Jack7
First Post
If you can’t consider this an observation piece, then consider it humor.
I’ve been analyzing many of the arguments on this board, and especially this forum, about various gaming matters (as well as other matters), made some fascinating observations and come to an interesting conclusion.
Many of these arguments cannot be resolved in any fashion whatsoever, because of fundamentally different and persistently unchanging ways of looking at the world. I’m generalizing in making this analysis of course, because more often than not individuals are actually a complex mixture of traits. But for the sake of simplicity I will narrow what I see down to two basic types, which, here at least, more or less cover all of the different adversarial positions: D&D versus other fantasy games, AD&D versus later editions, 3E versus 4E, grognard versus “well, obviously the game has never been about anything other than killing people and taking their stuff,” technical and tactical gamers versus open-ended and strategic gamers, historical gamers versus pure fantasy gamers, and so forth and so on.
(Now obviously I am speaking primarily about fantasy gaming in general and D&D in particular, but the same sort of argument and observations could be made about other types of gaming, if one just altered the particulars of classification.)
But it seems to me, (given certain exceptions as evidenced by individual experience and taste) that what you basically have are two very different worldviews in regards to these matters. You have the Nerd mind, and you have the Geek mind. (Or what I like to call the Merlin, and the Mr. Wizard – for you kids all I can say is, look up Mr. Wizard.) Now I’m not going to address the more general societal stereotypes of these two classifications of thought and behavior, because such popular images are not germane to what I’ve observed here, or to my larger point. Though I may employ some humor later. But generally (and keep that in mind, especially you Geeks) speaking these are my observations.
The Geek mind is mathematical and technical. It is also hyper-categorical. It divides anything it addresses, encounters, or wants to argue into hyper-detailed assessments of exacting, select, specific, and pristine (even when there is no such thing, it nevertheless demands there must be) categories. It also seems to have an extremely hard time with seeing relationships or inter-relationships between things. The idea of one thing influencing another intuitively, or without a mechanical expression is like speaking an alien or foreign language to it. It is a concept which is almost unfathomable, and even when it is it is almost immediately dismissed as being vaguely unimportant. It is not very good with human language, complex linguistic or verbal vocabulary, and is reflexive in linguistic observation and argument. It is however extremely good, and even highly intuitive when it comes to symbolic and primarily mathematical conception, and what various equations, standards, statistical variances, and models might or might not imply when being actually employed. It can divide and subdivide systems quickly and fluidly, working a problem down to its most basic and accurate components in very short order. It cannot however see the forest for the trees. It is often so absorbed with trees as a matter of fact, that it often fails to even acknowledge there is such a thing as a forest. Historically it is concerned with facts and figures and is detail oriented. It is not concerned with a fair, or even necessarily an interesting argument, it is concerned only with a precise one.
The Nerd mind, on the other hand, is primarily linguistic and systematic. (If you’ve read through this post thus far and said to yourself, “even though I don’t agree on every point I’m gonna keep reading cause his argument is really interesting,” then you probably have a Nerd mind, if you’ve read through this and said to yourself, “where are the figures he uses to back this up?” or, “If I don’t see some real data soon I’m out,” then I’ll let you guess what you probably are.) It does not divide things but rather wants to collect, assemble, and collate them. It is an arrangement mind, a mind and outlook that is impressed and concerned primarily with concert and congress (not the Congress, nobody in their right mind is impressed by “the Congress”). With parts working together as a whole. It is not categorical, but systemic. It can easily and automatically perceive inter-relationships between even seemingly disparate or contradictory elements and sometimes cannot even understand the idea that some things are by very nature mutually exclusive. It is far less concerned with precision than it is with implication, with what things might mean if everything works the way it should. Whereas the Geek mind sees how things might fail, and under what circumstances, the Nerd mind sees how things might succeed, and possibly why. The Nerd mind would rather be fascinated with potential than obsessed with detail. Boredom is the universal enemy. It wants to go to Mars and says to itself, “okay, we’ll need this and that and this and that…” It doesn’t necessarily want to, or even know how to, build this and that and this and that - to get there. It is primarily strategic in outlook. It designs, it does not engineer. It has a vision, not always a plotted course. The weakness of the Nerd mind is that it can easily see the whole forest; it just doesn’t necessarily know the difference between the oak, the sycamore, the birch, and the black ash. If precision is an obstacle it may cling stubbornly to being wrong. On the other hand the Nerd mind is very adaptable and flexible in a way that the Geek mind often is not.
Now, of course, no one is entirely a Geek, or a Nerd, not possessed of an entirely pure Geek or Nerd Weltanschauung, philosophy, or mind-set. Real individuals are too filled with personal variables, not to mention personal experiences, for such a simple and general classification system to be specifically applicable and accurate. Nerd and Geek minds are too small a set of lenses through which to view individuals, but it is a pretty good set of spectacles through which to view tendencies.
