Are You a Dork , Nerd, Geek or Dweeb? Or perhaps a combination? What is the difference for each of these anyway. What if you don’t go to parties, what does that make you? And what if you don’t get invited to parties? What does that make you? People who listen to Kenny G, are they any of these things? Just wondering…
I hate parties with a passion.
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=149208
this thread is very comprehensive. PG may have missed it what with the ban and all. i belive i already replyed to this in that thread somewhere…
re-reading that thread,detrop’s 1st post on the first page is very informative.
if you dont like long reads, you should at least check that one.
This thread saddens me.
Vary distinctly a dork. I can dance good and have regular sex (with women and not an inflatable doll), so that saves me from being a nerd. I’m pretty sensible, empathetic, and have a vary artistic bent, so that saves me from being a geek, I think. I’m athletic and have always been into extreme sports like surfing, snow/skate boarding etc., so that saves me from being a dweeb. My problem is that I’m kind of an idiot and goofy to the point of unabashed dorkism. Also, I’m somewhat socially awkward, which may be borderline geek or dweeb.
I didnt know that nerds couldnt dance. And i didnt know that not being a geek means you are artistic and empathetic–i think that one is wrong. Socially incompetent…Im not sure what that makes you. Also, it might have varying degrees, like what if you have no social life whatsoever as opposed to every now and again…
Geek, obviously. Though I don’t wear glasses and I’ve never collected stamps or gone trainspotting or any of those such things I am nonetheless a geek. I wear jumpers. I used to use a cigarette holder to smoke, until I lost it in a nightclub when very very drunk one night. I collect books that I have no intention of reading. I’m extremely egocentric about my own intelligence. I don’t like pool parties. I prefer waterfalls to pubs. I remember dialogue from movies and TV shows very easily. I’ve never kept a list of people’s telephone numbers.
Ok… So my trusty Google dictionary tells me that nerds are differentiated from geeks by the increased degree of their obsession with computers/technology. For instance one definition reads;
“A nerd is very similar to a geek, but with more RAM and a faster modem. Nerds often find geeks dull because geeks don’t spend enough time talking about computers.”
However I think that the difference between the two is still a hotly disputed matter. Wikipedia defines “nerd” as a way of life, whereas “geek” merely designates an obsession with a particular topic. However some would use the terms in the exact opposite sense… (As in the first definition above, where “nerd” connotes a kind of ‘specialization’ of the “geek”.)
The term “dweeb” also refers to the same basic type of person, though to me personally, ‘dweeb’ connotes a particularly strong degree of physical weakness or ineptitude, and seems to refer exclusively to persons below a certain age. A “nerd” or “geek”, however, can be of any age, and will also typically possess a greater degree of self-possession or social ability.
A dork, finally, is not necessarily a clever person or one who is engrossed with ‘intellectual’ pursuits. The Princeton online dictionary defines ‘dork’ as being roughly synonymous with ‘jerk’: i.e. someone who is fatuous, frequently unintelligent, and ‘dull’. Personally though I think a dork can also just be someone who is clumsy in a humorous manner, and who occasionally makes snorting noises like a pig.
James
Trust James to spend 200 words discussing the issue but never actually give a straight answer. This isn’t just beating around the bush, or the forest. This is beating around the boundaries of the entire national park.
WHICH ONE ARE YOU?!?!?!?!?!?
Well yes, I was only really answering a part of the question, dealing with the difference between the four types. All four are abstractions which may still have ‘natural’ examples, but which surely now also have ‘refracted’ or ‘existential’ examples as well. Typologies are erected with a putative connection to supposedly real individuals, and then these typologies in turn perpetuate, but in this perpetuation something different is created again, and so on.
So in this latter sense I am not any of the four types, or else I am all four and more. Viewed from a purely objective sense, I suppose I am more or less a geek - where geek means someone who has a particular obsession and who does not have an inordinate interest in computers or technology. But my obsession is not compartmentalized and seperated from the rest of my life - except in the sense that when I interact with friends and etc, I tend to do so on their terms rather than mine. Probably this means that I am ‘socially adept’, even though my obsession is a ‘way of life’. So a borderline case, then, a “new” typology. As are all people in some sense, I would imagine.
Regards,
James
James,
You do know that a one word response (excluding your perpetual ‘regards’) was possible, don’t you?
He likes playing it up.
He’s a nerd.
As am I.
I watch star trek regularly and can tell you intimate details, I-
wait… that’s enough right there isn’t it?
IMPOSSSIBLE!!! 
James,
Regards
Honestly, I don’t relate to any of those terms. Quite simply, I’m the dopest, smoothest, coolest, best-looking dude I know, complete with a hot girlfriend and huge dick. Now if you want to talk about terms like ‘loser’, ‘lazy bastard’, ‘unemployed’ and the like, then we can talk.
rofl
alright, so heres what I think…
I think a NERD is someone who is a bit socially awkward, particularly when it comes to dancing and being hip, but is a pretty intelligent, bright, book smart type person.
A GEEK is someone who then specializes in a particular area. So you can be a car geek, a cartoon geek, a Science geek, etc. They are knowledgable on the subject and can talk on and on about it with gusto.
A DORK is just someone who does not care to present the image of being paticularly perfect or refined. A lot of pop stars and actors claim to be dorks, meaning they have no problem acting goofy and bumbling about, letting the world know they’re just down to earth loveable human beings.
Lastly, a DWEEB is maybe the worst of the lot. A dweeb is someone who I think possesses all the negative qualities of these four without any of the benefits. So a dweeb is someone who is just awkward and weird and socially inept without neccessarily being intelligent or smart or knowledgable in any area. Although some might find them loveable in their own pitiable, pathetic way.
It is easy to see how one might easily claim to be all four of these things, unless you are maybe…James Bond, someone who claims to be the epitome of cool, he might neither be a dork or a dweeb…or particularly nerdy…or geeky…
I like to think I am all but the dweeb, but who knows really…
So then there it is, the four definitions, write them down. I have spoken, now all depart.
Do tell…how do you define “Loser” and “Lazy Bastard” ?
OK, which one’s the cool one?
I’m a combination of the other three.
Unfulfilled, untapped potential on about twelve different levels; fear of success; utter lack of motivation; fear of truly taking risks, etc.
This is what a loser is? Isn’t this EVERYONE? Are you telling me that you have none of these symptoms and you know a large amount of ppl who have none of these symptoms? How would you define a WINNER than?