundamentalist those various religious services are, so it's hardly definitive proof. But it does make me wonder a little.
He's an authoritarian socialist
AKA, fascist. "Government knows best, and requires the authority to enforce it."
Am I making an entirely too drunken left-coast berkeleyite assumption when I say that we as a species are overly-emphasizing this classification idea? I mean, no matter what label you stick on an individual, no groups of people are going to be exactly alike. No group is going to fit into our nice little mental spaces of classification. We're different. get with it. we don't even have a good definition of "geek" yet, how can we even begin to assume that we know what all members of this ambiguous set entail?
One day, perhaps, we will get off our collective butts, and use the remaining ninety percent of our brains and quit demanding that every person in our society must fit into a nice little box. One day, maybe, we'll be able to think, not "that person is a communist", but rather, that person holds a certain set of beliefs. not "that person is a christian", but rather, that person holds the belief in a monotheistic personal god, and all the rest of the stuff.
No christians, no communists, no democrats, no gen-Xers, no right-wing neo-nazis, no suits and no geeks are alike, and it's high-time we quit bullshitting with these catagorizations.
and it's time we started ignoring the narrow-minded majority who insists on keeping these stereotypes alive.
i'm not a geek. i'm a person.
stereotype that.
"They can kill you, but the legalities of eating you are quite a bit dicier" -dfw
Because of the media, everyone seems to have this typical view of computer geeks, and it's expected that all geeks fit that description. It's the same thing with the term "hacker", and what the media did to it's definition. The wrong ideas have been attached to that term for so long, the general public accepts that as the "Correct" meaning.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
Privately run for-profit fire protection companies are generally able to provide better service at a lower cost than are public firms. Most rural areas still have volunteer fire departments rather than a city-paid force, and in many areas businesses and individuals have the option of subscribing to one or more competitive firms.
In short, there's no reason to think fire services couldn't be provided without a federal income tax. Just ask the Rural/Metro company of Arizona whether they provide fire protection!
As for Canada invading, I wouldn't be too worried about them because we have all the guns.I play Nerd-Folk!
I was the only person in my entire hick town who knew RAM from ROM or even how to turn on a computer. I practically taught all my computer classes in school. I was president of the Honor Society as a junior, scored higher than anyone else in the history of the town in preperatory exams. I also played football, wrestled, played tennis, and dated quite often. I also have an authority problem, and a deep obsession with computers and technology. So, yes, I'm a geek, but I'm a self-made one. Not every jock was a simian buffoon.
This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
They shouldn't let their AI's post on human-oriented forums.
Any PAGAN geeks out there give me a hoot!
Finding God in a Dog
I don't waste my time worrying about what stereotype I should fit into.
You can call me a geek or a nerd. Hell, you could call me a grilled cheese sandwich for all I care!
I am me.
Christian, Fiscally "liberal" and Socially "conservative"? Isn't there a contradiction in there?
If tax slavery and forced morality are Christian, then I'm a Juddhist Hindislam monk. (In other words, everything but.) But I figure this is likely to be a troll, though there are some people who actually believe in such things. Admittedly, "Me" may have been referring to friendly persuasion and non-coercive measures to promote a better social environment, in which case I heartily applaud him.
In any case, y'all might benefit from a few links:
Alan R. Light
In my Dept. we have a classic guido who drag races his camero on weekends, an indian born again christian ex-postman, a jamacan, a lapsed russian jew, a chinese mother of 4, a former commander in the isralei army, a part time comic book artist, and me (the world only quaker NRA member)
my point is
a. when you job is knowledge you cannot afford to be predjusticed because you never know who you will learn from.
and
b. while the stereotype may have been true at one time, they are no longer.
Extremism in the cause of liberty is no vice, Moderation in the cause of freedom is no virtue. --B.Goldwater
I think what most people have forgotten in this discussion is not why we fit or don't fit these stereotypes, but the real reason these stereotypes came to be. Geeks spend their time online. Online when you meet someone, you don't see their skin color, you don't know about their beliefs and you don't care about their religion. All of it doesn't matter to you if you're a geek. That is why the religion stereotype exists. Online, its person to person. No race, no religion, no nothing. The code speaks for itself.
As far as meeting new people and trying new things. I've never heard of that being a stereotype, but the internet has definitely brought people from all over the place together, and things liks irc, muds, and slashdot have definitely introduced me to lots of new people
And lastly, as far as being liberal, when things like the Kansas incident occur, which side do you think most geeks would be on? Its a matter of science and technology.
Lee
people find the convenience helpful and often forget to approach/appreciate/abhor each person for their own individual traits.
daveo is not a liberal, he is a libertarian and believes people should be [able] to do what[ever] it is that they want I am a liberal. I agree people should be [able] to do what[ever]it is that they want...except for those that refer to themselves in the third person. That's annoying. The problem with libertarians is they have this bizzarre notion that a corporation is an individual; other than that, we get along fine.
I'd agree. I think other than the low self esteem part of it he hit the nail on the head but I don't think geeks have low self esteem in most areas and many in no areas. I am very egotistical about my abilities at times while still modest that there is so much to learn. I think geeks have a more Eastern fell of themselfs and life in general.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
It is true that religion is anti-rational in the realm of tangible science. Your claim that evidence supporting the existence of religious beliefs (particularly of diety), is true insofar as the evidence is tangible. However, one may argue that the evidence supporting religion is itself intangible. For example, feelings of hope or faith may themselves be intangible evidences in support of religion. If these phenomenon, coupled with the religious discipline of the practitioner, result in a better life or a better community for those involved, then this could also be considered a tangible evidence of such belief.
I also accept your thesis that science does not deem religion unacceptable, but unsupportable. This wording was a failure on my part to distinguish tolerance and acceptance from support or proof.
I can also respect your belief that faith is delusional; though to me such claim is entirely subjective, as is the claim that such is a focus on ignorance rather than pleasure. I suggest rather that faith is a focus on the less tangible or explainable feelings as opposed to the more tangible feelings or evidences that are more easily discerned.
I also submit that such atheistic reaction to religion (demonstrated by words like "delusional" and "ignorace") is motivated more by the discontent towards those religious people who, admittedly, do fail to open their minds to possibilities outside of the traditions they have learned and who ultimately are unable to tolerate the beliefs of others.
As for your observation that you do not accept a God for lack of good motive, this (to me) is proof indeed of the hedonistic nature. Again, for the religious, the motive is faith or similar intangible. If the motive for acceptance of God on a tangible evidence is reguired, this indeed is inherently hedonistic. The resoning is thus:
1) A person may accept religion as a matter of tradition, pride, or belonging to the religious community. The atheist may rightly label such as ignorant in many instances, in my opinion.
2) A person may accept religion on the basis of faith; faith being the essence of true religion. Faith is possibly a more difficult feeling to experience than reason or pleasure. A person may feel faith and also be a very reasonable, even scientific, person. Faith is akin to desire, or hope for something bigger or nobler beyond the mean human existence. Delusion, however, is a person's incapacity to change their beliefs.
As for your claim that homosexuality is no more dangerous than being left handed or red-haired, this is simply an uninformed statement, or at least underclarified. Feelings of homosexuality are indeed harmless. Practice of homosexuality risks infection of sexualy transimitted disease; indeed considerably moreso than heterosexual intercourse practiced in contractual marriage.
Also, with the considerable minority status of homosexuality manifest in the world, any claim of valuing maximum breeding or that replacing these people with breeders are evil is silly. The impact on the population would be trivial.
Also, the claim that our world is overpopulated is unsubstantiated. Considering humans probably don't even ocupy nearly thirty percent of the world's land area, and also considering that current agricultural and biological technologies could support an estimated 80 billion, overpopulation is simply not a viable or reasonable argument from a scientific view. Rather, it would be appropriate to claim that the current state of the world's economy or various governments is unable or unwilling to take care of the population. This is a human shortcoming, brought on by selfishness or other motives.
And finally, your belief that those who "denounce private victimless behavior" merit death is no more reasonable than the belief held by some that those who are not of their religion should also meat the same fate.
After all, atheism is only form of religion lacking a god, unless reason or science or humanism or pleasure be the god of atheism. Atheism has her fanatics; her disciples who fail to understand or tolerate the religious. Those who spread hatred against Christianity or any other religion in the name of enlightenment or mental freedom.
Well, at this point I shall let the dead horse alone, only to say that it has been an interesting and enlightening discussion; and you have indeed brought up many good points and shed new light on much reasoning that has been beyond my comprehension. I do retain my own ideas and views, and I also stand by many (though not all) of the claims I made, but I admit that it is good to see from somebody else's side of the fence.
I suppose after all arguments that have been made, the prominent one left standing, irrefutable, on both sides, is "I believe."
This is a correct observation. It is true that the so called "liberals" in the U.S. government are those who seek to limit the freedoms we enjoy. When our constitution was originally written, the freedoms explained therein were very broad. For example the second amendment clearly states:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Pretty simple huh? Well now look at all of the conditions tacked onto that:
-Joe can have a gun only IF he waits some specified time for a background check.
-Joe can have a gun only IF he has no criminal history.
-Joe can't buy a gun from so and so...
-Joe's gun must registered.
-Joe has to have a permit to use his gun.
-Joe can't carry his gun in public, or conceal it without special permission.
And on and on. I'm not saying this stuff is bad, I'm just saying it's a politically "liberal" tendency to carve up these "inalienable" rights in an attempt to address percieved social ills.
Politcal conservatives, on the other hand, view this kind of thing as intollerable. They see it as giving up freedom, and being happy about it.
"Libertarianism" is also a political philosophy. With relation to the US Constitutions, Libertarians are very conservative. The essence of Libertarianism is the right of the individual to seek out his own ends without coercion from others.
I would suggest that if a poll were conducted among those who would be widely considered as "geeks," we would find most have politically conservative attitudes.
On a more values based level, we find that the political "right-wing" attracts those belonging to the philishophical paradigm known as hedonism.
My opinion is that the majority of so called "geeks" fall into this hedonistic category.
Hedonism dates back to around the 3rd century BC. The philosopher Aristippus (being a disciple of Socrates), founded the Cyreanic school of hedonism. The principle of this philosophy is that among human values, the principal is pleasure, and the least is pain. Hedonism is the belief that men should dedicate their lives to the pursuit and enjoyment of pleasure.
Closely related to this philosophy is the idea of "humanism" widely propagated by the so-called "free-thinkers;" considered by many a fanatical atheistic sect.
To a hedonist, religious manifestation is anathema. If one holds a belief in a God, one must also commit to the discipline of such God. If the discipline teaches values that inhibit the enjoyment of pleasure, the hedonist will not accept this.
Modern hedonists do not understand that their rejection of religion is on the grounds of pleasure. Instead, they tend to point at such things as science to denounce the rationality of religion. However, science is no less philosophical than religion. Whereas science deals with the tangible, religion deals with the intangible. This in itself provides strong evidence for such claim that modern hedonistic denial of God is based in the tangible feelings of pleasure.
On the other hand, the religious' focus is on the intangible feelings such as faith and happiness (note that pleasure and happiness are two separate things; those who claim happiness as the highest human value are known as eudaimonists, and tend to be more of the religious sort). Such people often find in their religion the needed source of these feelings, however it is evidentally more difficult to obtain happiness or faith than it is to obtain pleasure. Thus the (modern) hedonist, having never felt faith in his being, will explain that such is not rational.
