#29, somehow that reminded me of Tom Lehrer's 'The Masochism Tango'. Here's: www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHID8hMgWKc
Whatever they say, intelligence debouches into the all kind of human activities. Reason is becoming a determinant of life success.
For the current moment, social skills (lack of which they like to consider a nerdiness) are different from chess in only single condition: chess games can be written down and analysed with intelligence, what makes intelligence an absolute determinant of chess success; while social situations are difficult for analyzing with clear reason, but are understood by majority of people by emotions (which are fully logical in their clear definition).
Nonetheless, social practical-oriented theory is developing, and soon intelligence will proclaim a victory over the old school of native social skills training. As positional game in chess took an advantage over old school of romantic chess.
The communication between people (I am talking about purposeful one) and that its part also, what is, as now is fashionable to say, determined by emotional intellect, will become a prerogative of intellect, as chess game is now.
But I should say, that this all is not new: all clever people, who's aim was in influencing (for any reason) on people, studied social science, developed their social skills with intelligence. And as you can know, they all were charismatic, graven leaders.
Can you call a nerd Cicero, Hitler? Or can you call a nerd such actors as Jack Nicholson, Johnny Depp?
But here we also see people who are obsessed with something, or devote a lot of time to their activity. So why can't we call them nerds?
The answer is probably in that majority of people see only form. The majority of people are superficial. If you have nice gestures, mimics, gait, tough, clear voice, if you can smile when it's necessary and talk what is relevant, they will consider you charismatic, not a nerd. But they miss that your success cannot be determinate only by form. Only clever people, those who themselves have to deal with social skills and what is below it, understand how the inner part is important. Those gossip that was discussed here is taken from the stupid opinion of most people. Which notice only form. Only shape.
So this nonsense is cultivated by people, whose opinion is largely worthless.
For the current moment, social skills (lack of which they like to consider a nerdiness) are different from chess in only single condition: chess games can be written down and analysed with intelligence, what makes intelligence an absolute determinant of chess success; while social situations are difficult for analyzing with clear reason, but are understood by majority of people by emotions (which are fully logical in their clear definition).
Nonetheless, social practical-oriented theory is developing, and soon intelligence will proclaim a victory over the old school of native social skills training. As positional game in chess took an advantage over old school of romantic chess.
The communication between people (I am talking about purposeful one) and that its part also, what is, as now is fashionable to say, determined by emotional intellect, will become a prerogative of intellect, as chess game is now.
But I should say, that this all is not new: all clever people, who's aim was in influencing (for any reason) on people, studied social science, developed their social skills with intelligence. And as you can know, they all were charismatic, graven leaders.
Can you call a nerd Cicero, Hitler? Or can you call a nerd such actors as Jack Nicholson, Johnny Depp?
But here we also see people who are obsessed with something, or devote a lot of time to their activity. So why can't we call them nerds?
The answer is probably in that majority of people see only form. The majority of people are superficial. If you have nice gestures, mimics, gait, tough, clear voice, if you can smile when it's necessary and talk what is relevant, they will consider you charismatic, not a nerd. But they miss that your success cannot be determinate only by form. Only clever people, those who themselves have to deal with social skills and what is below it, understand how the inner part is important. Those gossip that was discussed here is taken from the stupid opinion of most people. Which notice only form. Only shape.
So this nonsense is cultivated by people, whose opinion is largely worthless.
*unbuckles*
P.S.: Since you mentioned 'The FIDE President asserts he was abducted by Aliens', don't forget that Korchnoi used to play against (literal) ghosts! :-)
Chesstroll_Ingot:
You are absolutely right when you say that the majority only see forms, and are superficial, but I would still call Johnny Depp a nerd. :)
To have the quality of a "nerd" does not mean that the person is in *essence* a nerd and only a nerd; all words are mere symbols which can have many fluid and changing meanings.
Despite the less than concrete nature of language, and the superficiality of men, can you argue for essence over form? In the end, *all* language, all words, are only forms, and those who wish to invalidate "labels" can not do so without using labels themselves.
You are absolutely right when you say that the majority only see forms, and are superficial, but I would still call Johnny Depp a nerd. :)
To have the quality of a "nerd" does not mean that the person is in *essence* a nerd and only a nerd; all words are mere symbols which can have many fluid and changing meanings.
Despite the less than concrete nature of language, and the superficiality of men, can you argue for essence over form? In the end, *all* language, all words, are only forms, and those who wish to invalidate "labels" can not do so without using labels themselves.
Although you *appear* (see what I did there? ;) to have talked yourself hoarse, I will admit that you have a point about the nerd that I neglected to mention: The nerd is a combination of both obsessive compulsions to few activities AND a lack of popularity due to poor social skills.
It took you long enough to say this, but it's a point that resonates nonetheless. Thank you for your input.
