Ask Slashdot: Geeks Stereotypes and Their Origins 455
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?
Temperament (Score:1)
I think a lot of programmers have what David Keirsey (a psychologist) calls the Rational temperament. In particular, the Inventor ENTP [keirsey.com] and Architect INTP [keirsey.com] 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.
Re:Totalitarianism is okay... (Score:1)
Also, how many times has a person from the government put a gun to your head to do something? They certainly have the power to get to this point...luckily in the US, the system is SOMEWHAT democratic...enough that if people were educated enough, they'd be able to protest (direct action has always had much greater effect on influencing leaders than just voting for someone and hoping they do what you want) and influence decisions.
[I really dislike the government (even more specifically, the military/Pentagon, FBI, CIA, NSA, DEA) and certainly do not trust it at all]
However, you really do not have much of a choice with corporations. Now, you dislike your job or what your boss does to you. What do you do? Well, you can speak up and risk getting fired or quit. Now, you have to hope you'll find a job, and one that is more pleasent and pays you enough to keep up your living. How many people actually do this? How many people even have the ability to do this? Not many people have the money to go through expensive colleges and get fancy degrees to better their chances getting certain jobs. Not many people have enough spare money to make it by for a week or month or longer while they look for a new and comparable job.
If you don't do what your boss tells you, well, you'll likely get your ass fired. And be in economic trouble unless you are lucky enough to be upper middle class or wealthier.
This certainly isn't putting a gun to your head, but this is definitely control. Economic control.
Can you even elect your boss? What about the bosses boss? the boss of that person? The CEO? Does anyone have any control over their superiors in a corporation?
You can say the boss must be doing a good job...and if he/she isn't they'll be fired. Well, yeah...Hitler did a nice job too. Many of "his" own people loved him. Does that mean that sort of power is justifiable? The ability to exterminate someone, either economically or directly?
Corporate structure certainly isn't as directly bad for a person's freedom as a fascist/totalitarian government which has the power to end your life. That's about it though. Your freedom in a corporation is extremely limited. You're there to do a specific job, and if you say the wrong thing, wear the wrong thing, do something wrong, you risk losing your job and being out on your ass.
Upper middle class computer job positions are pretty relaxed in comparisn which is why it isn't so surprising to me many of the people here are capitalist libertarians. There often isn't strict dress codes, or harsh working conditions, you get paid decent, sometimes there's long work hours but the work isn't a grueling as working 16 hours in a hot factory.
There's also the problem with the elimination of separate corporations...meaning less corporations which grow larger and larger. What's the capitalist libertarian argument against mega conglomerates? It's kind of hard you can start your own business and compete against Wal Mart down the street or Exxon or McDonalds (or any of PepsiCos many hands). If you do somehow come on the radar, don't think they have no way of destroying you. The computer software world is a bit different since it just takes some coders to put together software and if it's something people need, they can get lucky. But as far as everything else goes, the "real" world, this is ridiculous.
You can argue these mega conglomerates couldn't exist without government subsidies and military support for third world labor and natural resources...well, then you're talking about corporations rising and falling all over the place. REAL good job security there.
Anyway. I've rambled on enough.
Redneck Pagan Geeks Unite (Score:1)
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 [mailto]
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
Re:NOT FUNNY (Score:1)
Adam Schumacher
cybershoe@mindless.com
Re:Popular impression of "geeks" (Score:1)
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. [paradisec.ca]
Adam Schumacher
cybershoe@mindless.com
Re:You guys don't know what you're missing :) (Score:1)
Dude, did you set up your account just so you could make that post?
Adam Schumacher
cybershoe@mindless.com
Church-Turing Thesis (Score:1)
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 :-)
---
Re:Godel's Theorem (Score:1)
Wait. I think there is a fundamental misstep here. The CTT is a statement about all computational models, not the halting problem for a particular one like Turing machines. It is one thing to take one such well defined computational model, say Turing machines, and to derive from Godel's theorem the unsolvability of in that model of its own halting problem. Once you do that for Turing machines, the result extends to all Turing-equivalent computational models, like the lambda calculus or Semi-Thue processes, for example. Since any of these is equivalent to Turing machines, it can solve its halting problems iff Turing machines can solve it (the other model's halting problem); yet if a TM could solve it, it would also be able to solve its (the Turing machine's) own halting problem; thus we would end up in a contradiction!
This, we have seen, is doable for particualr computational models. However, it is another thing altogether to do this for all plausible computational models. But this is what you would have to do to prove the CTT. At least according to the definitions of the CTT I have (see Davis, Sigal and Weyuker, Computability, Complexity and Languages, pp. 68-69, for the source I had in mind for my earlier post).