To illustrate the paradoxical claim of the hedonist using science to explain his denial of religion, one need look no further than the issue of homosexuality.
The hedonist will strongly advocate the idea of evolutionary biology, natural selection and the like. Which, in philosophical science, is theoretically true. This is often used with it's many tangible evidences to denounce the possibility of creationism, which I would suggest belongs to philisophical religion. God himself has a difficult time existing in the world of philosophical science.
On the other hand, the hedonist will decry those who denounce homosexuality - particularly on a religious or moral basis. In reality, homosexuality is irrational. Scientifically, it has been suggested that such behavior is genetic (though hotly debated still). Whether or not this is true, it is certainly an abnormality in every sense; an abnormality being a deviation from what a given sample has shown to be the mean. Also, it could be considered counterproductive from the evolutionary viewpoint. If the male and female were genetically designed to be compatible, with the inherent attraction being also genetically programmed, then it is less likely for the homosexual to propagate his or her genes; thus the homosexual tendency would gradually disappear from the population. And, if science has labored to repair other genetic abnormalities to improve the gene pool, there is no reason that the same should not also be done for genetic homosexuality. Yes, science may excuse this behaviour on the count of genetic abnormalcy, but if it desires to improve and propagate the species, it also must find a way to inhibit this gene.
Hence the modern hedonistic contradiction. Science says religion is unacceptable based upon reason; yet homosexuality is perfectly normal behavior or at least acceptable. The reality is that religion may deny pleasure, yet homosexuality may admit pleasure (based upon sexual preference, of course).
Finally - to get to the point - it is my opinion that the stereotype of the atheistic libertarian "geek" may be correct, but I suggest that the label of hedonist "geek" might be more accurate. My perception may be entirely incorrect, however I must say that my opinion was formed from the many anti-religion/pro-homosexual posts that I have read on Slashdot.
to find geeks in their natural habitat check the CS labs at your local college. Sometimes they can be found in Anime club meetings or in various coffee shops. While some...may live right next door to you but dress so chic-ish that you would never know they have their own T1 to do naughties with. This is a lame post, freeways drain the life from within me.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Perhaps this quickly cobbled-together Venn diagram will explain things.
--
Wage Slave Journal
I don't think that Cliff was so far off, but I take issue with part of the original poster's premise. Namely, where does he get the idea that the stereotypical view of geeks is one of them "being open minded about meeting new people and trying new things?" I don't mean it as a flame against him -- I thought he had a legitimate question -- but I'm not sure where that comes from.
Most people view geeks as pretty much the opposite: not open-minded at all about meeting new people, unless that person is some anonymous face typing at the other end of an internet connection. The "stereotypical view" of the geek is that of a person who spends almost all their time alone in front of their computer, avoiding "meeting new people and trying new things" as much as they can.
If the original poster had left it at "open-minded," I would've gone along with that being a stereotype -- but I think that's due to a "geek" ideal of having as many freedoms as possible, although I think that they tend to exercise those freedoms a lot less than most people do -- it's hard to exercise your freedoms when you're spending so much of your time in front of a computer instead of getting out and socializing, and I'd say that the lack of social skills really shows up a good deal in the number of immature and naive posts at Slashdot.
On the other hand, I've always been surprised by the fair amount of racism and gay bashing that I've seen for years from geeks -- mainly from script kiddie and hacker types. Thankfully, it doesn't seem to rear its head too often at Slashdot.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Stereotypes, especially ones that are not strictly derogatory, often arise because many members of the stereotyped group act that way. It is probably true that most geeks are somewhere in the liberal/libertarian range and more likely to be atheists or members of some non-standard religion than the norm. The problem with stereotpes comes about when you apply them to every individual in a group, rather than examining their individual charactericts.
Basically, no stereotype of geeks or nerds will ever be 100% right, heck, there's probably not even a definition of `geek' or `nerd' everyone could agree on. But every culture has trends running through it - that's what creates a distinct culture in the first place. And we shouldn't deny the various trends of our culture just because none of them fits all of us.
I don't really think any clique, goth or preppy or whatever, is any more accepting of all walks of life (right, you goths, you'd take calvin klein :P ), but the preppy or sporty cliques do seem more socially involved.
As the Geeks with Guns meetings would show, we are NOT a bunch of liberals. Anyone who looks at ESR's homepage and reads his philosophical views on things like gun control would hardly paint him as a liberal. I definitely consider ESR a geek in the proudest sense of the word.
(Coming from the atheist camp here, so expect bias of that angle)
;)
I'd posit that most geeks, being in the more intelligent section of society, as well as the more logic/rational thinking section have a tendency to poke holes in most religious beliefs as being somewhat contradictory.
This, of course, makes those who have found or constructed a (theistic) system of belief will usually have very powerful beliefs and arguments, and will (I'd bet) be good Bible apologists (See the document as a slanted historical one, as a set of moral-giving stories, etc., rather than as a Literal Truth).
The base-level type of atheism (the negative belief of "there is no god", as opposed to a positive belief in some other stucture of the universe) is a good fallback position for someone who thinks logically.
And in the South, atheism means you can dance without sinning. Unless you salsa, when sinning is practically part of the dance. Good thing I don't believe in sin
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
There seem to be two main geek stereotypes going around these days:
:)
Stereotype #1: bad hygiene, trek fan, pocket protector, social inept, clumsy, and usually inept at everything they try. This is the "old" geek stereotype. It's origins seem to come from the 50's (hence the pocket protectors and funky chunky glasses). This geek stereotype is of the kind of geek that can't really communicate with the outside world, and yet has very few redeeming qualities (they're not even that smart!). You've probably seen this kind of geek portrayed a million times in the media, and they usually end up pretty sadly off... or they change out of their geek ways and turn into writers. (Okay, I've been watching too much Back to the Future here).
Stereotype #2: the newer, post-minicomputer Stereotype. This is the liberal minded, extremely intelligent, hard working, reclusive genius. These are all the guys that moved from MIT to San Fran in the 70's (read the novel "Hackers" when you get the chance). Definately the hacker types, and not the kind of person who "bumbles around". People who probably would choose to read Voltaire over watching the tv or going to a movie. (okay, well, maybe a Voltmeter)
I think it's stereotype #2 that he's aiming for. Unfortunately, there's a lot more of #1 than #2, but I guess that's always the case.
I'm not sure where he's gotten the idea that geeks are socially adept. Quite frankly, I've never encounter any stereotype involving geeks, nerds, or whatever, as anything other than inable to communicate with fellow humans. That's why they're geeks-- they communicate better to machines through logic.
It's possible that the original poster could mean some of the "new media/internet startup/web page design" types... These folks are for the most part not geeks. They're publishers, writers, artists, and business-types. You know, the people with the cool stereotypes.
- Greg
If you want some realistic bus simulations, make sure you include surly drivers... you know, the kind that drive right past you, while you're waiting at the bus stop in the pouring rain?
:)
Me? Bitter? Never.
- Greg
I'm sitting here reading all of this and I feel urge to say something. I live in California and I concider it to be WAY too concervative.
I've got this hat I purchased from copyleft that I wear backwards (a rather jock thing really) that has only the word geek printed on it. I've got three ear rings, one in one ear two in the other. I'm 6'2" and only 150lb (there goes the fat bit) but I love Star Trek.
I'm not majoring in Computer Science because I can't do the math, but I can program circles around any one of the computer science majors I know. I am majoring in Philosophy because of an emphasis on logic. One good philosophy class will turn you in to an athiest because you realize that no one can have the right answer.
I play a mean guitar and I'm trying to get a band back together. And I love to drink Guiness.
Where am I going with this? I'll tell you. I call myself a geek, yeah it's an ugly word full of ugly conotations. But ask a jock if they like the lable jock and I bet you they'll tell you they don't either.
The picture I've just painted for you is my personal definition of a geek, and WOW, I happen to fit it. Now I may come across someone else who doesn't fit my description of a geek but if they call themselves a geek, then it's because their personal description of a geek fits their perception of themselves.
The label geek can be seen either as a weight or a shield. When I was in high school it was a weight. When I got to college I picked it up and started using it as a shield.
----
"War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left"
"War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left"
Steven Wright
I'm a software engineer. I'm vegan. I like to
try new things. I ride my bike to work to cut pollution. I replaced all my lightbulbs with low-power flourescents to save power. I like to backpack in the mountains. I'm not too sure about religion, but if you believe then I'm happy for you (i really mean that). I don't own a gun, but if you've got a stockpile in your basement, that's your right. I'd probably shoot my eye out. I used to play bass in a punk band. I was awake for nearly 4 straight days finishing the design of a simple 16-bit RISC chip in college. I have more calculators than I can count without the assitance of one of the calculators.
My apologies. Somehow this isn't the geek stereotype i've picked up, though...
The geek stereotype is basicly that of a techno intelectual.
I rember checking out a book writen by a libarian for libarians. Sort of the User Friendly for libarians.
It talks about all the problems libarians face.
One of the grippes was the libarian stereotype.
It's the same liberal godless stereotype that geeks face.
Only libarians are seen as inactive, old, quiet moldy types where as geeks are young active loud types.
The image of a libarian or a geek running nakid in the streets is well outside the stereotype.
In short I think it's a general "intelectual" stereotype that all intelectual groups face from University profesers to poets.
I just pictured a geeket/libarian mud wresling match and I kind of liked the image.
I don't actually exist.
I refer to it as a self fueling myth. Its sort of like cops eating donuts. I've never actually seen a cop eat a donut, but I see it all the time on TV and hear stupid jokes about it. Now let me explain... It starts off as a little joke in a movie or in the media, and some people think its funny, and they start making jokes or incorporatng it into their movies. Others, who may or may not think it amusing, see its popularity and general acceptance and begin to mimic it also. Soon, the general public sees it so much on TV and hears about it so much in the media that they eventually accept it as the truth. This is what happens with most stereotypes. And about the geek stereotype. I don't fit it one bit. Nor does anyone else I know that considers themselves a geek. ----- Never take candy from a stanger. But if he offers you crack, go for it.
---------------------------
---------------------------
I'm from the south; born and raised in Virginia. I consider myself a geek, though. But in my experience, 'Rednecks' get more crap then geeks. I never had to much stereo-typing in the South when people would find out I worked with electronics. Or I stayed after school to help the teacher set up computers. People didn't really bother me, and I left them alone. And I went to quite a few different schools.
But when I moved out to Southern California 7 months ago, I learned about true stereo-typing. People here are amazed that I am from the south and I have an IQ above 50. I don't drive a big monster truck, chew tobacco, or go cow tipping. I have in my past, enjoyed some 'southern entertainment' (getting to drunk to fish, late night countryside parties), but nothing as out here. In the south, you do get the people who are closed minded about religion, politics, but it's no different in CA. If you're not born and raised CA, then you're an outsider.
The world isn't perfect. People try to group the rest of the world together into stereo-types; it's the only way of trying to describe a loosely conneted group of people, without having to describe each one individually.
Jeremy
'You might be a redneck if, you see a sign that says "Say NO to crack!" and it reminds you to pull your pants up.'
