Merlin and Mr. Wizard: The Nerd Mind versus the Geek Mind

[Jack7]

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?

 

[S'mon]

I think by your criteria, comparing to other ENWorlders I fit pretty clearly on the Nerd side. Compared to that half of the population known as 'women' though, I'm a geek.

 

[Jack7]

I think by your criteria, comparing to other ENWorlders I fit pretty clearly on the Nerd side. Compared to that half of the population known as 'women' though, I'm a geek.

That's an excellent point S'mon. I didn't break things down by sex because I hate saying he/she over and over again, and because, of course, I was just generalizing. However I think examining sex would change the details and parameters by which things like this would be measured and assessed (no pun intended).

A girl might be Nerd-mind in comparison to some men, and Geek-mind in comparison to other females. Or vice versa. I reckon who you're being compared to says a lot about how that comparison is rendered.

I also think there is a generational aspect to this. I think there are far more Nerd minds of about my age, and far more Geek minds among younger people. I think that is because Nerd can generally be equated roughly, with what we used to call Brainiacs, or sometimes thought of as "scientifically smart."

But Geeks I think more of as being Technicians (in the big sense of the term) and technical experts. You can't really have a "Geek population" without your society having a sufficiently advanced technical science that is practical and functional. That's why Geeks are such a relatively new phenomenon. You've had scientifically oriented people and "Nerds" (even if they weren't called that) in the general population (though maybe not in heavy numbers) for a pretty long time.

But you can't have Geeks without a sophisticated, highly developed technological base in society. Geeks often run and maintain not science, per se, but the products and fruits of scientific innovation.

And you can't have "gaming Geeks" without them having first become used to the idea of "the technical analysis of everything," including gaming and entertainment. That is to say without becoming used to the idea that technically is the way you naturally should, or must, analyze everything you analyze.

Geeks then are a sort of specialized sub-class of general Nerdom, or I guess if you put it in gaming terms, a prestige class of Nerdom.

Anyways, that was a good observation.
And a clever one.

 

[FireLance]

I try to tap on both types of minds, although I personally prefer the terms the Scientist and the Poet. The different minds relate to the different aspects of gaming: the Scientist analyzes the mechanics and the Poet critiques the flavor. You can, of course, focus almost exclusively on one or the other, and there will be occasions when the two will be in conflict, but as far as possible, I like to harmonize and appeal to both.

 

[Umbran]

I find your choice of nomenclature unfortunate - you've chosen words that have layers of different connotations to different people, but the one's you're ascribing to them aren't among those. Apt to be confusing.

I think your model has a similarity to GNS theory - it may be good for considering the actions of people en masse, but really poor when applied to individuals. If you look at any particular conversation, and try to pin the dynamic on this dichotomy, you're apt to miss the mark by a wide margin.

And, one last thing - I don't think it is at all a matter of "will not consider the possibility of another viewpoint". That's too extreme. It seems more to me more a simple failure of communication that persists for an exchange or two too long, such that thought patterns get entrenched before the matter gets fully explored.

I think most of the folks around here are perfectly willing to accept the possibility of another viewpoint - if that other viewpoint is stated in a non-judgmental manner.

 

[Roman]

Well, your categories basically relabel the 'simulationist versus gamist' notions, but in many more words. Still, it was a good read. I disagree, however, that what you call the nerd mind is more systemic than the geek one (failure to see the forest for the trees and so on), but otherwise sure, I am in agreement, as your definitions are pretty much: geek = simulationist; nerd = gamist;

 

[Jack7]

I think your model has a similarity to GNS theory - it may be good for considering the actions of people en masse, but really poor when applied to individuals.

That's why I said this Umbran, though maybe I didn't make the point strongly enough:

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.

I try to tap on both types of minds, although I personally prefer the terms the Scientist and the Poet.

By the way FL, although I like your recommendations about how to go about analyzing anything (the best analysis comes from analyzing all possible factors and influences, though not necessarily by assigning equal value to all elements) I'm not really talking about Scientist versus Poet, or Science versus Romance (as an ideal) or Religion or Art, for that matter. I'm splitting or dividing what might be considered modern "Brainiac interests" into two divergent sub-groups. I wanted to make the clear exactly what I'm saying.

And saying that over time, whereas Nerd used to be considered the "smart guy" and a person whose interest was science, technical matters, etc, now that's not the real case anymore. Geeks have become the technical masters of Nerdom, and Nerds are becoming, more and more, for a lack of a better term, the Romantics among smart guys. (I'd say Scientific Romantics, Smart Romantics, or even possibly Technical Romantics, but I think you probably get my point.)

Now I'm not really one of those people who think either Nerds or Geeks are that much brighter (if at all), and certainly not that much wiser (if ever), than any other non-Nerd, non-Geek variety of individual. So I use smart-guy as a sort of linguistic short-hand for a particular cultural stereotype and assumption about smart-guys.

But I am saying that as society becomes more complicated and much more heavily reliant upon technology, in advanced societies anyways, two things are happening simultaneously. Most everyone is developing a certain degree of either "Nerdom," or "Geekage" (or maybe both) as a matter of merely being able to function in a technologically advanced society, and secondly that the Nerd, who used to represent the technically proficient "smart-guy" is now becoming the Romantic (as an ideal) among Brainiacs.

That Nerdom is splitting into two camps, or divisions (far more actually, but that's all I'm talking about), and that the Geek is assuming the technical role, or the "Mr. Wizard role" that the Nerd once had, and the Nerd is becoming less the technician and more the idealist. That as time goes along the split becomes ever more apparent, and you can tell this even on boards like this, covering gaming discussions. You have your technicians and your romantics and yet from the point of most outside observers, as S'mon pointed out, they would usually be considered the same sub-culture. But they are not, not really, and not anymore. That as time progresses they are splitting and fracturing, as will happen with any group of people once the population gets high enough, or the possible divergents of interests complicated enough.

So I'm not saying Poet versus Scientist, I'm saying Brainiacs (as the old term was once used) are fracturing into separate camps, and that the Geek is assuming the role of Mr. Wizard (whereas that term used to be used to generally describe most Nerds). By the way when I use the term Wizard I'm using it in three different ways. I'm using it to mean technical-wizard, like in "Mr. Wizard," to mean a kid or young person, like in "Wiz-Kid," and like in "Face me Wizard, and taste my wrath!" As Thundarr would shout. Sorry - I couldn't resist the Thundarr reference.

I'm saying the Nerd ain't the Mr. Wizard anymore, he's more the Merlin.
He's the Old Order now, and often defends Old Order values and ideals and ways of looking at even matters like gaming.

 

[Vegepygmy]

...I am in agreement, as your definitions are pretty much: geek = simulationist; nerd = gamist;

That's interesting. The "Geek mind" sounds like a gamist to me, and the "Nerd mind" more like a simulationist.

I suspect that in reality, we are both doing what the OP said we would: reading more into it than he actually said.

 

[helium3]

But what happens to your theory when it runs into the D&D players that are neither geeks nor nerds?

 

[S'mon]

That's interesting. The "Geek mind" sounds like a gamist to me, and the "Nerd mind" more like a simulationist.

I don't think the Gamist vs Simulationist distinction correlates with the OP's division at all. Nerds and Geeks as he describes them may be either - again by ENW standards I'm towards the Nerd and Simulationist sides, but you can have Geek Simulationists too, for whom a game like Traveller is very popular.

For instance, I think the strong "rules are the physics of the game world" advocates prevalent in the 3e era would fit in the Geek side of the divide, but the purpose for which rules-as-physics is advocated could be either gamist or simulationist, AFAICS. A rules-as-physics simulationist is taking a very different approach than my own to simulation.