---
Re:Church-Turing Thesis (Score:1)
I think, however, the CTT is in as much of a good standing (and even perhaps better!) as say, quantum mechanics. If you have read Karl Popper (philosopher of science), you will have seen the argument that natural science never strictly proves its theories, but rather holds on to them as far as they can go without being either falsified or improved upon by a simpler/more general theory. So if we hold our natural science theories to be on good standing, we should do the same for the CTT :-)
---
Re:The battle to preserve true meanings (Score:1)
Wonderful trick. You say socialism involves coercion by definition, yet you haven't defined socialism. I'll have to remeber this trick ;-)
So now you end up having to explain to us how come a society in which the producers themselves own and control the means of production ("socialism") necessarily involves coercion.
I can tell you that in twenty years of reading about libertarianism, discussing the philosophy with others (worldwide) via FidoNet, Usenet, etc., that the mainstream usage of "libertarian" is indeed that of someone opposed to using coercion to achieve political goals. Certainly, the meaning differs around the world; outside the U.S., libertarians are less purist. The main difference I've seen is that "Euro-libertarians" don't care much for firearms, as most Europeans seem to be hoplophobic.
But why should we give you any more credit than we give them? Even admitting as valid what you have experienced, there is no reason why anyone should not believe the two posters who have stated that outside the US "libertarian" means something different.
Once you decide that the free market is the problem, and that some sort of governmental body must step in to achieve goals that the free market is not achieving, and use coercion towards those ends, you cease being a libertarian, and begin being a statist.
And once you decide that the free market and coercive hierarchical institutions in general (government, corporations, capitalist private property rights) are the problem, you become an anarchist, or "libertarian socialist": a defender of the stateless form of socialism.
I concur with the previous poster. I believe you are taking socialism to mean "state socialism" only.
Well, I suppose there's really no point in discussing this any further. People such as yourself are so obviously convinced that Americans are dolts, and of your own infallibility, that no amount of evidence is going to convince you otherwise.
I think your reaction is unwarranted. The poster you replied to merely pointed out that "libertarian" is used differently in the US and the rest of the world.
---
Jesus Freak Geeks! (Score:1)
Thanks,
Micah
Re:Jesus Freak Geeks! (Score:1)
Where???? WHERE???? PUUUHHHLLLEEEEAAASSSEE tell me where they are!!!!!
(I don't sound desperate do I?
Re:Jesus Freak Geeks! (Score:1)
Try a more charismatic church. Say, Assemblies of God, Christian & Missionary Alliance, or any number of good independent churches and there are other good denominations also.
The important thing to look for in a church is that it preaches the Bible as the word of God - nothing else. It should emphasize small groups for study and accountability. It should have the form of worship YOU feel most comfortable with.
Stay away from the ones that don't emphasize community and just seem to be reciting the same Bible verses over and over.....
Re:Jesus Freak Geeks! (Score:1)
Re:Me (Score:1)
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.
Re:liberal, ha! (Score:1)
Witness the hundreds of "me too" replies to the Katz articles.
Um... What Katz articles are you talking about? Most of replies to them on Slashdot are hostile.
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.
Huh? Geeks, just like people who "assume they will be rich", don't think much about money, however for completely different reason -- because money aren't what they are after in the first place. They neither accept the system of values where money are very important (because knowledge is more important for them than luxury), nor are afraid of becoming extremely poor (because they know that their knowledge and abilities will always be useful). I personally worry more about my work negatively affecting my education (long hours, a lot of work and stress leave little time and energy for studying) than being unable to get rich -- I am aware that even if I will, it won't leave me less things to worry about, and I think that this is very common among geeks.
This also has nothing to do with people that take pride in being or pretending being poor -- geeks don't see anything "noble" in depriving themselves of things that they need unless there is some understandable reason for it.
Re:Jesus Freak Geeks! (Score:1)
I'm originally from a non-denominational church in a small town. There, and in every other Protestant church I've attended (much of my extended family is Catholic), there's quite a bit of freedom.
But particularly in the small church.
There, it was encouraged to question the speakers (I'm not sure if "pastors" would quite be the right word there; Many people with no formal position would speak), to present your own views, etc as long as one adhered to a quite small set of core beliefs... and very easy ones to agree to, at that.
Although I've (sadly) not found anywhere with that same flexability after moving to Chico, I've not found anyone insisting that I restrict my beliefs either. I may disagree with the sermons... but that's my freedom. Only if one believes that the church insists that the pastor's interpretation must be correct can one really be offended... no?
