Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts

Thursday, March 20, 2008

To be precise...

What is a nerd and what is a geek? Often I have observed the use of these terms interchangeably and sometimes I have seen one term being used to cover elements that conform to both terms. I wouldn’t say it is wrong; I support colloquial definitions (not very ethically, but yet quite clearly) in English and other languages partly due to my own ineptness in living up to the standards of Victorian English. But the thoughtless misuse of the terms creates quite a degree of confusion and misinterpretation in many circles.
Both terms are American (anti-British if I may) and have specific characteristics and differ in many senses and many of them are not just subtle. Doubtless, there are similarities – both are characterized by a certain degree of academic drive, social ineptness and a certain lack of focus on appearance. But both terms have evolved over time with continuous tampering and refining to their present positions where a clear distinction may be made.
The first point of difference is the origin – the word geek actually has an English (meaning fool) source though the meaning has been corrupted and evolved with time and use. The term nerd has no English origin (though it may be a derivative of certain known words but that is not clear). This may not be a very consequential difference and so it will not demand attention beyond this.
A more embodied difference is the appearance. Though both may be thought to lack focus on appearance, often once can see a nerd being very conventionally unsightly. The geeks of the current timeline are not so easily identifiable. They may have a pretty smile and may still retain the geek gene. A nerd would typically have untended oily hair, glasses that were a trend when glasses were invented, pants that were a in vogue more recently in the 1920s, a shirt that would be slightly too big or slightly too small, a very noticeable lack of fat and a certain dental aberration. A geek can manage to escape that to a fair extent but may not to the point where the pay attention to how they look and match their pants to their shirts. Often they wear only t-shirts (primarily because they are easier to live with and don’t have buttons that require painful attention but it could also be that geeks have a liking for messages on their shirts and very few of such condition lack the t- element). Nevertheless, a geek is not so likely to win a date by his/her allure quotient as the focus lies in a different direction.
A geek is characterized primarily by a passionate drive for certain things like academics (though not at all limited to), technology, gadgetry, music, movies and such. In fact, such a tendency is the very definitive factor of a geek. A geek may conform to all or some of these conventions. So a non-academic person may still be a geek if he is crazy about electronics and his favorite outings are to best buy and circuit city. Such drives are often prioritized over social needs and hence there is a certain lack of real friends (though geeks may be very socially active in the virtual world) and social participation. A geek may be really cool in his/her own perspective and in the perspectives of his peers making him a success in some circles but not in general ones. Their train of thought also runs along the same lines and that limits the extent to with others may relate to them or vice versa.
A nerd on the other hand is driven towards only academics and its allies. The books read are science-fiction. The social circles are math and physics club. Nerds may not have the choice of rejecting social calls; they are often excluded before that. They have a resultant social hunger that drives them to do some very silly things and nerds are often found approaching the other sex in quite a sloppy manner. Nerds may not always be the best people to talk everything with, though they may be very good for academic discussions. A nerd friend is not a conventional social asset unless you are a nerd too (though it may be observed that nerds often watch each others’ backs and make good friends within their own kin so it is not all hope lost to be one). Nerds are generally thought to end up very successful due to their academic motivation and may often be found dating supermodels after they make their first few millions, though a geeky habit may not always be a very productive or vocationally viable one.
Both terms have evolved from extreme to extreme through time. In the past, the n-word carried a milder tag while the g-word was often used for offense. In their current avatars however, being a nerd may conventionally be less desirable than being a geek.
Being a geek has evolved to such a positive state that often geeks proclaim their condition out loud and strong. There is a certain ego and arrogance that goes with the tag and they chose to retain all of that. It feels good to be someone who’s rejected society for technology. It feels good to be a competent geek in geek circles; you are respected by that circle for it. It feels good to hit out on the world for being unable to see what you see, from your weblog.
Of course nerds also follow suit for similar reasons. You can be a reject through your childhood and college life but once you have salvaged your academic potential for professional success, you can hire many conventionally popular individuals to do your bidding at will. Definitely that fosters a dormant ego that does not wish to stay quiet about it.
I would think that such appeal (or the lack of it) can be bred or avoided by personal choice. One definitely can be what one chooses to be if one does carry a true motivation and genuineness for it. Some things are skin deep and others can be purchased for a small fee. It is the mindset that makes the individual that the social pundits pass judgment on.

Sunday, November 11, 2007

Weigh it...