Jeremy
"Opinions are like assholes; everyone's got one..."
Erm, wrong. He's an authoritarian socialist, based on his limited description of himself.
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
You're looking at it from a strong US bias. In the US, the two major parties are nearly indistinguishable. There are some inaccuracies in your post that I won't bother pointing out because they're irrelevant; both parties are very authoritarian and fascist, and keep up a mutual facade to hide it from the masses.
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
...gets hammered down.
Now, let's suppose you've got a world-class IQ and you're into computers. Ok, that makes you a typical slashdotter. What else? it means you went to college/university. Now, the American educational establishment has certain stereotypical attitudes:
1. There are no absolutes, absolutely!
2. We will under no circumstances, ever, tolerate intolerance.
3. All persons are to be treated equally, unless that person is a member of a politically powerful group with a history of being oppressed, in which case they get preferential treatment.
4. Hate speech is universally condemned, unless the speaker is humiliating a Christian or Republican, or member of any other group outside the "intellectual" left.
5. Free inquiry and skepticism are universally Good Things until someone questions the welfare state, gun control, or the theory of evolution.
get the picture?
Now, let's suppose you have attitudes similar to those of Neal Stephenson's protagonist Randy in _Cryptonomicon_. He's a geek and he sees the emporer has no clothes. He keeps quiet to avoid a quarrel with his post-rational shackup. Keep the lid on things and he gets some, open his mouth and he hears a muddled melange of whining and sleeps on the couch. Geeks understand the pleasure/pain principle and keep quiet.
Geeks live in tension. Geeks often find themselves in the company of post-rational induhviduals. Geeks in order to *survive* have to be rigorously rational or their programs won't run. Geeks work on computers, not societies.
Fixing the idiocy enumerated above JUST ISN'T OUR JOB.
Maybe after the last cool hack has been debugged, the geeks will inherit the earth sweeping away the post-rational induhviduals like a bunch of pansy 3rd world bohemian have-nots.
In the meantime, Republican, Christian, heterosexual, gun loving and/or conservative Geeks keep a low profile, say aloud what they hear on NPR and stay in the closet.
smiles and cheers,
steve
I'm
+ Devoutly atheist
+ Fiscally left-wing, but with libertarian tendencies around things like tariffs which are protective of corporations, but doesn't help labor (Libertarian-leaning Socialist)
+ Socially left-wing (if people want their pot, they can have the pot - I don't give a shit)
I probably fit the mold of the average geek very well. According to the Libertarian Party's little
political quiz, I'm a slightly Libertarian leaning
Left-Liberal.
DES Khaddafi KGB genetic jihad Uzi Rule Psix Qaddafi cryptographic Peking Mossad Legion of Doom Albanian Serbian Saddam
My definition of "geek" is somebody who questions all things and tries to find answers for himself.
That's not a bad definition of a geek, but it sorta misses the point. The question had to do with why the popular impression of a geek includes so much superficial baggage. About geeks' religion (little or none), politics (liberal), and physical configuration (invariably young, male and non-athletic).
I don't have an answer as to the religion or politics part (grepya's explanation seems reasonable to me) but I'm guessing the physical stereotype arises from the following: Geek-ness is subtle, and it won't be noticed if there are other, more obvious factors in play. Like special abilities (athletic prowess, artistic talent, social skills), or even physical attributes (gender, race, etc).
An athlete who thinks for himself will probably be seen primarily as an athlete first and foremost. In most people's minds his athlete-ness outshines everything else he does. A female who likes to take things apart and tinker with them will probably be seen merely as a female (it's a perennial problem) by males. Unless she's old, in which case she'll not be seen at all (another perennial problem). Anything else that she is or does is eclipsed by her female-ness.
And so it goes. The only people whose geek-ness shines through will be the ones who don't stand out in other ways. Boring, non-athletic, non-sociable young white guys. It's not their fault - it just is. "Real Geeks" (assuming the definition is correct and they DO question and think for themselves) will know the difference.
i was captain of the fencing team --oh wait, I just proved your point :)
------- Oh damn.... the Sigfile escaped... -Great OM
Creatonism doesn't deserve to be presented as a thoery. A scientific theory must be accompioneed by evidence. Creationism does not have this --it has no physical evidence what so ever. The Torah is not evidence.
------- Oh damn.... the Sigfile escaped... -Great OM
Liberal
1. as in The Media (TM)...oooh you're a liberal...that is good..you support our agenda.
2. Open minded in general
3. Politically, meaning you either have your income derived from government funded business, have no income and benefit from same, or just don't think too clearly.
As a generality... education as in formal university education will result in a liberal mindset, particularly when experienced in youth with little real world experience...not a bad thing necessarily.
Geekdom, again generality, will result in quite a bit of detachment from the 'real world' living in theoretical reality.
Now, combine geekdom, leftist theory from a university and you have a liberal....give that same 'liberal' a few years running his own business and you'll find a conservative by 40.
Conservative is a term that describes wisdom. The Media (TM) has an agenda to advance and the wise are a threat...therefore a conservative is obviously reported as evil. These stereotypes are coming from media sources use your own grain of salt and figure it out.
According to The Media or associated liberals I am a redneck. In reality I'm Libertarian and quite conservative as that implies in today's context.
As for this whole religion thing...who cares? Religion is a great thing when kept to oneself.
Yeah this is a bit trippy, but that's the fun.
same here, except i'm fiscally right-wing (i get to keep the money i earn)
you probably wouldnt recognize me as a geek if i didn't have the penguinpower.com bumpersticker on my car
my other penis is a vagina
I'm not really a geek. I love computers, and when I'm around computers or other computer people, I guess I fit in. It's just that I don't dress or act geeky. If you saw me on the street you would never know. I don't even like how most geeks act. They are disturbing for the most part. Some of my best friends are geeks but I also know why other people don't like geeks at all. I know I'm not a poser, I have always liked computers and other gadgets. Anyway, I just don't fit in anywhere like a lot of people I'm sure.
All geeks of the underworld unite!
Swear to the unjoly pentium... uhh.. gram!
It seems to me that there is a distinction between what the general (popular) definition of "nerd" or "geek" is and what self-called geeks and nerds mean. All of my non technological friends seem confused when I refer to myself as a nerd/geek--they envison a socially inept slob with computer skills--someone wearing a dirty t-shirt, and runny nose, typing alone somewhere in a dark room.
As for the definiton I've seen here (and hacker FAQ sites), I mostly fit the sterotype. I'm an atheist female with interests in computers, eastern philosophy, music, anti-authoritarianism and the like. I differ from some definitions however; I am anti-gun and pro-socalism (I think northern europe (the Netherlands or Sweden, for example) would be a very nice place to live).
Uh, this certainly doesn't sound like a typical
liberal to me:
"Vaguely liberal-moderate, except for the strong libertarian contingent which rejects conventional left-right politics entirely. The
only safe generalization is that hackers tend to be rather anti-authoritarian; thus, both conventional conservatism and `hard'
leftism are rare. Hackers are far more likely than most non-hackers to either (a) be aggressively apolitical or (b) entertain
peculiar or idiosyncratic political ideas and actually try to live by them day-to-day."
But then, some people think Bill Clinton is a Socialist. I guess to them, "liberal" means
"not right-wing fundie gun-bearing flag-preserver."
Hmmm... let's see here...
:-)...
* Like The Simpsons and Futurama.
Hell yeah
* Like the X-Files.
Nope.
* Like Star Trek and/or Babylon 5.
Hell no.
* Dislike Microsoft.
Yup yup.
* Listen to techno/rave/electronica or bands that have a reputation as "underground" but are in amazon.com's top 1000 sellers.
Yeah, but I also play lead guitar in a hardcore metal band.
* Mostly read Stephenson, Brooks, Jordan, Gibson, and a few other SF/Fantasy authors.
Nope, Stephen King all the way, baby!
* Love action and horror movies and hate everything that gets nominated for an Oscar.
Nope... I like horror, action is OK, but I'm more into comedy (UHF is the best movie ever made!! Who's with me???)
* Read comic books.
God no... I think I read them for about 2 days when I was 11, that's about it.
* Own at least one Star Wars toy.
Nope... maybe when I was 6, but not now. (p.s. I'm 18)
I'm pretty much the anti-geek... I smoke mad weed, do acid, drink, listen to Pantera, get laid often, etc... but I also do a lot of stereotypical geek things like run Linux, program for fun, have a $30,000/yr job at Harvard University after getting kicked out of college my freshman year
I just don't understand why a lot of geeks find it so hard to be socially acceptable while still doing the things that they like... I didn't hide the fact that I programmed for fun in high school, but i never got any shit for it. I was considered one of the "cool kids" (but I'm glad I'm out of High School now and don't have to deal with that bullshit anymore) Sometimes I dressed in all black and a trenchcoat, and nobody gave a fuck. I think it all depends on how to act towards other people, and not how you dress, what you like to do, etc, because I know plently of people from high school who dressed like I did and did the same types of things, but were classified as "outcasts" in high school, while I wasn't. Go figure.
"Software is like sex- the best is for free"
"/.ers there when the world was formed"
My goodness, what's wrong with me. WERE there. It seems I've acheived^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H ACHIEVED a lack of grammatial talent and spelling along with my obsessiveness.
Can't sleep, the clowns will eat me...
For those who are unfamiliar with the Russian language and Soviet history, "Soviet" does not mean "teacher". Quoting straight from Lagenscheidt: COBET advice, counsel; council, board. A soviet was a governing council. It had nothing to do with teaching or the role of government before true Communism. Read some Pipes. Bozhe.
without it you can not aim
De sig boss de sig
Personally, I thin kthe Big Bang makes no sense whatsoever.
It says where our universe comes from (IE this REALLY huge thing that was everywhere, suddenly expanded and this expansion became our universe), but that doesn't say where the initial stuff came from, and when questioned my lecturer said "That is beyond the realms of comprehension."
I find creation easier to believe than that.
However, I have been thinking and I think Creation and Evolution can live quite happily together, it just depends how much you believe Genesis to be a metaphor for what happened rather than "How it did".
Echoing another response to your post, I'd have to agree -- Clinton's administration, while more "forward-thinking" in some respects than the GOP, could hardly be called "liberal" in the traditional sense.
:)
I'm not much into American politics (being Canadian) but I do know that much. And from a high school Politics course: don't pay any attention to a political party's name. It doesn't mean anything!
AFAIK, the Reform Party (in the US) is probably the largest party there that is left of centre (or at least more so than the Democrats or the Republicans).
I think property is a natural extension of territoriality (not to mention hoarding nuts and guarding a kill). Most animals say "this is mine, back the hell off!" so why should humans be different? Of course, humans are different, in that within societies which have property law, the entire society (rather than the individual) acts with coercive force to protect undefendable accumulations of property (in an anarchy, the accumulations are still often protected by hired guards or by group ownership; that's how governments grow).
OTOH, I find the concept of inheritance to be unnatural and the root of societal instability.
BTW: I am not an idealist. I don't agree with the sentiment that it would be nice if everyone would just share. We'd either overpopulate, stagnate, or become like hive insects with no regard for the individual; it all just seems so pointless. Personally, I prefer the chaos and war to a utopian society. I'd rather steal my food from the mouths of my enemies children than live without having to struggle for anything. But that's just me; most people don't know they really prefer the pain and the struggle of nature, even though they recoil with horror from the depictions of a blissful human hive.