I have no such expectation.
Re:Jesus Freak Geeks! (Score:1)
So, to re-iterate - I am a counterexample. I don't eschew religion because it makes you meet people. I eschew it *despite* the fact that it makes you meet people. I won't lie just to get more friends.
No challenge (Score:1)
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.
Your pennance. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Church-Turing Thesis (Score:1)
Yes, that is what I was trying to say -- thank you for the correction.
The interesting thing is although the CTT is probably true, we can never be sure, unless someone shows it to be false, in which case we now know that know less than we previously thought that we knew (something like that...).
I was trying to point out to the previous poster that taking an undergraduate course in automata theory doesn't qualify one to run the universe. :-)
TedC
Re:Jesus Freak Geeks! (Score:1)
TedC
Re:me and my geek hat (Score:1)
What made you think there's only one, or even finitely few, right answers?
Re:Jargon File (Score:1)
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.
Re:Why geeks are liberal and don't like gods. (Score:1)
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.
Re:Jargon File (Score:1)
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?
Come on people, this isn't new... (Score:1)
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.
I thought we were right-libertarian (Score:1)
This is also a stereotype, but one I find to be true with depressing frequency.
Stereotypes (?) (Score:1)
"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
fit the stereotype (Score:1)
Re:geek agnostism/atheism (Score:1)
Creation "Scientists" typically are drawn from this group, rather than from biology, because of a bias towards a mechanistic world view.
Just a thought regarding the recent Darwin flamewar/discussion.
BTW, I'm firmly in the biologists' camp.
Re:geek agnostism/atheism (Score:1)
That's where the number comes from.
-Dean
Liberal (Score:1)
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.
Re:Jesus Freak Geeks! (Score:1)
The men's group at my church is practically made up nothing but geeks or geek-wanna-be's. While not all may be interested in our favorite Open Source OS, they would certainly qualify as geeks in my book. Most are pretty conservative also.
Re:Popular impression of "geeks" (Score:1)
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 =)
Re:geek agnostism/atheism (Score:1)
Re:geek agnostism/atheism (Score:1)
in place of the word "authoritarian" (Score:1)
American underclass (Score:1)
I am Squeeze Truck... (Score:1)
I have low self esteem. I consider y'all to be my family! Really!
Re:Self reliant ? (Score:1)
Don't get me wrong, in most the areas I'm interesting in dealing with, (big things), I am rabidly self reliant. When it comes to day-to-day maintenance, I'm as helpless as a 3-day-old child.
Re:Totalitarianism is okay... (Score:1)
Contrast this discussion to what you likely would have had here a year ago. I again have hope for the future of this society.
My $.02:
Governments, social democratic,libertarian or otherwise work best when they either: a) respond to the needs of the people, or b) butt out completely.
Corporations are fine so long as they conform to the strictures of the charters under which they were originally organized. Namely, that they "contribute to the common good".
In the US currently we have corporations who have stepped WAY beyond their charters, and are completely unaccountable to the public even when they, say, kill 10,000 people in India. We also have a screwy law that says these fictional legal entities are actually persons with respect to contributing large sums of money to political candidates/parties.
Result: the party that can suck up the most corporate dough ends up getting elected.
So is the fact that neither sector gives a flying fsck about the american people a) the fault of the politicians for looking out for their own survival, or is it b) the fault of the corporations for looking out for theirs?
I would say c). Its the fault of the american people for staying silent and or ignorant all this time, and that we today finally set about taking our rightful power back.
Re:For that matter: (Score:1)
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.
It is by will alone I set my God in motion. (Score:1)
"It is by will alone I set my God in motion" -- Mentat SqueezeTruck
Re:BZZT (Score:1)
The US has double the arable land of China.
Argentina and Australia, while large, are freaking deserts.
Increased agricultural output has without question contributed greatly to American prosperity. No question about that. But has the US increased its production at all in the last 20-30 years? Not really. Not much.
Reinvesting in your own infrastructure requires large ammounts of startup capital and a small degree of risk. The company's money, and the company's risk. Meddling in foreign affairs to get your hands on foreign labor resources is
a) faster (especially now).
b) less risky (military maneuvers are far more predictable than the market)
c) cheaper to the corporations, as the taxpayers foot the bill in this case.
When the killing dying and lying is over, Nike and United Fruit can just trot into ( eg Nicaragua) under US military protection and set up shop. When local poor underpaid workers and farmers decide they want their country's resources for their own and their childrens, the marines move back in to "protect their interests" and crush the peasant rebellion.