And of course someone is going to reflexively assume that I am using these terms dispositively (Nerd and Geek - except in the arcane sense, then I do mean to be dispositive), or even insultingly (I am not but that won’t stop assumptions being made and faulty conclusions drawn). I am using these terms because they can be easily understood given the basics of modern lingo and popular argument. Especially on this board, or perhaps it is even more accurate to say, on this particular forum.
However it is not my intention to start an argument about Geeks versus Nerds, and who is a Geek and why they are better, or who is a Nerd and why they are superior (though knowing the way some folks argue from general standards to specific individuals I fully expect someone to be insulted, or someone to be insulting, no matter what is said or in what way), and so forth and so on.
That disclaimer being made (and I know it will do little practical good, especially after about the tenth post or so) my real intention is to stimulate individuals to look at the way in which they think, argue, view the world, process information, and yes, even to consider these things in relation to their own personal interests, like in matters of gaming.
I am constantly amazed by the people on this board (but I do also understand some of it, because language is by its very nature necessarily limited and because you cannot see the other fella, so many times so much context and intent is also lost into the invisible electronic aether of the internet) who cannot make a simple statement equivalent to one like this, “you know, I disagree with you in some respects, but your argument is so good that I’m gonna think more about it and you may just change my mind.”
Now of course not all arguments are about compromise, seeing the other person’s point of view, or coming around to their way of thinking or viewing the world. Nor should every argument be about that. After all some things should be non-negotiable. But an awful lot of arguments around here seem to break down into nothing more than fundamentally, and I would often say, uncritically examined viewpoints of limited scope and reason. Of little more than stubborn personal habit of thought pattern. After all, most of the time we’re talking about games, not the future of the world, or the destiny of mankind. (Not that games, like anything else, don’t have their place, they obviously do, and can on occasion even be valuable tools.)
But overall I see an awful lot of Geek versus Nerd, and different viewpoints of the world that simply will not even consider the possibility of another viewpoint or how that viewpoint might work, or what it might mean.
Now all that being said I am going to say that, for purposes of what I’m discussing here, in these particular circumstances, I am primarily of the Nerd mind myself. I’d say I’m probably about 73.76523015% of the Nerd Mind and about 26.23476985211706% (that’s a bone for the Geeks to pick at later) of the Geek Mind.
I’m mostly a Merlin. I like long hikes in the mountains, playing with my Great Danes, I like my magic and my myth mysterious, dangerous, and unexplained, and I’d rather be a Dark Knight than a shiny Superman. Oh, and most of the time I like poetry better than calculus, but I sure do like doing co-valences.
But that’s just me.
What about you?
I’ve been analyzing many of the arguments on this board, and especially this forum, about various gaming matters (as well as other matters), made some fascinating observations and come to an interesting conclusion.
Many of these arguments cannot be resolved in any fashion whatsoever, because of fundamentally different and persistently unchanging ways of looking at the world. I’m generalizing in making this analysis of course, because more often than not individuals are actually a complex mixture of traits. But for the sake of simplicity I will narrow what I see down to two basic types, which, here at least, more or less cover all of the different adversarial positions: D&D versus other fantasy games, AD&D versus later editions, 3E versus 4E, grognard versus “well, obviously the game has never been about anything other than killing people and taking their stuff,” technical and tactical gamers versus open-ended and strategic gamers, historical gamers versus pure fantasy gamers, and so forth and so on.
(Now obviously I am speaking primarily about fantasy gaming in general and D&D in particular, but the same sort of argument and observations could be made about other types of gaming, if one just altered the particulars of classification.)
But it seems to me, (given certain exceptions as evidenced by individual experience and taste) that what you basically have are two very different worldviews in regards to these matters. You have the Nerd mind, and you have the Geek mind. (Or what I like to call the Merlin, and the Mr. Wizard – for you kids all I can say is, look up Mr. Wizard.) Now I’m not going to address the more general societal stereotypes of these two classifications of thought and behavior, because such popular images are not germane to what I’ve observed here, or to my larger point. Though I may employ some humor later. But generally (and keep that in mind, especially you Geeks) speaking these are my observations.
The Geek mind is mathematical and technical. It is also hyper-categorical. It divides anything it addresses, encounters, or wants to argue into hyper-detailed assessments of exacting, select, specific, and pristine (even when there is no such thing, it nevertheless demands there must be) categories. It also seems to have an extremely hard time with seeing relationships or inter-relationships between things. The idea of one thing influencing another intuitively, or without a mechanical expression is like speaking an alien or foreign language to it. It is a concept which is almost unfathomable, and even when it is it is almost immediately dismissed as being vaguely unimportant. It is not very good with human language, complex linguistic or verbal vocabulary, and is reflexive in linguistic observation and argument. It is however extremely good, and even highly intuitive when it comes to symbolic and primarily mathematical conception, and what various equations, standards, statistical variances, and models might or might not imply when being actually employed. It can divide and subdivide systems quickly and fluidly, working a problem down to its most basic and accurate components in very short order. It cannot however see the forest for the trees. It is often so absorbed with trees as a matter of fact, that it often fails to even acknowledge there is such a thing as a forest. Historically it is concerned with facts and figures and is detail oriented. It is not concerned with a fair, or even necessarily an interesting argument, it is concerned only with a precise one.