I hate it when people use this kind of a tactic. It's real battle-axe dipped in poison; if you keep talking you're "too far gone to even admit it," if you shut up you're implicitly confirming that the accusation is accurate.
Would you have said the same thing if I wrote, "they know they're above the petty interests of the typical moron, and don't expect these idiots to understand any remotely interesting conversation." ? It's closer to what I really meant, but I do try to be polite.
Damn, I hate the term "geek." Not so much because of the negative connotation, but because it can also mean just someone unpopular or generally inferior (this being what people mean when they use it derogatively). If that's what we're talking about, of course they have low self esteem. I'm talking about hackers (okay, not a whole lot better term...); great programmers who get jobs for >$70k/y (or equivalent status/lifestyle rewards). These people have big egos, no matter how outwardly mild they are.
Anarchists are generally opposed to coercive governments. Property law can be described as the right to use the coercive force of the government (police and army) to deny others the use of certain things.
Many anarchists look at things this way and take a "use it or lose it" attitude that if you don't have an item under your personal protection, nobody else should be bothered to stop others from taking it. This especially applies to land use rights: a common anarchist position is that there should be no such things as landlords and tenants.
In this way, anarchism often resembles socialism in a practical sense of property not being protected by law.
Yeah, you say libertarianism I say anarchism, the two are closely related: libertarians say they want freedom, anarchists say they don't want anyone controlling them (and they both want others to have the same situation); same thing.
I don't really think that one fits. In my experience, they know they don't really fit into mainstream society and don't expect normal people to be interested in them, but have high opinions of themselves (with a kind of prideful humility: "I am great, but not the greatest, and even the greatest is insignificant in many contexts").
The simple fact is that religion correlates inversely with intelligence and education. This isn't to say that all geniuses or PhD's are athiests or all morons are cultists, it's just a statistical trend. Highly intelligent people who are religious also tend to have unorthodox views about their religion, and often reject the teachings of their original church entirely. Similarly, the most deeply religious (in an orthodox sense) people tend to be of below average intelligence.
There are many counter-examples but the general correlation is solid.
Geeks tend to be pretty bright and highly educated, so they tend to be either athiest, agnostic, or have made up their own religion ("I believe in a God of some sort, but not the Bible.").
(I'm a theoretical agnostic, a practical atheist, and a linguistic Christian: I believe we can't know whether there's a God, I act like there is no God, but I yell "Christ!" when I stub my toe.)
i just don't buy it. cut out income tax and things just arent going to work. i don't know about the days back when people lived in wood huts but therers a fair amount of infrastructure required now. regarding the military its my opinion that the u.s. has sufficiently pissed off enough countries that the moment we dont have the capability to bomb them into next year, there's going to be hell to pay. the military "black budget" exists but you're crazy to say that echelon is the reason you pay 30-50% income taxes...
-- your knees hurt, don't they?
will be netcasted!!!!
-- your knees hurt, don't they?
dude you're pretty messed up....i mean jeez agnostic/social liberal/fiscal conservative is the only way to go!!
p.s. dont flame its not the _only_ way but it sure as hell is more fun!
-- your knees hurt, don't they?
they'd be pretty mad too when they called the fire department and the firepeople couldnt come because 1) the roads were too fucked up due to no funds 2) they no longer had a fire truck and 3) the canadians just invaded
-- your knees hurt, don't they?
As a self confessed geek, i also probably dont fit the stereotype.
;P
Religiously, i suppose im Christian by family influence (not much of that tho), although my personal beliefs dont quite reflect christianity.
the only reason i am not atheist is for countless unexplained and uncomprehendable questions. such as "when did time begin and when will it end."
there has to be an answer but no answer fits
sure many say time is a circle but it had to start some time
"how vast is space" cannot be answered very well either, after all what is beyond space? there has to be and end, but at the same time there cannot be an end
things like this make me think there has to be a higher power, another entity(ies) that have this knowledge and this is what i call a god
i went to a catholic school and had christianity forced down my throat daily to my rebel
i quit half way through my final year anyway coz i was far from a geek at school - wagging, taking afternoons off to go down to the pub in town (hehe) etc etc
i love a cold Victorian Bitter and often drink copious amounts of it. btw, all you yanks who enjoy a Fosters, it is considered to be one of the worst in Australia
get a real beer up ya
i also love violence and can be jokingly sadistic when hearing of serious accidents, etc with comments of "cool! did any1 die?" to reflect that
some even think im evil, but realistically i am a pretty sane, reasonable person overall
as the subject says, not all geeks are equal
Do your best, hope for the best, suspect the worst.
Very good insight. I will tend to disagree with you on intelligence being a necessity. Intelligence is very necessary to be a geek. People who aren't tend to seek social interaction for their sense of fulfillment. I admit a lot of the cracker script kiddies I've seen would at first glance tend to make you think that not all geeks are intelligent. Even they are intelligent though. Intelligence does not spread itself out to all areas equally. I had a friend once who was a genius at math, and he couldn't tie his shoes.
Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human.
Hmmm, I haven't read the rest of the posts so I don't know if this has already been mentioned so...
/. experienced the Hellmouth chronicles I mostly kept my keyboard silent. I felt that my opinion, however valid in my own mind, would not be accepted by the "community" at large. Geeks (and I most definitely consider myself one) are as intolerant to other worldviews as the people we despise. The only way to gain acceptece, again IMHO, is to give it.
/.er since the day I found this haven. Finally I had found people who would understand my cryptic references to Douglas Adams, the Simpsons, Sci-fi, Gibson, Heinlein, and other geek-centric offerings in the media. People who judge only on the magnetic resonances I offer, and not by the physical representation and images representative of my being.
I am the typical Jock Geek. I played football from 6th grade through 16th, I hung out with the "cool" kids in h-school, I was in a frat. in college, and I can think of think of nothing more fun than spending 19 hrs sitting in front of a computer exporing, playing, and basically assimilating as much information as possible.
When
My reluctance to share this comes from the tremendous bias I have seen against those who share my experiences. I only offer them now only because of my current state of mind (I've been drinking...)
I've been a
I will close by copying two sentences of religious origin (which is how I was raised but would not die for now)
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
and.
"Judge not, lest ye be judged."
Thank you and goodnight.
+&x
How would you explain the geographical evidence supporting the flood? It's impossible for fossils to be formed SLOWLY.
[disclaimer - I am not a fossil expert]
But what are you smoking? This is not true at all. Here's a quote I grabbed from looking for about 10 seconds for fossil related things.
"Fossilization is a process that relies on a chain of very favorable circumstances over very long periods of time. The majority of animals and plants completely disintegrate soon after death. But sometimes, the hard parts of certain organisms is mineralized as part of a sedimentary rock and becomes a fossil."
Fossilazation is a well understood process, and it doesn't need any worldwide series of floods to explain it. I don't mean to be rude, but go and learn some basic earth science before you spout off like this.
This whole geek-cultural-phenomenon needs to be put to rest. We don't share a culture -- we share an interest in technology & science. I'm sure there are plenty of Indian and Filipino and Black American and African and European not to mention agnostic, atheist, Islamic, Buddhist, etc. heads that read this site and the reason everyone does so is because we have a set of common interest. You may or may not have something beyond your tech fetish in common with other people around here, but this attempt to dig deeper and find some sort of cultural common denominator is both irritating and a waste of time.
This amateur social science crap is stupid. A bunch of technologists sitting around making these silly social proclamations makes about as much sense as a bunch of sociologists trying to design a computer.
I'm really full of myself, huh?
Just read this site for some fine examples of it. Look at this thread alone. Everytime someone pops their head up to say, "I agree -- I'm not like this at all. I'm (religious/not liberatarian/not a pure techie/dressed in purple chiffon/etc.)," 5 or 6 different people pop up to violently disagree with whatever non-stereotypical viewpoint they espouse.
For that matter, read a Jon Katz story. He seems to assume that all geeks, like him, are liberatarians and are against the religious establishment, especially the Christian religious establishment. For the most, part he's right. Most of the people on this site fall under that viewpoint. I don't, so I see it just as much as the originator of this topic did.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
...You must first define what a 'Geek' is. I've seen geeks classified by the way they dress (pocket protectors, suspenders - not too common now), their interests (computers, science fiction), and their academic performance/intelligence. For the sake of clarity and simplicity, let's assume that a geek is merely someone who shows signs of intelligence higher than most others (and don't even start on the geek/nerd debate).
I have to agree completely with Cliff that stereotypes are spread by the mainstream media. The first thing that came to my mind when I say this debate was watching the nerds/geeks on Saved by the Bell. They were a little too. . . 80's, but they represent just about every stereotype I can imagine. These can be split into two categories: intellectual and physical. These people were the smartest in the school and interested in activities that required more intelligence, such as Chess and science fiction (Star Trek, in particular). Their outward appearance was an attempt to show everything 'uncool' and a total disregard for fashion, with suspenders, pocket protectors, glasses, and that odd walk. They were weak and had no athletic talent whatsoever.
Nowadays, the term 'Geek' seems to be used more liberally as an insult given to anyone who most people don't like, essentially, anyone who isn't 'cool'. Judging from the general use in my town, any social outcast is a geek, while myself and others at the top of our class are nerds (there are exceptions to that, as it seems it's not as much intelligence as it is the display of intelligence).
So I'm going to be a bit more broad than most in my answer. In my opinion, a geek is anyone who is a outcast due to a lack of compliance with a standard or the majority on any social issues. Furthermore, I'm going to say that a nerd is a geek who falls into this category because (s)he's academically inclined. These terms are rarely attributed to girls and minorities (judging from my experiences), due mainly to more general stereotypes.
All of this is just off the top of my head from my experiences in seeing the terms used. I'd like to see some sociologist comment on the issue to see if there is a more official definition than the one I just slapped together.
-Scott
-- Imagine how much more advanced our technology would be if we had eight fingers per hand.
I'm not a "normal" geek. I definately know people who fit this stereotype, although I wouldn't include open minded as a characteristic. There are plenty of intolerant geeks out there that drive me crazy by assuming that they are the only right person in the entire universe, about anything, and that everone else is wrong. (I don't stand on either side of this issue, but see the kansas + evolution article for proof of this)
I would also add "alienates others" to the list as well. It happens even to the best of us when we drop into our technical vocab in front of the unwashed masses. Just because someone has a computer doesn't mean that they know the first thing about memory, disks or the processor. On the other hand, people who use this as a way to make themselves seem superior is just plain wrong. I see way to much of this in my job.
That said, get a life outside of computers. My systems are great, but the best investment I've ever made was in my friends.
I want money: lots of it. That's why I give away my software, and sell my services -- because it gets me lots of money. I don't do it because I'm productive, or because you're not. I don't care about you unless you have money to give me.
And you call that attitude "communist"? Marx would be, um, *surprised*.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
*pulling myself up from the floor*
/. wrote that comment about atheism, let alone the second half. Add to that your other comments and I'm beginning to suspect that you're an agent from some more intelligent part of the Internet. Are you single, or female? I'll be happy with one out of two! Will you at least tell me if there are other people like you out there?