The average description of the average libran would start with "balanced". Probably because of the scales, I'm guessing. But most often than not, the average libran does not have a totally balanced way of looking at everything. He/She does not stay in control and equilibrium and is not the person one would want around to solve an issue by balancing matters, or to give a totally unbiased opinion. However he/she'd be the perfect person to ask for a well thought and backed opinion (however skewed it may be).

The point to be driven is that a libran is a confused person in a lot of internal turmoil. He(assume the /she from here on please) breaks his head over non-issues and petty matters to achieve a well-balanced opinion on it. He seeks that equilibrium state but most often is in only a trying-to-get-there position. And his growing turmoil spills all around, irritating most around him; the people around do manage to see that he's not normal but they fail to understand his conflicts and associated trauma. A libran is not a calm or composed person by nature. He does of course, feel at some points that he's got the solution to his problem in hand and a well-weighed perspective on the matter - at which time he'd be serene (or so he thinks). He now has enough reason to battle out his policy with the universe. But the rest of the world does not see this as a tranquil state; it is a state of unbearably heavy stubbornness and a stone-like coldness to other opinions - an indifference that is not well-liked.

However, all the above non-positives and positives (as the relative case may be) are supposedly neutralized by what is called the libran charm - which we will not make any ground on.

We will observe some of my personal confusions and conflicts (that be a joy. To me).

I am a person of south Indian origin but my current (and past!) memory starts only from the age of 4, an age where I had already been in Bombay for some years. The cosmopolitan really helped me grew - in awareness of variant lifestyles and cultures, at the same time allowed me retain my south Indian roots; I could at least speak my mother tongue and know of some practices. But, naturally, I was different from the average south Indian. I wasn't aware of south Indian movies (a major culture drive factor in my opinion) nor was I fully aware of how it is to live like one. In strict senses (and some less strict ones as well), I was not south Indian. But at the same time, I was not a total...anything else (there is a lot more outside south India than just the so-called stereotype "north Indian"!). I was not a full Bombay person either. I was unacceptable in most circles - there was always a certain rule that I could never live up to.

I moved to Chennai for my undergrad. Chennai was supposedly my native place - where I had great fun over vacation trips. Naturally I had a great opinion of Chennai when I first arrived. Only, to my dismay, vacation trips and living were two entirely different things. The Chennai I had seen in the past was limited - to my relatives, a few sight-seeing spots and some miscellaneous others. This time it was plain culture shock. I was moving around with people from a different plane, lifestyle, mindset, and other related parameters. It wasn't fun anymore.

But as is every other college experience, this one was...important. I did open my windows to Chennai (to a fair degree at least) and took what I could from it. In other words, I continued (tried), involuntarily, the libran balance-act.

Was this entirely circumstantial? Would anyone else in my shoes feel the same? Probably. But I had conflicts in a lot of other areas too. I was unable to meet the norms back in Bombay as well and that seems to be a life equation (or non-equation!) now. I was not entirely religious but I wasn't a non-believer too. I had my personal practices. I was short-tempered, but not short enough to become THE guy. I like my subjects and have a lot of motivation towards them, but I'm not totally passionate - given a choice, I would probably still read comics for a living (for a sustainable income and medical plan of course). I was(am) not a total good boy, but I am not bad either. I love music and sing and play with a frenetic enthusiasm but I am nowhere near the best one in my house even! I am computer savvy; I use it for a lot of my purposes and can take it apart and put it together, troubleshoot and understand its working. But I cannot write even a print program in any language to save my life! I am not chauvinist and I do respect women, but I do not respect all of their talk and deed just because of the latters' origin. I like a clean house and I do work to keep it that way (at least now!) but it is still not strikingly clean! I do not like to spend a lot of money but I am no thrift worm either! I do not like to get on the wrong side of people and do try to help such situations but I am not a diplomat either! I am not a stereotype person but at the same time I am not driven too much off the average in any direction! I cut the examples here and conclude on them that this brings a lot of confusion and turmoil in my life. But I love living with them.

I will not patronize on how I deal with them (I don't know how I do it myself but I know that I love it like this!) but it probably has something to do with acceptance and subscription to Gandhian thought (but I still like Metallica and rebellious dialogue! - if that can make a striking conflict...sort of...!). And my zodiac persona (I believe in the Zodiac but not entirely!), I guess, helps my take parts of each trait, put them together and make a formative picture - a structure that allows me to rationalize through the chaos. Or is it something else...? I debate...

- A stereotype yet off-center libran