It took you long enough to say this, but it's a point that resonates nonetheless. Thank you for your input.
*claps slowly*
Dionysus_god:
Well, I prefer to always look the meaning of the word in the dictionary.
What is nerd:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nerd
1. a stupid, irritating, ineffectual, or unattractive person.
2. an intelligent but single-minded person obsessed with a nonsocial hobby or pursuit.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english-russian/nerd
1. a person, especially a man, who is not attractive and is awkward or socially embarrassing.
2. a person who is extremely interested in one subject, especially computers, and knows a lot of facts about it.
If we define something enough definitely, then there is not so much changing meanings. I think that your definition of "nerd" — "someone who is obsessed with something and only that" is only a little part of the word "nerd". Then all people who are obsessed are nerds, but we use another words for them: "hard-working", "purposeful", "obsessed", "ambitious", "aspiring", "striving for glory, honors". Using "nerd" here is not justified, as there are more suitable words.
"Nerd" has obviously another meaning and we cannot just give to it some definition if the word has only a little part of its (definition) quality and there are much better words for this.
Words, even if they can be vague, still have and must have reasonably narrow frames.
So, "nerd" is not a suitable word for Johnny Depp. If he has a little part of nerdiness, then that still is not a suitable word, because there are better words that can describe this whichever quality. And using inexact words will create misunderstandings. So, if we assume to use a language properly, we need to find that another, exact words , also to be understood by people correctly.
"those who wish to invalidate "labels" can not do so without using labels themselves."
Yes, of course, but what is "labels"? It's an abstract definition of something: if you have two thousands five hundreds thirty seven fishes, how are you going to calculate cost of all fish, if every single fish costs a one dollar? You need the labels: "2537" and "1$". But are these labels superficial? It's better to say they are abstract. So, yes, we use forms, but as an abstraction — if we use it for handy operating with a lot of things. But it doesn't mean we are superficial.
"Superficiality" is a "superficial knowledge" or in other words a lack of knowledge about something, in a current case — a lack of knowledge about life success among superficial people who see only shape. But, "shape", "form" here mean "what they can see, perfunctorily got to know something or about something". Form in that definition I used it is not "abstraction". But abstract knowledge about something doesn't make you superficial.
Well, I prefer to always look the meaning of the word in the dictionary.
What is nerd:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nerd
1. a stupid, irritating, ineffectual, or unattractive person.
2. an intelligent but single-minded person obsessed with a nonsocial hobby or pursuit.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english-russian/nerd
1. a person, especially a man, who is not attractive and is awkward or socially embarrassing.
2. a person who is extremely interested in one subject, especially computers, and knows a lot of facts about it.
If we define something enough definitely, then there is not so much changing meanings. I think that your definition of "nerd" — "someone who is obsessed with something and only that" is only a little part of the word "nerd". Then all people who are obsessed are nerds, but we use another words for them: "hard-working", "purposeful", "obsessed", "ambitious", "aspiring", "striving for glory, honors". Using "nerd" here is not justified, as there are more suitable words.
"Nerd" has obviously another meaning and we cannot just give to it some definition if the word has only a little part of its (definition) quality and there are much better words for this.
Words, even if they can be vague, still have and must have reasonably narrow frames.
So, "nerd" is not a suitable word for Johnny Depp. If he has a little part of nerdiness, then that still is not a suitable word, because there are better words that can describe this whichever quality. And using inexact words will create misunderstandings. So, if we assume to use a language properly, we need to find that another, exact words , also to be understood by people correctly.
"those who wish to invalidate "labels" can not do so without using labels themselves."
Yes, of course, but what is "labels"? It's an abstract definition of something: if you have two thousands five hundreds thirty seven fishes, how are you going to calculate cost of all fish, if every single fish costs a one dollar? You need the labels: "2537" and "1$". But are these labels superficial? It's better to say they are abstract. So, yes, we use forms, but as an abstraction — if we use it for handy operating with a lot of things. But it doesn't mean we are superficial.
"Superficiality" is a "superficial knowledge" or in other words a lack of knowledge about something, in a current case — a lack of knowledge about life success among superficial people who see only shape. But, "shape", "form" here mean "what they can see, perfunctorily got to know something or about something". Form in that definition I used it is not "abstraction". But abstract knowledge about something doesn't make you superficial.
I agree, people are using the word to describe "successful" and words related to successful when success has nothing to do with it.
Sorry, but you can't say that Johnny Depp is not a nerd. He'd probably say he was himself. Use as many dictionaries as you want, he's nerdy to me, and he's cool simultaneously.
Sorry, but you can't say that Johnny Depp is not a nerd. He'd probably say he was himself. Use as many dictionaries as you want, he's nerdy to me, and he's cool simultaneously.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.