The Nerd mind, on the other hand, is primarily linguistic and systematic. (If you’ve read through this post thus far and said to yourself, “even though I don’t agree on every point I’m gonna keep reading cause his argument is really interesting,” then you probably have a Nerd mind, if you’ve read through this and said to yourself, “where are the figures he uses to back this up?” or, “If I don’t see some real data soon I’m out,” then I’ll let you guess what you probably are.) It does not divide things but rather wants to collect, assemble, and collate them. It is an arrangement mind, a mind and outlook that is impressed and concerned primarily with concert and congress (not the Congress, nobody in their right mind is impressed by “the Congress”). With parts working together as a whole. It is not categorical, but systemic. It can easily and automatically perceive inter-relationships between even seemingly disparate or contradictory elements and sometimes cannot even understand the idea that some things are by very nature mutually exclusive. It is far less concerned with precision than it is with implication, with what things might mean if everything works the way it should. Whereas the Geek mind sees how things might fail, and under what circumstances, the Nerd mind sees how things might succeed, and possibly why. The Nerd mind would rather be fascinated with potential than obsessed with detail. Boredom is the universal enemy. It wants to go to Mars and says to itself, “okay, we’ll need this and that and this and that…” It doesn’t necessarily want to, or even know how to, build this and that and this and that - to get there. It is primarily strategic in outlook. It designs, it does not engineer. It has a vision, not always a plotted course. The weakness of the Nerd mind is that it can easily see the whole forest; it just doesn’t necessarily know the difference between the oak, the sycamore, the birch, and the black ash. If precision is an obstacle it may cling stubbornly to being wrong. On the other hand the Nerd mind is very adaptable and flexible in a way that the Geek mind often is not.
Now, of course, no one is entirely a Geek, or a Nerd, not possessed of an entirely pure Geek or Nerd Weltanschauung, philosophy, or mind-set. Real individuals are too filled with personal variables, not to mention personal experiences, for such a simple and general classification system to be specifically applicable and accurate. Nerd and Geek minds are too small a set of lenses through which to view individuals, but it is a pretty good set of spectacles through which to view tendencies.
And of course someone is going to reflexively assume that I am using these terms dispositively (Nerd and Geek - except in the arcane sense, then I do mean to be dispositive), or even insultingly (I am not but that won’t stop assumptions being made and faulty conclusions drawn). I am using these terms because they can be easily understood given the basics of modern lingo and popular argument. Especially on this board, or perhaps it is even more accurate to say, on this particular forum.
However it is not my intention to start an argument about Geeks versus Nerds, and who is a Geek and why they are better, or who is a Nerd and why they are superior (though knowing the way some folks argue from general standards to specific individuals I fully expect someone to be insulted, or someone to be insulting, no matter what is said or in what way), and so forth and so on.
That disclaimer being made (and I know it will do little practical good, especially after about the tenth post or so) my real intention is to stimulate individuals to look at the way in which they think, argue, view the world, process information, and yes, even to consider these things in relation to their own personal interests, like in matters of gaming.
I am constantly amazed by the people on this board (but I do also understand some of it, because language is by its very nature necessarily limited and because you cannot see the other fella, so many times so much context and intent is also lost into the invisible electronic aether of the internet) who cannot make a simple statement equivalent to one like this, “you know, I disagree with you in some respects, but your argument is so good that I’m gonna think more about it and you may just change my mind.”
Now of course not all arguments are about compromise, seeing the other person’s point of view, or coming around to their way of thinking or viewing the world. Nor should every argument be about that. After all some things should be non-negotiable. But an awful lot of arguments around here seem to break down into nothing more than fundamentally, and I would often say, uncritically examined viewpoints of limited scope and reason. Of little more than stubborn personal habit of thought pattern. After all, most of the time we’re talking about games, not the future of the world, or the destiny of mankind. (Not that games, like anything else, don’t have their place, they obviously do, and can on occasion even be valuable tools.)
But overall I see an awful lot of Geek versus Nerd, and different viewpoints of the world that simply will not even consider the possibility of another viewpoint or how that viewpoint might work, or what it might mean.
Now all that being said I am going to say that, for purposes of what I’m discussing here, in these particular circumstances, I am primarily of the Nerd mind myself. I’d say I’m probably about 73.76523015% of the Nerd Mind and about 26.23476985211706% (that’s a bone for the Geeks to pick at later) of the Geek Mind.
I’m mostly a Merlin. I like long hikes in the mountains, playing with my Great Danes, I like my magic and my myth mysterious, dangerous, and unexplained, and I’d rather be a Dark Knight than a shiny Superman. Oh, and most of the time I like poetry better than calculus, but I sure do like doing co-valences.
But that’s just me.
What about you?
