I agree that the criteria are a little limited. It doesn't capture, for example, a geek enamoured with Greek Classics for example.
Nevertheless, I find it interesting how much -in common- many geeks have. I don't think LawyerWriter's tests were meant to be exhaustive.
9:32 PM, May 17, 2006
An important distinction. (Found via this post at Almost Infamous.) Here is my comment: Thank you for your post. Nerd vs. Geek is an important distinction, and I think you elucidate it well.
I disagree with the specificity of your geek criteria though. While I think they capture exactly the flavor of geekdom, one must remember that people can "geek out" on different things. For example, I meet criteria 1, 2, 7, 8, and 10 with flying colors. I almost meet criteria 4. But 3, 5, and 6 not so much, and 9 not at all. Nonetheless, I consider myself a geek and score pretty highly on those geek inventories one finds on the net.
One can be a geek without playing Dungeons and Dragons or loving comic books or being an anime fan, as long as one engages fervently in mental activities of a similar nature and with a similar obliviousness to social consequences. That is geekdom to me. Using these more abstract criteria, it is possible to identify geeks from other cultures and other time periods.
posted by Zachary Drake at 11:24 AM on May 17, 2006
"Nerd vs. Geek"
1 Comment -
Point taken, Zach.
I agree that the criteria are a little limited. It doesn't capture, for example, a geek enamoured with Greek Classics for example.
Nevertheless, I find it interesting how much -in common- many geeks have. I don't think LawyerWriter's tests were meant to be exhaustive.
9:32 PM, May 17, 2006