Vernacular
There are three words with which I don’t think a very clear vernacular exists. These are the words “Nerd”, “Geek”, and “Dork”. I have thought long and hard about these and have developed my own set of definitions that I would like to integrate into the common understanding of the U.S. English language.
Lets first state that all of these terms define people that have something in common. They are often somewhat socially aloof from the “norm” of society, they might tend to hyperfocus on things, and they sometimes are really not aware of their surroundings, social situation, reality as many perceive it, etc… And let me clarify that if you fall into, or identify with any of these terms, that doesn’t mean that you are one of the above, it is just my observation that it is somewhat common for that to be true about these people. but lets get to understanding the differences. To help, I’ve got a nifty ven diagram of sorts to understand the hierarchy of the thing (and yes, I do mean hierarchy).
NERD
Starting at the top. A nerd is somebody that has an expansive wealth of some form of scientific knowledge. This includes Computer Science, Natural Science, and Social Science. I’ll include cognitive science when I see more proof that they follow a more rigid understanding of scientific experimentation. And I want to say that not all people in these fields classify as nerds, geeks, or dorks, they may just be common civilians. The group I relate to in this category are the computer science nerds. Hackers mostly, some programmers, and a selection of the mathematics based comp-sci folks that really fall into more of a math category A lot of my good friends fall into the Natural Science nerd category. Focusing on Biology, Chemistry, etc…
Now all of the people I know in these categories are obsessed with gaining knowledge in one subject that is in someway applicable to something that can affect the world. The knowledge they seek is not trivia, it actually will help them better understand either or both human civilization, or the way the world/universe works as a whole. But they are obsessed with this knowledge to some degree. They don’t leave the learning at the job or in the classroom, it keeps going beyond that. They go home and read psychopharmacology articles, or read lectures by their favorite academic sources, or design complex programs to help them understand new concepts in computing. They eat and breathe what they do.
Nerdism is an interesting mixture of ADD, OCD, and often has a bit of just plain crazy thrown in.
GEEK
A geek falls really close to nerds in a lot of way. Computer Nerds are often really into Sci-Fi or Fantasy or Comic Books (like me!). So people often fit into the middle of these to categories instead of having a clearly defined line. But the point is again, that they continuously seek out and expand specific knowledge of certain subjects in an obsessive, ADDish kind-of way. The only difference is that this is trivia knowledge. I bust out my comic book geekery quite often to tell the long histories of Daredevil or to give you a long-winded synopsis of the Marvel Civil War, or DC’s Infinite Crisis. I could also give you a season number, episode number, and episode name from most Buffy or Angel quotes.
This knowledge is trivia though. Other than possibly on some game show, or in making my philisophical geek phalace a bit larger, it has no relevant use in our world. It doesn’t contribute to the social evolution of humanity, and it doesn’t help us understand how the world works in any way (well, a psychologist might disagree, but that’s another discussion for another time).
But that’s basically it, a geek is a nerd who’s studying trivia. There’s a lot of gray space here. But we must move on.
DORK
Okay. This is a term that I personally view to be a negative. It’s a slight on a person. This is a person who doesn’t specialize. They’re a generalist. But they’re a bad kind of generalist. A dork doesn’t really learn enough about any one thing to be useful in any way. They can’t contribute to a comic book discussion other than maybe what happened in an issue here or there. They don’t watch any one T.V. show long enough, or withhold enough knowledge about it to really be a specialist. They pretty much only pick up bits and pieces of things. They might be a computer person, but probably only work at a help-desk screening calls because they can’t do more than relatively basic support.
These people are most often the more socially awkward of the three categories. They never know what to do or say, or what they say never really seems right to the people they’re talking to. It’s a sad thing being a dork, they have some qualifications to possibly be a geek, or even a nerd, but they can’t get OCD about any one thing to really absorb enough of it to be considered in any way a specialist. They’re kind of like dumb putty to be honest. No desire to learn more than enough to get by with what they do in the world.
And as a final note. I want to be clear that not every person who has a shit job is a dork. A dork is someone specific, who often tries to get in with geeks and nerds. Any group of 10 geek/nerds probably has someone who’s kind of a dork that they all know. Lets just say that I encourage all dorks to really push their interests and get into something so deeply that you’re always doing it when you don’t have to be somewhere else.
So that’s the definition I think of when I use the vernacular. Feel free to discuss.
Hey Davin,
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.
I define a lot of academia as “Nerdy”. That includes a majority of subjects in and outside of the natural sciences. I could go into a long debate over what is and isn’t nerdy within the sphere of Academic enthusiasm.
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.