I can't believe someone on
(And I'd worked out a beautiful draft of a paper comparing OSes to the relationships between Christianity and Islam throughout history, but now no one will every see it. I hope your happy.)
i'll call you deadeye from now on, because all those apply to me and my geeky friends.
good call.
Labels.
There are a large number of "geeky" people I know who are libertarians. They believe in minimal government because they do not like large, badly designed inefficient systems. Distributed, independently working modules cooperating when necessary and going there own way when not is a good design for more than just software. Minimal government is "conservative".
The large monolithic state is an idea of the Left. It is "liberal".
Most of the "geeky" people I know also believe in the idea that there are good ways to do things and bad ways to do things. Social relativitism, the idea that all choices or all approaches to life are "equally valid" goes against the grain of their thinking. Social relativism is "liberal".
However, they (and I) believe that, as Perl programmers say, "there is more than one way to do it". They are pragmatic in that a working solution is better than no solution, that some working solutions are better than others and that if there aren't enough time and resources to do it the "right" way we can go with what works. This goes along with the many small modules view of government. If you have many small parts then some can do things one way (but not the best way) and you can do it your way.
Many conservatives think there is one best way to do something (their way) and everyone should do it that way. I am not that far right. But if "The State", big government, is doing everything for you there is only room for one way. Where is the choice in that?
There are libertarians who do not believe in God or religion. I happen to want to believe in God. I like to think of myself as both intelligent and educated. I get irritated when people assume that anyone who believes in God is a moron. I was raised a Catholic. In regards to the recent events in Kansas, I would like to point out that officially, Catholics believe in evolution. Most Catholics probably don't know that but it is true. A lot of them are brainwashed into thinking , by other religious groups, that the two ideas, God and science are mutually exclusive. They are not.
So though I am a religious person I also have a great interest in Science. In fact, the greater a person's knowledge about the uiniverse and how it is put together, the greater one's appreciation can be for God. Anyone who creates anything, from artwork to a program, must appreciate the idea that the individual is revealed through his or her works.
Though I am a conservative, I do not believe in ideas of racism, or hatred of any group. Being religious should eliminate that as a possibilty but unfortunately it does not seem to for some people. But hatred and stereotyping is not limited to conservatives or religious people. Liberals, upon hearing I beleive in God or am against expansion of government programs catorgorize me as a Nazi and are quite intolerant and hateful themselves.
To summarize. All "Geeks" aren't liberals. All conservatives aren't Nazis. Even in computers, once you get past the bit level everything is not black and white.
I'm italian, what means geek?
it seems to me that everyone is trying to make it way too specific. the number of geeks/nerds that exists (IMHO, at least) is vast, and in such a large population, you will no doubt find people covering a wide spectrum of social skills, religious beliefs, apperances, backgrounds, etc.
to me, the thing that makes someone a geek is the unending and infinitly satisfying search for knowledge. that's what it means to me. i want to know everything that i can about as many different things as i can during my life. in particular, i am interested in computing. (hence i call myself a computer geek) some geeks are in to astrophysics, some are into organic chemistry, and i say taht some are into painting. it doesnt matter what your focus is, but as long as you seek knowledge as your primary goal, you fall into my definition of a geek.
While I know that you're trying to get a handle on the traditional "computer geek" stereotype, there are a few things I'd like to point out.
:-)
First, the "computer geek" stereotype grew out of an older stereotype from much earlier. Ever see Grease? Remember Eugene? While Grease was written in the 70's, it painted a fairly reasonable picture of the 50's, including the geek stereotype.
Second, I consider there to be many more different types of geeks. For example, my wife and I are classic "photo geeks". Different from someone who's just a picture-taker, we spend a great deal of time and get a great deal of enjoyment from studying photo magazines, technical details, and socializing with other photo geeks, most of whom we have nothing else in common with. (Apparently, I am not a "grammar geek.")
I also know bike geeks, car geeks, gardening geeks, and coin/stamp geeks. Note that this is different from a hobbyist; the geek makes a much more serious emotional and mental investment in their hobby than the average hobbyist. This can be functional in the fact that they will generally have a much greater skill and facility for that particular endeavor, but can also be dysfunctional in that other aspects of being a well-rounded human being and member of society are neglected.
While this is my own personal definiton, people sure do tend to know what I mean when I say that I'm a photo geek. (I'm also a computer geek, a car geek, and a stereo geek. I suppose I'm a renaissance geek, then.
Hal
First, the "computer geek" stereotype grew out of an older stereotype from much earlier. Ever see Grease? Remember Eugene? While Grease was written in the 70's, it painted a fairly reasonable picture of the 50's, including the geek stereotype.
Second, I consider there to be many more different types of geeks. For example, my wife and I are classic "photo geeks". Different from someone who's just a picture-taker, we spend a great deal of time and get a great deal of enjoyment from studying photo magazines, technical details, and socializing with other photo geeks, most of whom we have nothing else in common with. (Apparently, I am not a "grammar geek.")
I also know bike geeks, car geeks, gardening geeks, and coin/stamp geeks. Note that this is different from a hobbyist; the geek makes a much more serious emotional and mental investment in their hobby than the average hobbyist. This can be functional in the fact that they will generally have a much greater skill and facility for that particular endeavor, but can also be dysfunctional in that other aspects of being a well-rounded human being and member of society are neglected.
While this is my own personal definiton, people sure do tend to know what I mean when I say that I'm a photo geek. (I'm also a computer geek, a car geek, and a stereo geek. I suppose I'm a renaissance geek, then. :-)
Hal
First, the "computer geek" stereotype grew out of an older stereotype from much earlier. Ever see Grease? Remember Eugene? While Grease was written in the 70's, it painted a fairly reasonable picture of the 50's, including the geek stereotype.
Second, I consider there to be many more different types of geeks. For example, my wife and I are classic "photo geeks". Different from someone who's just a picture-taker, we spend a great deal of time and get a great deal of enjoyment from studying photo magazines, technical details, and socializing with other photo geeks, most of whom we have nothing else in common with. (Apparently, I am not a "grammar geek.")
I also know bike geeks, car geeks, gardening geeks, and coin/stamp geeks. Note that this is different from a hobbyist; the geek makes a much more serious emotional and mental investment in their hobby than the average hobbyist. This can be functional in the fact that they will generally have a much greater skill and facility for that particular endeavor, but can also be dysfunctional in that other aspects of being a well-rounded human being and member of society are neglected.
While this is my own personal definiton, people sure do tend to know what I mean when I say that I'm a photo geek. (I'm also a computer geek, a car geek, and a stereo geek. I suppose I'm a renaissance geek, then. :-)
Hal
Categorizing and generalization aren't just properties of "the world today" (marketing people aside). Human beings break down the world into easily digestible chunks so we can deal with it. It's just part of our nature. Admittedly, in many situations the world doesn't present itself as something that can be broken down into neat little categories, but that doesn't mean that human beings will stop doing it.
I'm not defending the generalization of any group (geeks included), but I am explaining it as human nature, and not simply a product of the "mainstream media", though they may exacerbate it.
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance is a great book about (among other things) how we tend to slice things up in Western culture.
---
-- Will quantum computers run imaginary-time operating systems?
-------
CAIMLAS
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
I am one more nerd/geek (can't decide which side) who is hard to categorize towards the
"sci-fi enthusiast/code slinger" type. I have a healthy amount of t-shirts from computer shows and stuff, but I am the one who feels better in a suit and tie.
While most of the media thinks that geeks/nerds are reclusive, I have more of a jonesin' to leave the house (and it's not only for some big movie like something in the "Star Wars" series). I feel better watching shows on- and off-broadway.
I guess this stereotyping crap came after WWII, from the folks who want their kids to be more like the athletic type to be ready for something like a draft for some war in the future. I guess they [the old-school stereotypical 1950's parents you might've heard of somewhere in a little corner of you mind] would have the desire for the boys to be the brawny type after WWII, but not a desire for the brainy type (boys and girls who pursue the intellectual pursuits). It's like the need to add the first two digits of the year in computer information, leading to the Y2K crap that some people are fearing. The majority doesn't know they need it [the year digits in computer info AND the respect towards what the people called "geeks" or "nerds"], until at the last minute.
We should find more different nerd/geek types. It should be like the crew of "Star Trek" meeting new lifeforms and new civilizations or something...
I think by general definition Hackers defy being defined. They come in all shapes and sizes. Are we as a sub-culture (Hackers, Geeks, and Nerds) better than that?
Personally I don't think its possible to label us. We all come from all walks of life and backgrounds. I don't think it matters what we are. We as a society need to grow beyond labeling everything. All that does is put our intelligence in a box.
what'a know!! this movie will be aired on HBO [east] tonight! (saturday morning) at 3:30AM Central time. i saw half the movie months ago and loved it... now i get to see all of it, yay!
for other showings of this movie just goto hbo.com abd do a search in the movie listings for "Hostile Intent".
The questions are a little biased, but you still might want to take a look at the
World's Smallest Poltical Quiz
Well, I do believe that most everything I have read is correct. Someone pointed out that Geeks lean more towards the sciences... and that only %40 of scientists believe in a God. Ok, I believe the rate for geeks probably levels out somewhere around %50 believing in a God and the other %50 not.I personally DO believe in a God. Then, I agree, the flip impression of what geeks are in society today is portrayed in the media and movies and something like %5 believing in a God and 95% not, which is obviously wrong. The post said to the affect that maybe it is because people believe that geeks=educated=liberal.
Geeks to = educated but education doesn't always = liberal. The impression that education=liberal I believe is portrayed by the media. Not just in the area of geeks but in everything. So... yes, the media has a big role in the whole problem.
How to fix it? You can't. Why would you. I've lived this long being a religious geek without getting upset that the rest of the world believes that geeks=educated=religious cannot be. But all I can say is... IT's true: geeks can be very religious.
Whatever about America, here in Ireland a nerd is a Dork....as in Milhouse in the Simpsons. Its not 'clever, liberal and likes computers' its 'sits in front of the keyboard all day, surfing for Gillian Anderson pics with one hand or wasting time on the Star Trek Website'
Its an unsultory term.
I dont know much about the US but as far as India goes, Geeks R good. They r more revered and given more importance by society than jocks. The jocks in our society r the nogood layabouts who wont get a job, and whom u would never allow ur daughter to marry. And no they r never seen as leftists. On the contrary most of them do well enough to go to the US to make loads of money (heard of Sabeer Bhatia, Sanjay Kumar and Silicon Valley) so they r not definitely confused with leftists. Like I said in India - Geeks R Good.
O this learning! What a thing it is - William Shakespeare
When I hear the term "geek," I don't associate it with any general set of beliefs. It's a pop culture thing. Get a group of so-called geeks together and find out how many:
:)
* Like The Simpsons and Futurama.
* Like the X-Files.
* Like Star Trek and/or Babylon 5.
* Dislike Microsoft.
* Listen to techno/rave/electronica or bands that have a reputation as "underground" but are in amazon.com's top 1000 sellers.
* Mostly read Stephenson, Brooks, Jordan, Gibson, and a few other SF/Fantasy authors.
* Love action and horror movies and hate everything that gets nominated for an Oscar.
* Read comic books.