That is all for Econ 101. Please read pages 341-429 for the discussion on Monday.
Re:eh? (gotta side with shoeboy on this one) (Score:1)
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.
Re:geeks® and nerds® (Score:1)
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.
Re:Jesus Freak Geeks! (Score:1)
Re:bible unscientific? (Score:1)
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).
Re:Jesus Freak Geeks! (Score:1)
No, this is just wrong. Scientific method tells us there are trees that are centuries old. We rationally know the trees grew over those centuries, even though 1) no one was there to see it, and 2) it hasn't been repeated in a lab.
(A common misconception about science is these two things are necessary for valid science. They aren't.)
Unless you meant "rationally" in the sense that there is no doubt, no other possibilites -- e.g. aliens constructed the tree & left it there. There is nothing we know beyond *all* doubt (e.g. we don't know beyond all doubt that the world we perceive is real), but there are many things we know beyond all reasonable (rational) doubt -- including many things about historical events.
Re:Jesus Freak Geeks! (Score:1)
Good to know that I'm not alone!!!!!
Re: (Score:1)
Media distortion (Score:1)
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?
Re:bible unscientific? (Score:1)
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
Re:I'm a Jesus Freak geek. (Score:1)
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
Re:Jesus Freak Geeks! (Score:1)
Christianity does not require blind faith, but states that Blessed are those who have it.
---
Blind are those with have blind faith - a useful cog in the machines of many a tyrant. Only religion would consider this a virtue - presumedly to prevent its followers from asking too many questions. "Believe what you are told," says the religious leader "for questioning faith is BAD!"
It would seem to me that this is the antithesis of geek-hood. Question EVERYTHING - in particular those things you are told not to question!
- Darchmare
- Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
Why geeks are liberal and don't like gods. (Score:1)
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
Re:Why geeks are liberal and don't like gods. (Score:1)
I would argue that the crusades were primarily religious in nature. If you don't agree, then surely you must concede that religion was the facilitator. How else do you explain the Children's Crusade (tm). Even if the church's original plans were to sell the children into slavery, religion still was the selling point for those children's parents!
I laud your point that people must take responcibilty for their morality. I think this was a point that I myself tried to make. My point was not to bash Catholicism, but merely to point out that they have non-trivial differences between them and other sects of Christianity reguarding ethics. The Catholics' 10 Commandments have no prohibitions against idolatry. A Southern Baptist (ask one) would strongly oppose that. My point was that morality is subjective and that no god can dish it out. People have to think. This discussion is proof that we do!
Another thing that you said that I have to take issue with is that the NAZI's did not have religion. Their religion was the party and the diety was Hitler. Contrary to anything you may have heard, _Hitler was no atheist_. In fact there is much record to indicate that he was inspired by none other than Martin Luther. Luther was not secret about his anti-semitism. Had the NAZIs been geeks they would have realized that Jews can code just as well as anybody else. The reason that many non-Jews were persecuted was that they did not subscribe to the religion of nationalism! This is a credit to the clergy that had the moral character to think for themselves.
I believe that your accusation that science is a religion is off base. Science is a highly effective methodology of extracting and testing data. Good (and true) science is no more a religion than is arithmetic. Furthermore I would argue (as did the US supreme court) that Humanism is not a religion. The reason for this is that Humanism is a methodology of finding positive traints in humans and working to augment them. A precept of humanism is that one not take things on faith.
I will agree that I have met people who are rabidly atheist. This is a danger. People need to be aware that at the point you are taking things on faith, you are getting lazy. Point well taken. However, when atheists say,"I do not believe in god," you have to remember that they are not asserting positively that there is no god. They are merely saying that they have no reason to believe in gods than in giant invisible elephants that cause society to misbehave.
Yes I believe that people should become more well read on the study of religion. Hey I started out as a good Lutheran boy. I have studied in-depth the bible and Judeo-Christian traditions. I have studied Islam, the various Buddhist schools of thought, Baha'is, and a vast number of other not so major ones. As for your comment about Hinduism, they have a lot of good mythology and a wealth of wisdom. I especially like the number of stories about how Ganesha got his elephant's head.
Agnosticism is the ability to question all, and a good trait it is. Being a humanist does not make you open minded, but practicing its methods goes a long way.
Re:will be netcasted! (Score:1)
with banner ads.
(I believe the actual word would be netcast, think how awkward broadcasted sounds)
Re:wardrobe-challenged (Score:1)
BTW, all props to Gil, but I'm afraid it will be televised. It'll be co-opted, corporate-sponsored, promoted, and ratings metered.
