Closet Slashdotters: The 'Intellectually Curious' 394
An anonymous reader writes "Slashdotters are certified geeks, but apparently there's a bunch of other people out there who are very interested in science, technology, politics and culture but they don't want to be known as geeks. A media consulting firm called OMD did a study for the company that owns Space.com and LiveScience. They conclude that 60 million Americans can be called "intellectually curious." Intellectually, I'm curious what that makes the rest of them."
Slashdoter... (Score:3, Funny)
It makes them... (Score:5, Funny)
MySpace users
Re:It makes them... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:It makes them... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It makes them... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It makes them... (Score:3, Interesting)
or people who watch the OC or people who read People Magazine or George Bush
But Mischa Barton is hot,
http://images.google.com/images?q=mischa+barton&h
and George Bush is a good read.
Re:It makes them... (Score:3, Insightful)
Creationism is based upon belief. Science is based upon proof.
The problem arises when certain people - Creationists, to be more precise - start bashing science. The only reason they do that is because (scientifically proven) facts do not agree with their literal interpretation of their holy texts.
Most religious people and organisations do not have issues with science and they accept that their holy texts need not always be interpreted literally. Creationists are just the opposite.
The mistake you made is
Re:It makes them... (Score:4, Informative)
The problem with the cosmic watchmaker idea is that though it sounds rational, it isn't. It can easily be used to support any idea you want. Don't believe in evolution? An intelligent designer created everything, thus evolution didn't happen. Believe in evolution? The watchmaker made the system that we now understand as evolution. Don't believe in abortion? The designer wanted you to have your baby. Believe in abortion? The watchmaker gave you the choice to terminate your pregnancy.
If there is a god that set everything in motion, but no longer takes a part in the world, how is that different from no god at all? Or, the flip side, if god set everything in motion, isn't it incumbent on us to fulfill his will?
It's not crazy to believe in a cosmic watchmaker, just pointless. It allows you to be both intellectually lazy (Don't understand what caused the the big bang? Don't do more research, just decide that god did it!) and religiously lazy (Don't know what is right and what is wrong? Whatever you do, that's part of god's design!).
Re:It makes them... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It makes them... (Score:3, Insightful)
And that's apparently where the elitist jackass opinion comes in - because you claim that anyone who enjoys a form of entertainment that you don't personally enjoy must, therefore, be a foolish victim of a brainwashing scam.
Re:It makes them... (Score:2)
I was thinking more along the lines of soylent green.
Re:It makes them... (Score:5, Interesting)
I makes them apathetic [reference.com]
You can sum it up with the words "Don't know & don't care"
Anti-Intellectualism is a whole different ball game
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism [wikipedia.org]
Re:It makes them... (Score:2)
"I don't know, and I don't care."
Re:It makes them... (Score:5, Funny)
Future republican presidential candidates.
Re:It makes them... (Score:2, Funny)
Answer (Score:4, Insightful)
In-duh-viduals.
the rest are idiots. (Score:5, Funny)
They can't tell me that... (Score:3, Funny)
Rorschach Test (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Rorschach Test (Score:2)
Well, same problem, I guess.
Errr (Score:5, Funny)
Those still in a position to think clearly... (Score:2)
Re:Errr (Score:2)
Re:Errr (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, but note that the OP said "intellectually curious", not "intelligent". The two are unrelated (and orthogonal) properties.
A mouse or sparrow can be intellectually curious. But curiosity doesn't guarantee that they can understand what they encounter.
You can find a lot of people whose curiosity leads them into astrology or religion or a thousand other things that intelligence would lead them to sniff at, discard, then continue looking for something more worthwhile.
Re:Errr (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not true. All intelligent people are intellectually curious and I would argue all people who are intellectually curious are also intelligent.
Of course there are varying degrees of intelligence and some will understand more than others. However someone who is stimulated by intellectual pursuits will be more adept than someone who is not.
Compare it to athletics. Someone who is athletic will have some skill in athleticism. They might not be an athlete but they can still be athletic. As someone who is intelligent does not have to be specifically a genius.
You can find a lot of people whose curiosity leads them into astrology or religion or a thousand other things that intelligence would lead them to sniff at, discard, then continue looking for something more worthwhile.