* Own at least one Star Wars toy.
I know this is a sterotype, but it seems to hold up as well as yuppies driving SUVs and listening to Kenny G
I work on unix device drivers for a living, I'm an atheist, play metal guitar, and Half-Life rules!
./ poll? Heck it was my senior yr. in high school before I even *told* any of my friends I was an atheist just because I thought everybody would think I was a freak.
I guess I fit the profile.
I took a device-drivers class once and this topic came up. About 50% of the class were atheists or agnostic. I have a feeling that's a bit diff from what you'd find from a sample of the general population. How about a
Bang the head that doesn't bang!
Wow, you're a fascist.
No, unless he wants to "fix the society" by limiting individual rights and freedom of the society.
--Flam, who's being taxed to his eyeballs and is relatively happy about it.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers - Pablo Picasso
I have been in many situations in which typical stereotypes do not fit...this is the case...we are people...we are different. There may be a common ground somewhere....but I have met individuals from all walks of life *yes Ive met redneck geeks that say "YeeHaw!" just too much for my personal tastes*.
My point being...stereotypes are simply what they are...what the public accepts as the role a group of individuals play in society. Its comical in a way...can anyone change these views...doubtful.
I classify myself as a "geek" but not a typical one...and yes...I do believe in God. (Some would call me a redneck...but I rarely say YeeHaw)
later
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
Well, I agree with most of what you said, except for this quote, "I should be able to decide what is right and what is wrong." To be perfectly honest, first you need to discover wether or not you do have the power to do that.
For example, user spinkham can't decide wether or not he wants to mount a floppy on my system, only root can do that..
Too many people assume themselves to be "root", when there is little evidence for it, if only because they want to and aren't sure who "root" is.
It seems to me to be highly likely that I am not my own "root", as I can't change the rules I run under, only my reactions within those rules. It isn't the best analogy in the world, because even root is limited in what he can do because of finite time.
Basically, if there is a God, you are almost definatly not him, and the question of wether or not there is a god is a good one to ask...
Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
I can't say how much I've missed you B1FF...
Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
I agree people should be open-minded...
As for Kansas's decision, I didn't like what was reported in the news, but who knows how biased that was..
I think the the "big bang" theory and the theory of evolution should be taught, but tought as the theory that they are. I also believe that Creationism should be presented, and that the evidences and conclusions of both competing theories should be studied.
Both theories have things going for and against them, and there are many good, well researched and thought out books for both sides. I hope that Kansas has not thrown out one theory for another, but does truly take an "open minded" position, as should the rest of the school system.
Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
Actually, a scientific theory must be based on a reproducible, controllable scenario where one variable can be isolated and tested at a time...
Any theory of origins is by definition not scientific. Origins is really a question of forensics.
Secondly, you are making a large assumption if you think that all the fossil record supports evolution, that the dating methods often used by scientists are in any way scientific, and that all scientists in this field, or even a majority of them, think that evolution has a sufficient case for itself. Scientists have left the only semi-plausible explanation behind, gradual evolution, in favor of punctuated equilibrium, because the fossil record supports species appearing out of nowhere in a very short period of time.
Basically, Creationism has the same evidence, that of the fossil record and the living species right now, as evolution does, but in addition has religious overtones. However, so does science, just that they are more popular ones, namely humanism and atheism. If you were truly openminded, you would see that you can't escape the religion question, and that everyone has a religion of some sort...
I could babble forever about the scientific problems with evolution, the things that science has been able to show us that make evolution very unlikely, and about the forensic evidence that goes a long way towards casting doubt on evolution, that really matches the pattern of creation much more closely. However, that's not the point of this discussion.
The point is that I think that students should be presented with the evidence, and then the theories should be drawn from that evidence. That is really the only openminded solution.
Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
Reading the appendix of the New Hackers Dictionary
was like reading my biography. People who are
"geeks" or "nerds" are people who are alike and
don't try to fit a particular image. And as the
NHD said, there are people in this community who
are traditional Christians. And people who do
participate in sports (not me, I despise most of
them). The hacker community are people (with their faults) are able to be contributing citizens
of a world community. And I cannot see how someone can say that they are Leftists. Communists are leftists!!! We are (mostly) Libertarians and despise left/right politics. Freedom is king! I associate more with the Right than the Left any day. Look at a politicians attitude towards gun control. If a Republican wants to pass more laws he might as well have been a Democrat. If a Republican wants to destroy current gun control laws he knows the desires of the people. Thomas Jefferson knew that "a government should be frugal, and should give the people the rights to their own lives". And just because I'm a Christian and a Libertarian/Right wing don't accuse me of not being a "true nerd" I even have my own Linux distribution! (http://www.linuxstart.com/~Penguin Head/SKAlinux/)
"People standing in the middle of the road look like road kill to me." - Linus Torvalds, On Bill Gates
No one said the hackers were liberal.
The previous poster was pointing out that Eric S. Raymond is not a member of the "liberal media" and so the excuse that they are the only ones perpetrating this definition is not valid.
-sirket
I've been living in the Bay Area all my life.
To understand why the Bay Area is painted as liberal, compare the voting returns on a clear liberal/conservative issue between the Bay Area and L.A. regions next election. It really does vote that way, generally.
You're right that Silicon Valley is a conservative stronghold (not surprising, is it, suits with money are usually conservative, no?). Most of the Peninsula to the south is also conservative as well.
Places like San Francisco, Oakland, Marin, and Berkeley on the other hand, are rather liberal, and do have the kind of community you suggest.
Unfortunately a lot of over-the-top PC has crept in with the liberalism since the '60s, so I'm not sure they're all that much better from a geek standpoint.
Cyberspace is the only real home geeks will ever have. Don't let them take it away.
Jim
I suppose geeks are commonly portrayed that way in mainstream media, but is that really that bad? Would you rather geeks were portayed as closed-minded, intolerant Bible-toters? ; )
My definition of "geek" is somebody who questions all things and tries to find answers for himself. ( I know, I know... but there are amazingly few women I know of who fit this description honestly). Also, geeks are willing to take apart anything to see how it works. ( This could mean physically taking apart machanical things like radios or computers OR it could mean minutely examining workings of big systems like gevernments and corporations to understand how and why they work the way they do..) They become very annoyed if they are not allowed to ask questions or take apart things to see for themselves how they work. Real geeks don't like taking things on faith. Hence the rebellion against Microsoft and God. And in IMHO, if you really question today's status quo in the world carefully, you can't help but being with the liberals on most of the issues. Especially if you are not an American ( and hence pay less attention to the mind-numbinlgy idiotic and partial American media)
Please note carefully that computer programmer/hacker!=real geek. There may be a large overlap in the two sets but geekness is an attitude... not a profession. I have a couple of higher degrees in science and getting one in engineering right now. I know PhD Scientists who believe that there's not enough evidence for Global Warming but Jesus's resurrection has been scientifically proven.
So geekness has nothing to do with Degrees either... I was a proud geek at 15 ( though I didn't know the word then, not being a native English speaker) And I am a proud geek now at 27.
And yes... flame me all you want to but I do look down upon stupid people ( and you know who you are)
grepya
Insecurity driving the need for mastery of something.. yeah i think i see that in many geeks.. but i think it might be in the same category as computers in a way.. geekdom makes you interested in computers --> computers provide reinforcement for geekdom --> positive feedback loop. geekdom makes "normals" taunt you in skool --> insecurity --> need for mastery of some environment --> obsessiveness --> geekdom. However, i think a point comes in many geeks' lives where they think "wait a minute, what am i trying to prove, anyway? what do i care what j. random jock thinks about me? why am i killing myself trying to be better than everyone else?" and they start to enjoy their geekdom more- to try to master something just cause they think it's fun. A bunch of my friends and I all reached that point around the beginning of high school. Some of my friends reached it sooner. Some (such as a certain redmond resident) will never reach it.
Anyway the point i originally meant to make was that insecurity is a trait that is commonly pushed upon geeks, not one inherent in being a geek, and it simply serves to magnify certain aspects of the "geek personality" (whether this magnification is good depends on whether you're talking to a psychiatrist or today's economy [hi, economy!]). The desire to explore the possibilities of a system is a strong geek trait, and one that can be converted into obsession fairly easily, by many factors, including insecurity, but also simple enjoyment of the system. I think for me insecurity was largely erased by having a tight knit group of geeks to hang out with for the past six years or so, so it's curable, but that doesnt mean one should go around trying to "cure" geeks of insecurity based solely on the fact that they spend too much time on the MUD.
wisconsin does not exist.
last sentence, first paragraph: "Some" = "Some people" - thereby changing the sentence from a reference to some random friend of mine who doesnt exist to a reference to an obsessively competitive billionaire you may have heard of.
..what i get for posting at 7am.
wisconsin does not exist.
Lately, I've been differentiating between "geeks" and "nerds" according to a definition scheme thats mostly in my own head, but i think has roots and applications in the "real" world. Daveo is right on about geeks, but in my mind the term "nerd" refers specifically to those geeks with the obsessive tendencies he mentions (with the "hyper-rational dysfunctional type" being the extreme form of nerd). A nerd is someone who enjoys totally enveloping their mind in something -often computers/tech, but it can also include gaming, books, science, the bible- anything that involves mental stimulation and seemingly endless possibilities for expansion. This single trait is probably present in all geeks, but the differences in degree are huge.. for some it is an obsession, both with the process and the object of their (current) interest. Others, such as myself, feel the pull less strongly, or can transfer their interests from one thing to another to the point of never being consumed with one realm. In my mind, both these types of people are geeks, but only the obsessive ones are "nerds". The division, of course, is not a a solid one, but it can help clear up some of the confusion in discussions such as this one, because some of the general traits of geeks and nerds are quite different- to take an example from this discussion, "open minded, social (sort of)" is a geek stereotype, and "intolerant of opposing views, antisocial" is a nerd stereotype. Both, in my experience, have only a little more than a shred of truth.
/. , that computer skills are prerequisite for geekdom. A geek is a geek because of that person's way of thinking, not because they can crack the pentagon in under 5 min. Computers can reinforce geekdom and provide a great medium for its expression/expansion/whatever but they are not the only such medium. Though most of the geeks i know know how to code, only a few of them want to make it their life's work. And I know several geeks who rarely even use computers.
On another note, I'd like to speak out against the attitude among many geeks, esp on
my longest post yet.. a good thing?
wisconsin does not exist.
duh.
wisconsin does not exist.
Geeks, Nerds, or whatever (I still prefer the term "nerd"), are generally considered antisocial dweebs, left-wing, etc. partly becuase of the media, but don't y'all think there's a ring of truth in there somewhere?
Do you consider yourself a geek/nerd/techie type? Then think back to your high-school days (or last spring if you're still there) and tell me that you were in a "popular" crowd, you were on the varsity football team, or were a cheerleader, you were among the student body, etc. I'll bet you weren't. I know I wasn't.
Okay, so high school may be a poor example. What about your college experience and/or career? The average non-technical person sees tech types as living in another world becuase they do! I'm sure the media helps, but every day on the job or on the campus, I see a division between those who are "technical" and those who are not. Technical people are somehow viewed as different, and that is not just driven by media. Technical people ARE different (but not better or worse). People who are by nature less social or who have differing views wind up finding their place among geeks/nerds, becuase most of us just don't care, or are mature enough to see a person's worth behind a facade, intentional or not.