Re:Where did you hear this? (Score:1)
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
Re:Why geeks are liberal and don't like gods. (Score:1)
Linux awe inspiring? I can't see it that way. Sure, it's a great OS, and the development model is nice. But the thing is this -- geeks like to code. We like to code cool things, things that will be used. So when a bunch of geeks cooperate to write a big, cool thing that will be used, this is supposed to convince me of the inherant good of humanity?
Gods a leading cause of death? Perhaps superficially. I assume you are referring to religion-inspired wars and persecutions. The real source of wars are population pressures and other things. Do you really think the crusades were about religion? The real cause of persecutions are human ignorance and intolerance. The Nazis waged war and persecuted quite well without religion. Religion may be used as a focus, but nationalism, racism, fear of the government, and a variety of other systems serve perfectly well in that regard.
Of course there is no objective moral code, for the simple reason that a supposedly objective code has to be interpreted by human beings, and human beings are always subjective. To use your example, ask a Catholic priest if saying Hail Mary is idolatry, and I'm sure he'll give you a reasonable explanation why it isn't(even if you don't agree). Similarly, I'm the principles of humanism mean different things to different people.
Contradiction and hypocrisy are typical human failings, and it is up to an individual to wade through it. Institutions are typically rife with such failings, and thus the dominant organized religion of the western hemisphere comes under a lot of much-deserved flak. Other institutions, like the Democratic party, suffer from the same problem.
A rational human being has the potential to see through such institutions to the underlying principles and find worth there. Does the current state of the Democratic party invalidate liberalism as a political view? Hardly. Is communism evil because China oppresses its people? Ridiculous. So the same should be dealt with religion.
The perceived problem with religion is that it stops rational thought. This is only true for those who are likely to not think rationaly anyway. It is very common in organized religions, however, since they don't, as a rule, restrict admitance to intelligent people.
Yet it is a danger for all religions, including those of humanism and science. The first sign is the declaration that all other opinions are wrong, and then evangelizing to promote that view. This is the proverbial 'Bible basher', but the weapon in hand can be anything from the Koran to Ann Rand's Atlas Shrugged.
Being an atheist is not a virtue in and of itself. Neither is being liberal. Blindly choosing atheism is as bad as blindly choosing Catholicism. An atheist can be just as much a bigot as a Catholic, though neither are necessarily so.
The true virtue is being able to think clearly, make moral and ethical decisions, and come to one's own conclusions. If those conclusions involve a god, or the belief in a scientific TOE that will explain all phenomenon, or the inherant good of humanity, or agnosticism, so be it.
We should respect any thinking individual's personal decision, whatever it may be. What we should not do is to think ours is the only 'right' conclusion, and to dismiss all other beliefs without adequate knowledge of them. For example, unless you have actually asked a priest about the idolatry issue, I don't think you should dismiss Catholicism as contradictory. No, that doesn't mean you have to be Catholic, but it does mean you should respect that alternative. I'm not Hindu, but since I don't know much about it I can't fault those that are.
Remember -- being narrow minded does not mean being Christian. Being open minded does not mean being humanist. Declaring your own views as the only viable ones, and dismissing others without understanding them -- THAT is narrow minded.
You guys don't know what you're missing :) (Score:1)
Name Calling (Score:2)
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.
--
Re:Me (Score:2)
Re:Reagan/Bush years (Score:2)
Re:Unfortunately we are taught little history (Score:2)
Capitalism is beside the point. If that's what you want to call organic economics, so be it. Libertarianism is quite obviously opposed to any form of coercion by government fiat. Any type of socialism is 100% in opposition to libertarian philosophy.
Ayn Rand, for your information, was never a libertarian, and was quite opposed to libertarianism. Her objectivist followers are harsh critics of libertarian philosophy to this day.
Having read quite a bit about the years leading up to WWI, and the (tragic) march towards statism and the 20th century, I am quite aware of "anarchist socialism" in the late 1800s/early 1900s. It may have been associated with the term "libertarian" at some point, but that was not, nor espcially is it now, a mainstream usage.
No, sir; it is you that have some reading to do.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page [slappy.org]
Re:The battle to preserve true meanings (Score:2)
I can tell you that in twenty years of reading about libertarianism, discussing the philosophy with others (worldwide) via FidoNet, Usenet, etc., that the mainstream usage of "libertarian" is indeed that of someone opposed to using coercion to achieve political goals. Certainly, the meaning differs around the world; outside the U.S., libertarians are less purist. The main difference I've seen is that "Euro-libertarians" don't care much for firearms, as most Europeans seem to be hoplophobic.