Well there are tons of intelligent people who believe in God but that's a separate matter. People forget that thinking is a skill. Yes, some of us are born with a higher talent for certain kinds of thinking but without rigor and training our thinking becomes soft. It's important that people are given certain critical thinking skills. To be able to analyze ideas in depth. You give someone who finds ideas stimulating a little spark and a simple yet critical set of tools. You'd be surprised with the results.
Re:Errr (Score:5, Funny)
Remember, there are no stupid questions. But there are a lot of inquisitive idiots.
Re:Errr (Score:5, Insightful)
And most of those hits (Score:2)
Re:Errr (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Errr (Score:2)
Unless the female's curiosity includes artificial semination.
Re:Errr (Score:2)
hacking good and bad (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:hacking good and bad (Score:2, Funny)
Nerds that Matter (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Nerds that Matter (Score:5, Funny)
A: The introverted computer geek will look at his shoes while he talks to you. The extroverted computer geek will look at your shoes while he talks to you.
Q: How do you tell if an extroverted computer geek is Russian?
A: His shoes look at you while he is talking.
I like my way of telling Geeks apart from everyone else.
Re:Nerds that Matter (Score:2)
Re:Nerds that Matter (Score:2, Interesting)
I've ran Linux for a year and a half, code my own website, and am definitely interested in computers. I know HTML, SQL, CSS and I'm learning Perl. I love science fiction. I'm also a senior in college (Poli Sci major), am getting married this summer, had a 4:40 mile in high school, and took an honest-to-god model to prom. According to your definition, I'm not a geek - I don't have expertise in Linux -
Re:Nerds that Matter (Score:2)
Having a love life and an athletic body don't stop you from being a geek. You might not be a Linux geek, but you're a computer geek. You might be a geek, but that's not all that you are. You're intellectually curious, and you've got skills. You're more than just a "readonly geek" - you're a geek.
What's wrong with that?
Re:Nerds that Matter (Score:3, Insightful)
I also happen to disagree with the whole "expertise" issue. I would say that true 'expertise' is a 'nerd' factor, not a geek one.
By your def you are a geek. You know html, sql, css, and bits of Perl. This makes you above 99.9% of internet users. I work as a sys admin/web dev ... mentioning learning html to the college professors that I serve makes thier blood run cold. The article confuses knowledge of science as "geeky" with what it means to be a computer 'geek' these days. Geeks
Re:As a word geek (Score:2)
According to the movie "Freaks", geeks are freaks by choice, not by nature. And according to Slashdot, fake nerds are nauganerds [slashdot.org].
I'm not surprised (Score:2)
Why should this come as a surprise to anyone? Just check out the number of cable/satellite channels that are Geek oriented: Discover, National Geographic, Science, etc. There has to be a reasonable market for that kind of programming to support this.
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:2)
OK, you might say that it is geek as well, but I would check who is really watching these... I do honestly, while I do not care about my car, I like to see the technical ones (e.g. tuning stuff), but couldn't care less about stuffing 20 LCD displays and a fountain into the car
Also you see a lot of history related stuff and n
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:3)
Have you noticed the decline in quality of those channels in recent years? Less science, more sensaitionalism, outright fantasy, melodramatic accompanying scores, the list goes on.
A program about dinosaurs nowadays is going to be 95% CG animation with little basis in reality, and 5% actualy real dionsaur bones with real information about how and where they were found. It's a kids CG cart
Come out, Come out! (Score:5, Funny)
Cast your pretensions! Rise and walk proudly from the dark of the TV room into the bright flouerescent of the computer lab!
No more hiding copies of Make in a cover of Hustler! No more awkward stammering that you were just surfing for gay porn and somehow accidentally stumbled upon perl.org.
Testify! Say it: "I am Geek, hear me Mumblesomethingintelligleaboutapreprocessororsome
Finally, Tom Cruise can come out! [grin] (Score:2)
"Intellectually Curious:" Post your relevant title (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:"Intellectually Curious:" Post your relevant ti (Score:2)
I wonder if it's even that high (Score:3, Insightful)
Just an observation.
Re:I wonder if it's even that high (Score:2)
I am Curious (Score:2, Funny)
Why not ask? (Score:3, Funny)
Why not create a MySpace account and ask them...