Maharet
Gotta say...I agree with all the comments about the "public image" of geeks, as distorted by the Me-De-Duh, especially post-Columbine.
Had to share a great quote by the late, great Frank Zappa that could be applied to this one. He said it in response to the question: "What do you think of interviews in the music industry?" His priceless answer: "Interviews with people who can't speak by people who can't write for people who can't read."
Now, think about every "expert" on "youth culture" "computer culture" and "geeks..."
Feel free to add any good Jello Biafra quotes to this thread!
--ranting after Sunday coffee
I don't think you really can sterotype geeks. We are all so diffrent that it makes it impossible to sterotype us at all. (Though I can say that probably MOST of us aren't liberals in a democratic way, but libretarians, but even all of us don't fit into that) I myself am a Libretarian, Believe in God (Am a Christian to be excact)and don't like violence. That is my 'inner geek', what is yours?
That's my 1/50 of $1.00 US
JM
Big Brother is watching, vote Libertarian!!
--Justin Mitchell
"2nd Place is a fancy word for losing" --Bender (Futurama)
For reference, the federal gov't was not authorized to collect an income tax until 1913. That's not exactly the days of wooden huts...
The reason largely is that the government before then had not been that involved in social services. It's got far more commitments now, and those are *expensive* -- especially when they are based on *old* life-expectancy estimates and so forth.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Or, opt for slavery. Before y'all flame, a) I'm not saying that's a GOOD thing -- it's incredibly reprehensible for a society to avoid work by enslaving another, and not particularly practical besides, and b) there's precedent in a certain species of ant which has evolved to the point where it lives off the work of others. Seriously. It enslaves another type of ant to do its work...
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Atheist, Liberal Left...
Socially liberal, keep the fundies from getting their way. Decentralise government to spread the base of power, and stop one or two getting too much control. Fiscally left, because whether or not you deserve a decent standard of living shouldn't be dependent on how much currency you can rake into your curent land mass... so tax everyone and hike up public spending, I say. Is a manager a better citizen because he makes more money for the country he works in, even though he might not work as hard as a manual labourer on a fraction of the salary ? High taxes and decentralised govt also make it harder for rich types to buy political power, as some of them are prone to doing.
And finally...
"Free Beer" or "Free Speech" ? Free sunlight...
Can you sum it up in a word? *No.* In a noise? *Whuuuurghhhhh!*
That should be pretty clear here as we approach the year 2000. At least no god in the Xtian/Muslim/whatever sense.
This isn't something 'geeks' should be making excuses for.
I'm going to go get laid now, despite being a geek.
later
-I go to Rice, so figure out my email address
First off, let me say that I wish I could get here sooner when these things come up so that I could get a post people would actually see, but it never happens.
So here is what I think of the subject. Most people seem to realize that those who are loud and motivated tend to change society. Look at the American Revolution (was it either of those things?), where most people didn't want any sort of war and would have been perfectly content to remain under British rule. However, there was a small group of radicals who, through the use of propaganda and a lot of shouting, managed to convince the apathetic Americans that a Revolution was necessary. So my point? When you have a few very loud people, they can effectively change perceptions and make it seem that there are a lot of people similar to them. This seems to me to be the same with the geek community. I'd say that the majority is quite diverse, ranging from Christian to Hindu (programming is probably popular among Jains and Hindus because it doesn't harm the environment) to atheist, from "conservative" to "liberal". However, that extreme group of very loud, "Us Liberal Anti-Government Anti-Authority-of-Any-Sort Geeks Must Stick Together" people (not to name names *coughJonKatz*) makes it look like the entire geek community is the same and united in beliefs and practices which it isn't necessarily. Let's face it, the only thing that geeks have absolutely in common is that: we are geeks. We like geek stuff. And once the Jon Katz's of the world begin to paint that picture (Katz scares me because his Hellmouth series was popular, and people reading his articles who don't really know Slashdot might think that he epitomizes Slashdot), THEN the media takes over and solidifies it. So my basic hope is that people in life will take this advice: be careful with stereotypes in the first place, but if you must use a stereotype like 'geek' (and we must use stereotypes, it is not something we will ever give up), don't read anything more into it than what it is. Geek means geek. I am a geek, most people reading this are geeks, that means that we like things like technology and toys and computers, and some other things. That does not mean that we are all liberal or that we are all Christian or all anti-Christian, so stop making those assumptions. We are all very different people, united only (by default) by our geekiness.
Ben Garrison, a mindless idiot who will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.
1 AM S0 S1CK 0F ST00P1D ST3R30 TYP3S!!!!111
:wq
3V3RY0N3 1 KN0W SAYS 'B1FF, U R S0 K00L AND 3L33T!! U HAV3 ALL TH3 B3ST
WAREZ! H0W D1D U G3T 2 B SUCH A GR3AT SUCC3SS? BI TH3 WAY, 1 N33D 2
B0RR0W Y0R CDR DR1V3.'
D0N"T TH3Y KN0W 1 HAV3 F33L1NGS JUST L1K3 3V3RY0N3 3LS3? 1 AM N0T A
ST3R3O TYP3, 1 AM A HUMAN B31NG!!!!!!!11
ST3R30 TYP3S SUUX!!
JUST CUZ 1 HAV3 TH3 B3ST WAREZ, 1T D03ZN"T M3AN 1"LL L3T JUST NE1 US3
MY CDR DR1V3!!!!11 1T"S N0T JUST WAREZ, 1T"S A WAY 0F L1F3!!!!!11
:WQ
:wq
:WQ
------ ------ ------
ALL HA1L B1FF, TH3 M05T 31337 D00D!!!!!1
------ ------ ------
ALL HA1L B1FF, TH3 M05T 31337 D00D!!!!!1
:WQ
------ ------ ------
ALL HA1L B1FF, TH3 M05T 31337 D00D!!!!!1
------ ------ -
I think the reason "computer geeks" have been termed liberal is very simple. Look at what happened in Kansas with their school board. I'd like to find a group of computer people that do not believe in science and the theory of the big bang. Find me a group of computer nerds that only believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. I know for a fact that what the Kansas school board did this week really pissed me off, as it shows how OUT OF TOUCH certain people are with reality. Then again, I do think that the right wing conservatives are at fault for a lot. You need to be open minded in today's world.
I agree.
Sociologists have come up with "labelling theory". They've noticed that people tend to live up or down to expectations and to identify with labels.
The media has an interest in forwarding stereotypes to make up conflicts and trends that they can write about. Of course, this tends to support the conflicts and trends, which sells even more media.
For example, were Generation X-ers really more outwardly focussed, less selfish than "Yuppies" before the media wrote a bunch of stories about it? Did the stories cause Gen X-ers to take pride in their "difference" and move in the direction they were reading about while those who owned BMWs became defensive and came up with a lot of self-justifications for their lifestyles?
Political parties and advocacy groups like to do this to consolidate consituencies. The Left tell minority groups that they should feel this way or that and the Right drag around people with religious convictions.
It's destructive of real analysis, debate and progress.
I like to hope that the Internet can connect people to people without institutional filters. On the Internet, one has access a large range of viewpoints and has can find those sympathetic to specific views regardless of class or classification.
Maybe I'm being naive and the Internet is more about banner ads, porn and spam. I'm concerned that there are a lot of powerful interests trying to get a handle on the Internet. I'm afraid that their most powerful technique is numbing us, to make the Internet just more TV. One of the ways they do this is through labelling us and pigeon-holing.
I recommend more independent thought, force yourself to examine your own beliefs and read widely of those viewpoints with which you now disagree. Resist the temptation to identify groups as narrow-minded,hateful or only self-interested. If you must identify a label with a negative emotion remember that people have been victims of their labels and the polarized atmosphere we suffer today. If you find yourself hating a class of people (conservative, liberals, the poor, religious people, atheists, slackers, geeks, yuppies, CEOs), then consider that you might be part of the problem. Consider that those who wish to divide us for their entertainment and their own agenda may be winning.
Ignore what I've said and think for yourself.
Don't you just love the world today?
The entire idea that we can place every person with a common interest, common belief, or common background into nice little square boxes with extreme generalizations is one of the many quirks of human behavior.
A lot of it has become taboo in our culture as well. Someone who is part of the majority can never ever generalize something who is part of the minority because you would be called racist, sexist, or one of a hundred other 'ists' out there.
The truth is, generalizations almost never work. Not every geek is antisocial, not every nerd wears glasses, not every hacker is malicious, not every male is aggressive, and not every female is passive.
However, before you start making generalizations about so-called geeks. Maybe you should ask the people you include in your geek-class if they think they are a geek.
So, said that, the only generalization I can make about geeks is that they are non-conformists. They do something that is not in step with popular society which makes them geeks.
Given that today it is now popular to use computers and use the internet... guess what? Chances are, if you were a geek because you played with machines, you probably aren't now.
--
The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
I believe that's the basis of authoritarian socialism. Fascism is somewhat similar, depending on what level of government control "fix[ing] it" entails.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
First, most Open Source geeks are, IMHO, "spiritual" in the 12-step sense. 12-step programs advocate the belief in something greater than the individual, and allow each individual to choose what they care to define as that "higher power". but that's exactly the point of Open Source - the collective minds and talents of geeks and coders IS greater than that of the individual! If they weren't, there'd be no advantage to opening the source. What would you gain? It is an article of faith, with those geeks and coders, myself included, that Opening the source IS worth it, and that those thousands of minds ARE greater than my own, or that of any individual.
Spiritual does NOT require a god. As in the above case, you have a "higher power" (the Open Source community), but no "God" figure. One does not require the other.
I =DON'T= see geeks or coders being into toxic religion. The two are contrary in nature. There are plenty of =constructive= faiths and belief systems, and I can see geeks being into those, but toxic, shaming, abusive religions (of which there are plenty) are an anathema to the nature of programming.
Left-wing? Right-wing? I don't think it's relevent. Geeks have been around, long before politics was invented.
Pro-guns? Anti-guns? I've known geeks in both fields, each willing to defend their views to the hilt. Personally, I am utterly anti-guns, and I have what I believe to be sound, logical, rational arguments for that stance. I've nothing against others who are pro-guns, who no doubt have equally sound, logical, rational arguments.
Personally, whatever stance a geek takes, I think you'll find it's better thought-out than Joe or Jane Average's. It won't be "cos this piece of paper/book/newspaper/party clown told me to".
Are geeks obedient? IMHO, it depends on the geek. There are plenty of dysfunctional geeks. Being into technology doesn't make a person immune to the effects of their environment, and abusive or toxic environments will screw up a geek like anyone else.
Are geeks "healthier"? Nope. I don't think that healthiness is a function of geekiness. They're utterly unrelated.
Are geeks "libertarian"? Nope. They can't. Libertarianism may be based on geekiness, but geeks came first, the label second. And labels can never be anything more than pale reflections of the reality.
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 that the other poster who pointed out that geeks are sensitive to and abhor hypocrisy, combined with the near moral irrelevance of many of the modern churches, is right on the money. Very few geeks have been personally offensive to me about my belief in Jesus; the few that have were only trying to be offensive to Christians in general and probably didn't yet know that I am a Christian...
