Nerds or Geeks...?

[Juliettaa]

I'd rather be called by my name- and not any label.

Ditto

 

[zurb]

Nerd vs Geek

 

[Rasputin]

Dictionary.com actually defines Nerd, Geek, Dork, and Dweeb.

Based upon their definition, I would be both a nerd and a geek, but not a dork or dweeb as was suggested.

What Are The Differences Between The Words "Nerd," "Geek," And "Dork"?

 

[Wolfgangus Faldestolius]

When I venture beyond the confines of my front door, I'm basically in the NT world whether I like it or not. How I interpret or use such terms is of no consequence to a vast social majority for which I am not part of.

I just don't find such a social dynamic to be "empowering" at all. Similar to why I make a concerted effort not to tell anyone and everyone that I'm on the spectrum of autism. Where more than likely it involves consequences rather than any sense of empowerment. "Need-to-know only".

... "Each to their own" as you say.

To me, I'm not only in the NT plus ASC world, I am both and always saw myself as both. I didn't get called anything specific and I have always seen myself as a tribe of one AND fully part OF society. I only hung back because I was timid.

I admit to ASC only in the sense of reinforcing my gift in adapting, e.g my taste in words (which most people are jealous of) is spitting out through sheer effort, the only way I can think of to phrase something at the spur of the moment. Most people are just as inarticulate but they took themselves for granted.

I couldn't say anything that made sense until my 30s apart from a phase around the age of 12 when I was quite witty.

We are not "a" subculture. There used to be a magazine called Asperger United and it got totally taken over by deviants. Yes that is what their name is. And their tastes are largely an assault. Hitherto we from time to sparingly got offered one of their best creations, fair enough, along with a wide spread of all other sorts. ASC is no excuse for not bothering to develop taste and tact. As a person with ASC I am here to talk about what we can have in common, which is ad hoc (odd hack ) and I never get subtribed except by people like the OP.

I thought it was supposed to be a thread about neuroplasticity, an interesting subject.

 

[Wolfgangus Faldestolius]

Outside of this community those are colloquial, disparaging terms I generally avoid using. Besides, dictionary definitions appear to be void of any neurological implications anyways.

Those are disparaging inside this community also. Luke Jackson's book title showed his capability for irony.

Interestingly "autistic" was a Greekified term for selfish. Donna Williams wears it with pride for that reason. I insist on going no further than her.

I see persons with ASC as individual and I don't slang any of them and I won't put up with it from any of you towards myself or each other.

I cherish the way my body functions and I make it work for me. I'm grateful when circumstances are well adapted.

 

[Crossbreed]

I never get subtribed except by people like the OP.

(...but the OP relented.)

 

[Crossbreed]

Interestingly "autistic" was a Greekified term for selfish.

I agree, but in the context of the diagnoses (Kanner & Asperger), it meant "selfish frame of reference." That is the basis for our typical outside-of-the-box style of thinking.

 

[Wolfgangus Faldestolius]

I agree, but in the context of the diagnoses (Kanner & Asperger), it meant "selfish frame of reference." That is the basis for our typical outside-of-the-box style of thinking.

No it is not the basis for it.

We're not selfish if we don't get selfish.

You might be a one-off, but the rest of us have had to work to make the best of what we've got in the here and the now.

Please start thinking about things.

You don't know anything about any of us and you largely haven't taken in what we've written!

If you're cynical, please be cynical about your own sole affairs and not ours.

 

[Crossbreed]

We're not selfish if we don't get selfish.

I was using "selfish" differently. And I wasn't speaking for everybody (in that instance), just those traits that occur more frequently among us than they do among NTs. (That leaves plenty of room for exceptions.)

"Poor theory of mind" is one of those frequently occurring traits. It is a kind of selfishness, not in the sense of "lacking generosity," but in its limited scope of perception. I do not consider the latter to be a cynical position just a neurological limitation (that we can eventually compensate for). My earliest attempt to do so was by adopting The Golden Rule.

 

[Judge]

I see persons with ASC as individual and I don't slang any of them and I won't put up with it from any of you towards myself or each other.

Then whatever you do, don't type words like "nerd" or "geek" in our search engine.

You won't like how often such terms are used here. Though in most cases I think when such terms are used, they are done so not to categorize others, but only themselves. With no ill intent. Please keep this in mind before you attack any of them. However admittedly outside this domain, that's another matter. Where I still hear such terms used in a derogatory manner.

We have any number of different terms that we debate as to whether they are perceived as good or bad, accurate or even helpful. Though as members we don't have the authority to determine who can or can't use them. That's something left up to the mods and admin.

 

[Wolfgangus Faldestolius]

... . Though in most cases I think when such terms are used, they are done so not to categorize others, but only themselves. 1 With no ill intent. Please keep this in mind before you attack any of them. However admittedly outside this domain, that's another matter. Where I still hear such terms used in a derogatory manner.

We have any number of different terms that we debate as to whether they are perceived as good or bad, accurate or even helpful. 2 Though as members we don't have the authority to determine who can or can't use them. That's something left up to the mods and admin.

I was claiming the authority of my insight as were those who agree. I was not usurping the mods' authority over anyone's posting tastes, just taking part in the debate exactly as you describe 2.

Someone first taught the other autistic people to paint their whole kind into a corner, I'm just illustrating how we can expose that loop as illusory.

I think you have captured the right ethos at 1, to not categorise others, which my browser stated yesterday the OP had retracted.

I'm not against the existence of subtribes, just an assumption that a lot of us are obliged to be in any of them. My own being a tribe of one has always gone hand in hand with my full membership of society. When I was shy I was shy. Yes some people did call me peculiar sometimes. It was the hippy period and I was an unconventional hippy.

 

[Wolfgangus Faldestolius]

I was using "selfish" differently. And I wasn't speaking for everybody (in that instance), just those traits that occur more frequently among us than they do among NTs. (That leaves plenty of room for exceptions.)

"Poor theory of mind" is one of those frequently occurring traits. It is a kind of selfishness, not in the sense of "lacking generosity," but in its limited scope of perception. I do not consider the latter to be a cynical position just a neurological limitation (that we can eventually compensate for). My earliest attempt to do so was by adopting The Golden Rule.

The term autistic was in usage before Kanner and Asperger and their usage was that we appeared to be wrapped up in ourselves.

Donna Williams describes our inner sensitivity to the sensory and to the emotional intensity of initiative. (We'd have struck onlookers as like chalk and cheese.) Wendy Lawson highlighted our slowness.

We are immediately "there" but don't yet know "what to do from there".

I had already been noted as deep, if I got anywhere at all. I have learned to broaden (an instinct I already had but which people told me to stop doing).

Words allude, they don't equate. I see with delight there are a number of us at AF, for whom words are one of our special interests!

 

[tree]

@Judge

"...whatever you do, don't type words like "nerd" or "geek" in our search engine."

That made me curious.
So I did.

83 pages of results featuring posts using the word "nerd."
89 pages of results featuring posts using the word "geek."

 

[Judge]

@Judge

"...whatever you do, don't type words like "nerd" or "geek" in our search engine."

83 pages of results featuring posts using the word "nerd."
89 pages of results featuring posts using the word "geek."

Exactly.

They're commonly used words here. And generally not with any malice. But then so are other terms like Autism, Asperger's Syndrome, Aspie, High-Functioning, ASD, and so on. I think just about every term whether slang or clinical in nature has been hotly debated here at one time or another.

Certain terms are "hot-buttons" for some, endearing for others who want to co-opt them. We can all speak our minds of what we think of them, but that in no way means we can make them go away or profoundly change their meaning on a whim.

 

[WildCat]

Sorting people into categories isn't outside the box thinking, but sure.

Out of curiosity, I got 23,475 results for "NT". Not that I think they all like being categorized either, was curious to see what the result was. If I literally had a nickel for each result (23,475 x 0.05), that'd be $1,173.75.

 

[Crossbreed]

If I literally had a nickel for each result (23,475 x 0.05), that'd be $1,173.75.

Math much...?

 

[WildCat]

Math much...?

Very much, but with a calculator this time. Probably could've done it with my head years ago, but that's a story for another time.

 

[Crossbreed]

Sorting people into categories isn't outside the box thinking, but sure.

Thinking "outside of the box" includes thinking "inside of the box." It just isn't limited to doing so.

 

[Wolfgangus Faldestolius]

... And generally not with any malice. But then so are other terms like Autism, Asperger's Syndrome, Aspie, High-Functioning, ASD, and so on. I think just about every term whether slang or clinical in nature has been hotly debated here at one time or another.

Certain terms are "hot-buttons" for some, endearing for others who want to co-opt them. We can all speak our minds of what we think of them, but that in no way means we can make them go away or profoundly change their meaning on a whim.

But those aren't tribes. The National Autism Society in the UK has gone over to ASC for condition (following the lead of people like me). NT merely means people who claim to not be "any of the above": I appreciate some don't like it so I try to put it in quotes or add a prefix.

Some of our writers have mentioned style, which I see as how I was styled by my "creator" if one might be permitted to mention the concept or metaphor. The risk is people might immediately want me restyled. We style our adaptations by slow learning, but only within our capabilities.

I find the same traits of mind occur in all types of people anyway so it is all one continuum.

None of the above are cultures. Each individual creates their own cultures and participates in wider ones.

 

[Judge]

But those aren't tribes. The National Autism Society in the UK has gone over to ASC for condition (following the lead of people like me). NT merely means people who claim to not be "any of the above": I appreciate some don't like it so I try to put it in quotes or add a prefix.

Some of our writers have mentioned style, which I see as how I was styled by my "creator" if one might be permitted to mention the concept or metaphor. The risk is people might immediately want me restyled. We style our adaptations by slow learning, but only within our capabilities. On occasion I've referred to myself as a "computer geek". To this date it appears to have offended no one. My bad.

I find the same traits of mind occur in all types of people anyway so it is all one continuum.

None of the above are cultures. Each individual creates their own cultures and participates in wider ones.

I'm afraid you've taken some of my comments far beyond the level of the point I was trying to make. Perhaps you confused some of them with the OP. My point in this thread is simply that the use of or co-opting some words (like the thread title) can be precarious, because they can have different meanings and connotations to different people apart from different circumstances.

Whether you call them tribes or cultures or whatever wasn't my point. Those were your words- not mine.

"Neurotypical" to me means persons who are not on the spectrum of autism. No more, no less. Though in my real-life circumstances, all I was trying to describe was that locally I have utterly no contact with autistic people within my social orbit short of contacting them on the Internet. That's all. Otherwise we'll just have to agree to disagree.