Nerd Myopia (Score:3, Insightful)
Parsing into what the article reveals is a certain "would you talk about science/etc in Social Situation A" (they keep mentioning cocktail parties) or other habits (e.g. what sort of television they watch).
But the implied conclusion of this article is "more people are geeks; they are just in the closet" which I think is a big leap in logic. And I think this article is very liberal with the terms geek/nerd.
Personally a "geek" isn't just someone "intellectually curious" but also someone who exhibits Nerd Myopia: they follow their geeky passions at the expense of all others. More so they find all other topics inferior (and will demonstrate subtle vitriol to outright belligerence). The article talks about how the Science and Passion [S&P] group will bring up science topics automatically while the other groups (Money/Success/Science [M/S/S] and Style and Science [S&S]) are interested but unlikely to discuss it. All of these groups are unlike the Other People group in that they would approve of a topic of conversation switching to a geek topic.
So what about the inverse? The article mentions "Desperate Housewives" and going out and careers. What if a geek topic switched to one of those? I'd suspect the M/S/S and S&S groups would be fine with those too while the S&P would not and probably get angry or dismissive. S&P geeks like their intellectually curious topics at the expense of everything else. All those other non-geek topics are shit and should be treated as such. For geeks "Desperate Housewives" is for secretaries and HR drones. Going out is mentally numb behavior and a scam by the liquor and clothing industries. Career talk is for PHBs. All of those things are commanded by simple deterministic logic of hard sciences. They're all "soft" and defy the ability to rule lawyer and one-up in the perpetual game of nerd battle-of-wills.
And for all this talk of "in the closet", that's the real barrier keeping people out: rabid intolerance for all things outside geekdom. Geeks, nerds, whatever aren't very big tent in approach. They make their bones by being exclusory. Everyone else is "Other People" and either an enemy or some sheep who can't be trusted to do anything. And attitude like that will keep most of that 40% (and a significant proportion of that 53% of the Science and Passion who are female) at arms reach.
Re:Nerd Myopia (Score:3, Interesting)
My general impression i
grr (Score:3, Insightful)
Lack of intellectual curiosity is the quickest way to piss me off. Admitting you don't know something, or that what you know is wrong, and then *refusing* to do anything about it makes my blood pressure rise so fast that i have to close my eyes to stop the blood from spurting right on out.
Re:grr (Score:5, Insightful)
Hope the blood starts spurting. In case it doesn't: I'm also not interested in football. At all. Feminine hygiene products? Nu-uh. Understanding ancient germanic dialects? Not really.
You are, of course, an expert in all of them, or at least strongly inclined to read up on all of them now, right?
Hopefully, there's a large pool of blood now, and this post takes care of one more self-righteous hypocrite.
Re:grr (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing that frustrates me is when people want something done, and can't be bothered learning how. The sort of people who say "I know nothing about computers. Can you setup my email program for me?". Now of course, once in a while that's fine. After all, people need a bit of help when they're getting in to something new. But when the same person consistently asks for help, not because they're novices but because it's easier to ask for help than it is to learn to do it your self, that's what gets annoying.
too put it another way (Score:5, Insightful)
But, only an intelecutally curious man wants to learn how to fish.
...
Boy, did I just mangle that or what?
Re:too put it another way (Score:2)
Would have been a perfect post were it not for that.
Re:grr (Score:3, Interesting)
I spent over seven years doing telephone tech support. The ones I hated the most were the ones who told me that with pride, as though their ignorance makes them superior to me. I'm sure they thought they were impressing me, and in a way they were right: they were impressing me with how stupid they were.
Re:grr (Score:2)
Nasty, but true, society is backwards.
You care, but you don't know it. (Score:2)
I don't know anything about ancient Egyptian recipes, and, believe it or not, I could care less.
You don't care about beer? Well, OK, you are probably better off for that.
I'm also not interested in football.
Me neither, but going to games is fun. Never going to a big SEC game is your loss.
Feminine hygiene products?
Once again, your loss. Maxi pads are cheap ways to clean up a big mess.
An engineer is so
Re:You care, but you don't know it. (Score:2)
Try in the garage for oil spills.
For a laugh, put them in the tissue box. "Here, blow your nose on this." It's expensive, but jokes are not really practical.
Re:You care, but you don't know it. (Score:2)
Cat litter is just as effective, although a bit slower. It's also considerably cheaper.
Meat (Score:2, Funny)
Intellectually, I'm curious what that makes the rest of them
Worthless meat. (You can't even sell it!)
Re:Meat (Score:2)
You are what you eat. Don't eat morons.
Makes them creative (Score:2)
Being a technical geek is a little on the narrow side for many folks. Some of the most brilliant people I know do their best work with things like pencil and paper, stringed instruments, needle and thread, or the like. Though I wouldn't consider them geeks, I would say their intellectual curiosity has led them to develop their own talents far beyond what a non-curious mind would be capable of.
Re:Makes them creative (Score:3, Insightful)
True, but then there are many more things that would still allow you to be "intellectually curious" apart from these. Examples might include literature, art, philosophy, music, to name just a few "big" topics. I doubt that creative people could be counted as among the non-intellectually curious, usually you have to be in that bracket to be creative. Sitting in front of a TV set isn't creative, though nor is read
Let's call them ... (Score:5, Funny)
No surprise to me (Score:5, Insightful)
So why are the numbers so low? Maybe because the people who are most interested in science might not be very bookish, prefer to get their news from the telly and might not even have a computer. The person who most liked to talk about science news to me as a teenager was my school's bus driver and part-time gardener. Many farmers are illiterate and innumerate and resent other people using their brains while they toil like peasants, but generally they love technology even if they hate pure science. The people who are least interested are office workers, public servants and history teachers, whose work is less tangible and feel less connection to science and tech - but they are more likely to be the ones able to seek out internet news sources on their internet appliances.
Obviously this is just generalisation of my own personal experience, and probably very harsh, but I think it's valid to maybe 70% - I think it explains a lot of those numbers.
It also occurs to me that you need a certain density of people with a particular interest, otherwise the message doesn't get through that certain websites and communities exist or what jargon to use in order to find them. I didn't find slashdot or even google until I got to university because there was no starting point in the countryside. We got told the "best way" to search, "most respected" websites, etc. at high school, and that was all we had. And since I was the only "odd one out" I had nobody to compare notes with, except maybe my dad, and he lived in a different town 150km away. At that time, the 2nd most popular internet search was music, so I found some wonderful new cultural influences from mp3.com (back when it was relatively free and indie) which was easy, but it was really hard to learn about computers and technology on the internet - I didn't even know what to look for and unless it's related to something I have learnt, I still don't.
Something else (Score:2)
Not all, certainly. But I'm sure that applies to many.
Speaking Only For Myself (Score:2, Insightful)
I can't imagine people who have abiding interests in science, technology, culture and politics having an inclination to care one way or another what other people call them. Putting out energy to preen and groom yourself to the dictates of the tribe doesn't j
Which begs the question (Score:2)
Sort of in-between (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd say I don't really fit either category. I enjoy Slashdot, but I'm not a "certified geek" (assuming that means I know what I'm doing in geeky things, or that I make money off of my geekiness), but I also realize that I am highly geeky compared to much of the population. I don't really care if someone r
The rest of them... (Score:3, Funny)
vi users
60,000,000 potential new /.ers (Score:2)
Taco, think of the potential revenue.
"News for the intellectually curious, Stuff that matters to your ego."
Of course the color schemes will have to go; repl
60 Million!!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Wow, I didn't know that there were that many atheists in the United States.
Like shouting "deer!" at a rifle convention (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure you could find a better article for bringing out latent feelings of superiority among Slashdotters. This is just what we need, another excuse to talk about the differences between "us" and "them." We are smart and inqusitive. They are stupid and lacking imagination. I'm a geek, not a nerd. Geeks are cool, nerds are dorks. Jocks are stupid. NASCAR lovers are stupid. Americans are stupid. The label I apply to my in-group is superior to the label I apply to those outside my group.
The fact that there are a lot of "intellectually curious" people out there, even if the term is ill-defined, should come as a surprise to nobody. Geeks, nerds, gamers, programmers, hackers, brains, smart kids, rocket scientists, and Slashdot readers are not the only people in the world who are smart, curious, and interesting. Think of it this way, how many non-Slashdot reading people do you know who truly interest you? How many of those people are intellectually curious, imaginative, and full of insight? I know a lot of people who have never even heard of Slashdot and would never imagine themselves as "geeks" but are nonetheless very curious about the world and very stimulating to be around.
Re:Like shouting "deer!" at a rifle convention (Score:4, Insightful)
What I find interesting is that when one Slashdotter jokes about how the rest of the Slashdotter are in deep romantic relationship with their left hand, or how they live in their mom's basement, the rest of the Slashdotters cheer him up and pat him on the back in agreement, and mod him +5 Funny.
Is that the result of being intellectually... uhmmm curious?
Intellectually cold hard facts (Score:2)
Total US Population: apx. 299,000,000
Literacy: 99% male/female age over 15
US Population within ages 15 - 64: Apx. ~200,500,000
Apx. 60,000,000 comes out to ~30% so called, "intellectually curious" among US population between ages of 15 - 64.
Hence, 70% of the population is what you are asking about.
"Intellectually, I'm curious what that makes the rest of them."
Potential source of Soylent Green(tm)
Sci-curious (Score:2)
I propose "sci-curious". Short, chic, descriptive. Of course, it doesn't cover the politics geeks, but they'll just have to get their own term.
I, for one, come for the science articles (Score:2)
I am intellectually curious, and also ADD, which is why, between /., Digg, and other tech news sites, I often have 25 Firefox windows open for days at a time.
Our limited Cartesian Paradigm. (Score:2)
Re:What that makes the rest of them... (Score:2)
Re:It's obvious to the non-arrogant (Score:2)
Re:It's obvious to the non-arrogant (Score:2)
Almost (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Idiots. (Score:3, Insightful)
Did you notice that the group that commissioned the study was a marketing group? Ever hear of the expression "astroturf"? Do you really think that those people who are like that are of concern to us?
Even your contention belies inexperience. Anything that requires interaction with other human beings, whether its promotion, acceptance in social niches, or management of subordinates, requires cultivation of "image". One first has to understand what is important to them, and then ad
But (Score:2)
That's what they think about US!
Re:Err... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Republicans have some very smart people in their party, just look at Rove. When you take away your bias towards him, he's a great political strategist. He'd have to be to get Bush elected.
Just because you don't agree with someone's views, doesn't make them unintelligent.
Re:Err... (Score:2)
Re:Err... (Score:2)
Partly basing someone's intelligence off of their 'ethical intelligence' isn't a good idea. Take Leonardo da Vinci for example. He was a homosexual. If I was inclined to believe that homosexuality was ethically wrong, I would then believe that Leonardo da Vinci wasn't smart.
I'll remember that ethics is a field of philosophy so long as you remember that what is considered ethical changes from person to person. It just so happens that Rove believes that the ends ju
It's the stupidity, stupid. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's just like Enron, if you are sufficently ruthless, and cook the books with no thought to tommorow you can look like a genius.
As for initellectual curiousity, this is the administration who had a college dropout overriding world class experts in NASA. This was the administration who put a VC in charge of the NSF. Rove has stated in the past that "If they have a doctorate they are a democrat" (I have to paraphrase this one no tabbed browsing on this hotel connection).
Re:Hmm... what's REALLY curious in this article? (Score:2)
Re:Intellectually Alive (Score:2)
But it was Schroedinger's curiosity, not the cat's...
Re:Intellectually Alive (Score:2)
Re:Want to be a geek? (Score:2)
Re:Want to be a geek? (Score:2)
I don't know where this comes from, I majored in biochemistry and chemical engineering at school, and my graduating class in ChemE was nearly half women (45% I'd, say) and in biochemistry it was more than 50% (7 of 13). Mind you even good odds did me no good.
Re:Want to be a geek? (Score:2)
Now, the real dilemma is found when you compare the girls who are in my physics class to the girls who are in my econ class...note: the intro-econ course has 230 people in it (largest course here) and assuming half are girls, there are still so many that the ratio of attractive to unattractive coudl be the same as the physics class but you just wouldnt notice it as much. I dont think this is completely the
I Know why.... (Score:2)
For the latter, 25% doesn't surprise me.
Re:Being a geek (Score:2, Interesting)
http://web.vee.net/stuff/geek-vs-nerd.html [vee.net]
http://twilightuniverse.com/2003/09/geek-vs-nerd/ [twilightuniverse.com]