I lay a good bit of the burden for the stereotype on geeks themselves. Geeks are no different from other people in needing attention, and folks tend to exagerate their differences from others in order to garner attention. I've met many geeks who are nearly completely unwilling to admit to being relatively normal, despite the fact that they are right in the middle of most bell curves describing their peer groups, the nation, and probably the world.
Also, are geeks really different from the rest of the world in that their stereotypes often do not fit? Aren't stereotypes prototypically, well, stereotypical? :-)
-- "Ever wonder why the SAME PEOPLE make up ALL the conspiracy theories?"
Does anyone even know what it means anymore?
/. readership.
In my experience, geeks tend to have these traits:
1. Highly rational, though not necessarily intelligent.
2. Technology-oriented.
3. Enjoy being social but generally have low self-esteem.
4. Tend to be highly competent in multiple areas, less so in the hyper-rational dysfunctional type.
5. Have a real distrust of anyone who tells them what to do.
6. Believe very firmly that they should be allowed to make their own decisions.
7. Usually aren't interested in telling other people what to do either, as long as they're not being bothered. Live and let live.
8. Are very, very self-reliant.
9. Love to teach/expound.
There's no way that these observations will hold true for everyone who thinks of him or herself as a geek, but I'll bet each one would apply to a broad cross-section of
Note that these traits don't exclude religion, conservatism, or (other?) stupidity, though I think in general they do tend to select against all three.
One thought that's coming to mind is that I have seen Bible geeks in my life. Maybe 'geekitude' has more to do with being obsessive about something? And perhaps these traits arise from the kind of thinking that is required to be obsessive about computers?
Just a thought.
When I read the topic, I thought it'd be about the classic anti-social, bad hygene, online constantly, t-shirt wearing, long-haired, Star Trek loving kind of stereotypes. But these I've never heard of.
/. back around. Where are you hearing this stereotype from? Wherever you heard it from, that's probably where it comes from.
For one, I thought the stereotype was that geeks were socially inept, not 'likely to make new friends'.
I've never heard of a stereotypical geek religious belief, aetheism or otherwise. I've also never heard of a stereotypical geek political alignment.
Okay, so geeks do tend to get religious about their software/hardware (or so the stereotype I am familiar with goes). So where did you hear that they are willing to try new things? I thought the opposite would be the story. Isn't that what the kde/gnome linux/bsd yadda yadda flamewars are about?
So I guess I'm turning this Ask
The enemies of Democracy are
I know this isn't much of an answer, but it's the only one that works - you just know you're a geek. There is no single definition of a geek that's going to cut it. It's like trying to explain Tao, or how Microsoft products seemingly fail randomly. The culture has grown to a sufficient size now that the word "geek" has become more general, and stereotyped.
There's also plenty of posers / wannabe's now, apparently due to the incredible amount of money you can earn by "knowing computers". This has contributed so something akin to a cultural identity crisis.
I can't offer a single answer... all I can say, is that you just know if you're a geek. Don't try to become a geek, it's utterly doomed to failure.
Those who are searching for a definition of geekyness are encouraged to look up the definition of Hacker in the Jargon file. It's the best, and most authoritative, definition to date. I would also recommend Appendix B, portrait of J Random Hacker. It's also the only text I have found that gets anywhere close to the Right Thing(tm) on this topic.
--
A certain group of people displaying eccentric traits gets labeled as "geeks". Then, other people that share some, but not even most, of those traits falls under the same umbrella name. At present, many do fit the stereotype, some fit it perfectly, and many not at all.
Stereotypes work in this way.
Vidi, Vici, Veni
My excuse was simple, I was using a signed 8 bit integer to hold my array of victims. I stopped when I hit a buffer overflow. I told the jury that they were members of Future Farmers of America - it was ruled a mercy killing.
BTW - "John Katz told me to do it." is my excuse when I get arested taking 12 year olds to XXX movies.
--Shoeboy
Young male, computer obsessed, problems with authority, ateist, anarchist, slacker, tendency to take expensive things apart and scatter them around my apartment, avid reader, fan of thai cuisine, pale, nocturnal, extremely odd musical tastes, likes to build things, once killed 128 (2^7) people at my middle school - that's me. Maybe I'm to blame for the stereotype. If so, I'm sorry.
--Shoeboy
ateist Oops, should have added bad speller while I was at it.
--Shoeboy
The Jargon File, aka "The New Hacker's Dictionary" currently written/edited by Eric S. Raymond, paints just the picture you mention. Hardly the "liberal media" that you mention.
My journal has hot
I couldn't agree more. I couched it in US terms though, since that's my social context. But that's okay, I need a score card to tell the European parties apart, and I'll never understand Israeli politics :-)
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Infrastructure? No local state, city, county governments pay for the infrastructure. Such money comes from state and local taxes such as sales tax, income taxes, gasoline taxes, toll roads, and the various taxes that local govenments add to things. The federal income tax goes to federal programs, some of which goes back to the state to help the local infrastructure. But generally these programs exist simply because the people cannot afford to pay so much local tax after their federal taxes. If the federal tax went down and the local taxes went up we would be removing an entire level or beuracracy and save alot of money. The federal government obviously needs money though, but the money they use except for the military and state help ^^mentioned earler^^ is simply for social programs. Not all these social programs are bad, and many may be helping to fuel our economy. But, in my own opinion as long as the military is being funded, our local states could easily operate and run this country on their own.
Whoa, I am definatly not a grammersist (can't even spell it), but that statement made absolutly no sense to me. I believe what your trying to say is that we should decentralize the government, and at the same time tax eveyone so that this uncentralized government can evenly distribute funds. First I want to know how a decentralized government can have an effective social finance system. Either all the money goes into one large central government, which would give that government more power, oviously not decentralized. Or each individual section of the country tax its citizen heavily so and spread out the wealth section by section. Hmm so that means the poor sections of the country would remain poor, while the rich sections of the country pool thier money together to help them become more wealthy, while trying to remove the poor populus from their regions. That would be a great country to live in. I'm sorry but the only way to run a socialist country is with centralization, and the centralized government ends up with too much money, and too much power.
I think that's the exact opposite of many Slashdotters.
I can understand where you're coming from on this. However, I'm a Christian and I certainly consider myself geek as well, so here's my viewpoint...
/.'ers there when the world was formed. Any belief in the origin of the universe/life/man requires some degree of faith, no matter which way you slice it.
Even though the theory of evolution is laid out in nearly every scientific textbook you'll come across, it, like Creationism, takes some degree of faith to accept. I'm pretty sure none of us
As a geek and a Christian, I can tell you that yes, I also think too much. I've questioned my faith to the point I thought I was an atheist--for nearly 10 years. Geeks do, indeed, attempt to think through everything, rationalize it.
At any rate, I do now know why I believe what I do. IMO, there are some things that even geeks may never fully grasp. But hey, geeks are also the type that keep trying.
Perhaps geekdom could be characterized by a desire for mental control of concepts, and some degree of obsessiveness in acheiving that end.
Can't sleep, the clowns will eat me...
Lots of people have suggested ideas for a standardized definition of "geek." Since there is no ISO standard on what constitutes geekdom and what does not, one must conclude that the definition is mostly subjective, and open to personal interpretation. Well, let me try.
So whaddya think?
If we are to define "geek" by taking all of the things that Slashdot readers have in common, then what we end up with is a very diverse group of people with a common interest: technology and how it affects us. Geeks are excited by new data storage technologies. The general public is not. Geeks are excited by new, high-speed physical layers for computer networking. The general public could care less. Geeks are excited by revolutionary new algorithms. The general public: "What the fuck is an algorithm?"
Look, I know lots of people that get excited by things that the general public could care less about. These people constitute a dizzying range of ideologies. I know fundamentalist religious geeks and atheist geeks. I know Democratic geeks and Republican geeks. I know heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual geeks. I know conservative geeks and liberal geeks. And "geek" is the common thread here. Please
So here's the bottom line:
We've got too much in common to be torn apart by the things we disagree on.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
When you gunned down those 128 students and were brought in front of the judge, what did you give as a reason for your actions? I only gunned down 64 students, since I had a bit less (ha! ha!) ammunition than you did. I told the judge that Jon Katz made me do it.
The result? Four hours of community service.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
For a long time, I didn't think the profile you described was the "typical" hacker. Then a couple years ago, I came across this part of the Jargon file:
:). You can also say the world of mathematics is much the same, a controlled place, where the controller has the feeling of total control over the universe in which they inhabit.
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/j argon/html/Appendix-B.html
and I've noticed that quite a few of the people I know and work with, fit the profile (not to mention that I fit the profile pretty well too).
I bet there's a logical reason where the typical liberal/atheist/open minded stereotype got started. It probably has something to do with the ultra-intelligent folks at MIT and Caltech in the late 60's/early 70's.
My knee-jerk explanation is that it's just the nature of working with computers. Computers are controlled environments, I can start it up, shut it down, make it do anything I want. In a simplified way, I'm the "god" of my system and I can do anything I want, I have no limits, my imagination is the only thing holding me back (there's also some memory/CPU upgrades holding me back, but I won't get into it here
If I had to pick a common theme running among things like religion, conservativism, and closed-mindedness, I'd have to say the first word that comes to mind is "limits." Religion limits what you can do; it does so for good reasons, but they're limits nonetheless, and I should be able to decide what is right and what is wrong. Conservativism also makes me think of limits to what my freedoms are, especially after growing up in the Reagan/Bush years. Closed-mindedness seems to be the antithesis of someone who works almost exclusively with computers. Computers have taught me that it doesn't matter what your background, sex, race, upbringing, sexual orientation, or disability is, the only thing that matters is how well you can code or produce great things from your computer. I've been surprised on several occasions to learn upon meeting someone that someone I've been exchanging email with, they happen to be completely deaf, or grossly overweight, or 18 years of age when their writing suggests 35.
A quick straw poll of where I work (small computer group at a large american university) shows that 14 out of 16 fit the typical profile pretty well, there's just a couple of right-wing types in my computer group.
What types of computer people seem typical to you?
If you have to split the world into two, then libertarians would have to fall on the side of conservatism (less government). However, libertarians are very rarely accused of promoting limits.
Just to start an argument, I'd say it's the liberals who are all in favor of limits. Who advocates warning labels for rap music. Who proposed the clipper chip and v-chip? Which adminstration militarily intervened the most into foreign affairs? In a more general note, which side wants to limits guns, politically incorrect speech, ban tobacco, etc?
In fact, what was there that Reagan wanted to limit, that liberals don't also want to limit? Pornography? Talk to the N.O.W. about that. Drugs? Talk to Clinton about that. Speech? Talk to Tipper Gore about that.
To sum it up, the left/right and liberal/conservative polarities don't exist. Politics is much more complicated than a one dimensional spectrum, and as intelligent geeks, we ought to recognize that.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
...their strange, weird and quirky sense of humor.
For example:
Richard M. Stallman, Linus Torvalds, and Donald E. Knuth engage in a discussion on who was the best programmer.
Stallman: "God told me I have programmed the best editor in the world!"
Torvalds: "Well, God told *me* that I have programmed the best kernel in the world!"
Knuth: "Wait, wait - I never said that."
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned