I think all of your points fit well into what I posted. My only expression was that the majority of nerds I spend time with, are natural science nerds. I would hate to disenfranchise my Liberal Arts brothers and sisters with other types of acedmic, real-world-applicable knowledge enthusiasm.

But I will disagree with you about trivia, because trivia gives us use in fitting into social niches. I think that puts it more in the geeky category.

But in the end, these are my definitions. You don’t have to use them yourself.

Okay so I don’t personally claim any of these identities, but I know and spend time with a lot of people who do (and I’ve spent countless hours waxing poetic on the breakdown of various queer identities, similarly outside the “norm” of society)…

My question is: Why is it necessary for someone to want to change the world scientifically in order for them to be considered a nerd? What about all my book-worm literature and philosophy nerd friends who are equally obsessed with classics and theory? I’m pretty sure an unyielding passion for liberal arts discipline amount to more than just useless trivia– after all, political revolutions begin with manifestos and even fiction writers have long sought to inspire a questioning of social convention. Just because their methods aren’t strictly experimental, why should they be considered any less eligible for nerd-status? And if you still consider them something separate, what are they?

Personally, I always thought nerd indicated obsessive academic knowledge of any sort, whereas geek existed as a kind of glorious techie-dominated subset. And all of the useless trivia stuff is, I’m sorry to say it, a little dorky.