Socialism, by definition, involves the use of coercion. If it didn't, it wouldn't be socialism; it'd be charity. So, I maintain that a definition of libertarianism that includes any type of socialism is an oxymoron. Capitalism, or more accurately, the free market, *may* involve coercion, in the form of force or fraud. That is why libertarians are not anarchists; we believe that government must exist for the sole purpose of policing force or fraud.
Once you decide that the free market is the problem, and that some sort of governmental body must step in to achieve goals that the free market is not achieving, and use coercion towards those ends, you cease being a libertarian, and begin being a statist.
Y'know, "liberalism" doesn't mean what it once did either.
But I'm an American, so I'm obviously a dim-witted hick who doesn't possess your superior intellect. So, fine, I give up. "Believe what you wish," indeed.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page [slappy.org]
Re:Unfortunately we are taught little history (Score:2)
There are purely philosphical works like Narveson's, and lots of hybrid material like Hospers' and Machan's (all highly recommended reading for those who would like to *really* know what libertarianism is about). None advocate any degree of socialist control, under the guise of "anarchism."
The meaning of libertarian is pretty clear, and has been since at least the 1960s.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page [slappy.org]
Re:Jesus Freak Geeks! (Score:2)
Good observation. I'm a Christian, but I have to force myself to go to church. All these people around, and none of them want to talk about Linux, compilers, or automata theory. :-(
Another thing is education. The more a person knows, the more they tend to rely on their own understanding of the world, and dismiss things they don't understand and/or can't explain. This leads to pride, which just makes the situation worse. That's why there are so many flamewars on /.; everyone thinks they are right. Except for me; I know that I'm right! =)
Okay, chill, that was a joke...
TedC
Re:Jesus Freak Geeks! (Score:2)
Nowadays, my geekish intolerance for mediocrity leads me to a disdain for attending Christian church services, where the priests tend, even when performing the Communion liturgy, to sound and feel like they're just reading the lines off the page, not performing the most fundamental and moving sacrement of a religion that's supposed to be a fundamental and inspiring part of their life. And if they can't get a guy who (after years of training!) looks like he means it during the important part, they can't get stuff that looks like money out of my wallet. Christians in the audience, I hope I just had bad luck and that your priests can make you feel the power of the sacrement before they even finish saying "On the night in which he was betrayed".
However, the sense of the Divine I have found makes me once again a "Jesus freak", in the literal sense though not the idiomatic sense. It's just not organized-church Jesus, nor is it "Yahweh brand" Jesus. Still the same emphasis on compassion and sacrifice, though. Still loving us enough to die for us, that death to be celebrated annually. Bread and wine (or "wine", as desired) at every ritual, even. And of course, a deep certainty that He is there for me when I need Him, that he is as real and vital to me as, say, lunch. If only I didn't start my equivalent of Good Friday in August...
Some inane thoughts from the peanut gallery (Score:2)
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.
Geeks share the blame (Score:2)
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? :-)
The 'liberal' label is meaningless (Score:2)
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.
Where did you hear this? (Score:2)
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
Geekitude (Score:2)
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.
--
Just like any other stereotype (Score:2)
Stereotypes work in this way.
Re:What excuse did you use? (Score:2)
BTW - "John Katz told me to do it." is my excuse when I get arested taking 12 year olds to XXX movies.
--Shoeboy
I do fit the stereotype (Score:2)
--Shoeboy
Oops (Score:2)
--Shoeboy
Re:Real Geeks Think. That's all... (Score:2)
What you _mean_ is that you've met very few women who actively seek out confrontations with authority and get all vocal about their attitude. There's a big difference between thinking for yourself and acting out.
--Shoeboy
Well, actually...the media isn't the only place... (Score:2)
Re:Jesus Freak Geeks! (Score:2)
You also described yourself as a geek. However your philosophy discounts the role of objectivity that is so important in technological pursuits. At its core, geekdom somewhat resembles the scientific method. You have to recognize what you don't know, figure out how to learn what you need to know, and have a grasp on the significance of what you have learned. By proclaiming that you know, you reject this methodology. Geeks tend to have the ability and drive to teach themselves about challenging and technical topics. Its a thirst for knowledge, and the ability to independently acquire that knowledge that is the true spirit of geekdom. Its not simply a matter of 'knowing' something, its about continually learning something new. Granted, this is a rather broad definition of geek, but I think it expands a bit beyond the stereotypes.
-BW
Re:Geeks With Guns (Score:2)
"You know about block devices, therefore you are assigned to Hurd development. However, you don't need a GUI, so you don't get Gnome."
Turn it on it's head, and you get a closer representation. "From each according to his needs, to each according to his abilities". Think about it. I've got an "itch" so I create something and contribute it to the community. The greater my abilities are, the more I get out of the community. For example, the more I know about the command line, bash, vi, etc., the more I get out of Unix/Linux/BSD.
Re:Jesus Freak Geeks! (Score:2)
Re:Authoritarian (Score:2)
Conservative Libertarian
Centrist
Authortarian Liberal
Of course, this model is as inaccurate as the traditional left/right one
Re:Conservatism not necessarily limiting (Score:2)
Re:Me (Score:2)
Re:Me (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a Jesus Freak geek. (Score:2)
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.
We've got too much in common .. (Score:2)
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.
What excuse did you use? (Score:2)
The result? Four hours of community service.
Re:Jesus Freak Geeks! (Score:2)
As far as Christianity goes, it was my understanding that the core beliefs were centered around having faith.
This is an interesting issue. While that is certainly what Christians say, and usually believe, the fact that they point to the Bible as 'proof', or that Jesus 'proved' that he was in fact the Son of God (the resurrection, etc) implies that it may not be so simple. I'll address this fom another angle below.
You cannot rationally know about the validity of the nature and sacrifices of Christ. Futhermore, you cannot even know that the Christian worldview of sin and redemption correlates with the true nature of the universe.
This is a central problem of epistemology. You cannot rationally know that anything correlates with reality. Science, for example, has serious metaphysical problems that bring into doubt whether it reflects reality, or is simply a very successful interpretaion. Descartes pointed out what is likely to only truth we can positively know: that we exist.
Saying that you don't think, but rather know it to be true must be interpreted as an ironic misunderstanding, or a hyperbole about the strenghth of your faith.
Semantics. To 'know' something is 'true', is to have a strong belief that it is true. Having faith in something also leads to a strong belief. In either case, 'knowledge' is simply an extremely strong belief, and thus both routes lead to an equivelent 'truth' (though these 'truths' may not actually be true, of course).
Without thought and examination, your strong faith can be discounted as blind acceptance, or swayed by other persuasive arguments.
The latter contradicts the very idea of 'strong faith'. The former, though, I partially agree with. There are large parts of religion--for example, the actually works of Jesus--for which there is no evidence, and which are in doubt from any reasonable perspective. However, there is another element to religion which cannot be disproven and which requires no examination: religious experience, in its purest sense.
Unfortunately, people tend to rationalize these experiences and make them fit into their world-view or prior religious beliefs. Those additions and interpretations are open to attack. However, if I experience 'God', whatever that experience may be, it can not be called into doubt. Something has happened which can not be refuted. (Assuming that experiencing 'God' is possibly without interpretation. Even if it is not, there seems to be a common type of experience, protect under my argument, which people believe is 'God'.)
However your philosophy discounts the role of objectivity that is so important in technological pursuits.
Would you discount the scientific work of every theologian, or every believer? Newton is a common example; he wrote more extensively on matters of faith than physics, yet few people question the objectivity of his work
If you argue that one only must be objective within the scope of science and technology then the only concern is that he remain objective in that context, and his belief in God may be irrelevent. However, if you believe that objectivity must be absolute then you have to consider the the entire concept of objectivity and how it relates to the 'geek world-view'.
For example, most science is founded on the belief that the world is fundamentally material, or at any rate can be explained as such. However, beyond the success of physics, there is no objective reason to believe this. In fact, there are some very good reasons to doubt it. (From a philosophical standpoint, materialism was never terribly coherent. The modern mind-body problem, qualia, and the reappearance of metaphysics have resurrected discussion of its faults.)
Jargon File (Score:2)
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/j argon/html/Appendix-B.html [tuxedo.org]
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?
Re:you consider the greatest good to be evil? (Score:2)
General Comments:
a) The US is not simply a capitalist country. It is at least 15% socialist. In my oppinion, most of America's problems come from that 15%. Logical analysis supports the opinion.
b) The USSR was not a communist state by any stretch of the imagination. Firstly, the capitalist black market accounted for 50% of the economy. Secondly, Russia never really had a bourgoise class to revolt against, a precondition for communism. Thirdly, the Soviet state was really just a totalitarian state. The "teachers" taught little more than that the state should be feared. (For those who are unfamiliar with the Russian language and Soviet history: Soviet means "teacher," and the Soviet governmet was only intended to exist untill the people were properly educated in what communism demanded of them.)
c) If you wish to have a real discussion on either of the following two separate topics I'd be glad to. Just don't mix them.
i. USA vs. USSR
ii. Capitalism vs. Communism, or more properly: right-Libertarianism vs. Communism.
Let me address one paragraph at a time. The following discussion mixes topics one and two above rather badly.
0) The only thing I have to say to this is that I disagree.
1) In a competitive marketplace, people need to know about the products that are available. This is the good and wholly necessary side of advertising. The advertising increases the profit from the product, a big plus for the corporation. And the consumer has more information to make a more optimal purchasing decision. This information increases the effeciency of spending of the consumer and is thus good for him too. You may see the manipulation involved in advertising as a negative, but in reality the marketers are here adding great value to the product. They are saying "This product will make you feel important." (or some variation on that) And it does. This is a product that every human wants, and will pay for (happiness.)
I really don't think you can say the Russian economy "worked fine." The single brand of TV set available in Moscow was so poorly made that they were the single greatest cause of accidental fires in that city. Many people died because Soviet electronics were so piss poor. A market economy won't allow that condition for long.
About the homeless situation, this is indeed a failure of the system in the US. I can only say that I don't think this would happen if this were truely a capitalist state. Most Americans do nothing for the homeless because they don't feel that it is their responsibility. Indeed, they are justified in this belief. The government has taken that responsibility upon itself. This is an effect of the socialism in the US.
If no one was homeless in Russia (not entirely true), the obvious question is "How good were the homes?"
2) And how many good inventions did the Soviets come up with? Even in the military, the vast majority of Soviet "inovations" were curiously similar to American inovations and, even more curiously, almost always came out just under a year after their American counterparts.
Technology can only hope to crawl along in a world that provides little to no incentive for it.
3) When using phrases like "'everyone for himself,'" it is important to understand the concept of enlightened self-interest. This could be a really long discussion, so let's just avoid it. The curious thing is that when everyone acts to maximize their personal utility, they not only achieve their goal, but they also also end up maximizing global utility. This is another very, very long discussion with lots of economic theory, so let's avoid this too.
I feel like such a cop out for avoiding those arguements. They are really central to the discussion, but are very long. In short, just look at the US and USSR. Which had the highest standard of living. (Yes, note the word "standard.")
You can not always get ahead by screwing others. Have you ever played Prisoner's Delima or heard of the Tragedy of the Commons? It certainly seems that the USSR was more in the grips of this. No one could loose their job for slacking, and each person thought to himself "If I'm the only one who slacks off, I win big time." Predictably, there were quite a few slackers, and consequently the economy could barely produce enough toilet paper to wipe the butts of the masses.
Damn, you wrote a lot in this paragraph.
"The common good was always the first consideration" is such a bold untruth that I don't even know where to begin. The rest of this paragraph is just as bad. No crime? Come on! The mafia-like black market (a criminal market) made up half the economy. It was the only way to actually get anything. And don't even get me started on the Goulags (just try to imagine a prison the size of a US state with living conditions horribly similar to a Nazi death camp.) No poverty? The whole damn country was poor! No unemployment? Yeah, well that's true.
Sure Russia is floundering under capitalism. How do you expect things to be under the world's most currupt government. As an example of this corruption: the US teams working in Chernobyl (spelling varies) actually have to get Western Union to deliver US currency to the work site so that the Americans can personally distribute it to the Russian workers. They tryed to give the money to the appropriate government agency, but they found that as the money was handed down the chain of command it mysteriously disappeared.
4) I already addressed this when I talked about advertising.
5) The stock market is interesting. Those slips of paper that people are buying actually do have significant worth. They represent partial ownership of the company. Most investors are not day traders. That is, they buy the stock in the belief that that fraction of the company they hold will increase in value over time. They are getting a return on their money (of value to the buyer) in return for the use of their money (of value to the company.) Overall, this makes it easier for companies to raise money and thus stimulates both prosperity (for everyone as the standard of living increases) and competition within the market.
Those who speculate (day traders) are just gambling with their money. It makes them happy, so I guess it's worth the money they will loose. People are free to risk their money. They are also free to loose it.
6) Oh, give it a rest. Take one solid look at the differences in the quality of life (as represented in the standard of living) between the USSR and the US of that time. Think about this as you sit in your quality easy chair, watching the television that isn't exploding or typing on the computer made from microelectronics of capitalist invention.
Re:Conservatism not necessarily limiting (Score:3)
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.
The Defining Characteristic of Geeks is... (Score:3)
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."