Talk:Nerd/Archive 2

The Word Nerd was coined by Dr. Seuss
It was always my understanding that Nerd first appeared in the Dr. Seuss book, "If I Ran The Zoo". There is a page located here that discusses this origin of the word. http://home.comcast.net/~brons/NerdCorner/nerd.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.2.240.249 (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC). (attribution added by Brons 18:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC))


 * This assertion is a little stronger than my researches (that web page is mine and really should be http://www.eldacur.com/~brons/NerdCorner/nerd.html) show. The Dr. Seuss origin has the virtue that he used the term before any appearance of the slang term nerd in any spelling, and matches the earliest spelling exactly, but there is no certain proof. -- Brons 16:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I always thought that 'nerd' was coined by the Happy Days TV show writers. I lived in Milwaukee at the time the show was first aired. Nerd was never used by anyone I knew, and my parents never heard it used either. So for it to appear on Happy Days, which was situated in our city, we just assumed it was a made-up word on the show. After looking over the evidence it is pretty convincing that it originated with Dr. Seuss, spread to young readers (or the people reading it to them), and got into the teen lexicon of the time. However, Happy Days needs to be mentioned as it was the launching of the word into permanent use (to my disappointment as I always thought it a pretty useless term). It was Happy Days, and especially 'The Fonz' - character Arthur Fonzerelli (played by Henry Winkler), that made the word a sensation. I was a teen at the time and it really went out there into the masses. That made the way for 'Revenge of the Nerds'. At that time it really meant 'square', 'dullard', unpopular, or boring person. It was really just a general derogatory term sort of like jerk (without the current connotation of jerk as a blow hard). It was not really used to refer to a smart person, but it did not exclude someone with high intelligence. It simply did not refer to a studious, intelligent person at the time. Since people who studied a lot and did not get into the high school popularity cycle were also thought of as dull and boring - the two become entwined with each other until the word developed an alternative meaning of "Bright and more interested in study than play - most often in high tech fields".

Point I want to make is that I think 'Happy Days' needs to be mentioned. (There were other phrases/words - remember "sit on it" also popularized by the show and other 70's shows as well - maybe research on this would be insightful)

As to the connection with 'geek' - there really was none in my experience. Geek was used way back (in films and literature) as a freak - as in Circus Freak. Someone who ate live fish or raw chicken parts was referred to as a geek. It was also used as a derogatory term for someone who resembled these professional Geeks. Then in the 80's 'Geek' started reappearing. It went to more common usage to be used like Jerk (much like nerd). Then was redefined to mean weirdos obsessed with high tech devices or games (almost exclusively males). I saw it used mostly about video gamers, computer hackers, and role playing afficionados - who gave up bathing or socializing for their obsession. Now it has become a more general term again - even has a little positive spin on it - since some of these people have become successful. Loki-dog (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Original Research
This article appears to be little but original research. There is not a reference in sight! Pathlessdesert 00:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No, but then again, it's the explanation of a stereotype. Stereotypes are merely very 'primitive' versions of original research, separating people into very rigid classifications, and thusly, many people may turn to such a page to provide the boundaries of said rigid classification. Thusly, there really can't be any references because they do not exist. So we either go with accepted norms grouped with the term 'nerd' or delete the page entirely, which might lead a a catastophe similar to the Zezima page -- arguments, arguments, arguments and no progress whatsoever, so I propose we stick with such "original research." Sporks.Are.Loverly 18:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Sporks.Are.Loverly

If their is no references avalaibles, this topic shouldn't be in wikipedia. A topic on which their is no previous research by anyone (because, in fact, that's what it means) does not have its place in an encyclopedia but in a dictionnary... BiffTheUnderstudy


 * I have been adding citations for early appearances of the word under its various spellings, in the years between 1950 and 1970. I have not put in a ref for the 1970 Current Slang citation as I don't have a volume and page and have not seen the journal. It is reported in the American Heritage Dictionary etymology for "nerd", though. I will complete the ref as possible. I've been working on the etymology of the nerd for more than 12 years and only have the handful of citations that I've added to the article, so progress may be slow. -- Brons 16:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. I've put references in for all of the 1950-1971 appearances of "nerd" or "nurd" in print that I am aware of, and that brings us to one of the clearest remaining issues of original research that exists in the history section: theories that derive from my web site, specifically the highly speculative "NE R&D labs" theory, which I neither originated nor originally added to this page. Once someone else had added it, I corrected and toned it down, though. It is one of two speculative origins that first appeared on my page, both contributed by readers and not invented by me. The second is a report that Philip K. Dick claims to have coined the term. I have added that one so that the two are treated similarly, and to give us a base text to correct.


 * The question is, am I a "reliable source"? I will not claim to be. I have been cited in print by both Entertainment Weekly and the Boston Globe as an expert on the the origin of the term, and my page on the subject has been on the Web for almost twelve years. But I am absolutely an amateur. I make no claim to being a professional historian or etymologist, and my work has never been peer reviewed or professionally edited and fact checked. Both the NERD labs and Phil Dick claims came to me as e-mails. The NERD Labs one is geographically interesting in that both of the first two print instances of the term are from quite close by. But they are speculative. As, by the way, is the "Mortimer Snerd" origin, with which I have had nothing to do.


 * So, I put it to you, especially those who have been wikipedians longer and more seriously than I, should we remove one or both claimed origins? If they are kept, should they (as I have with the Philip K Dick claim) have references that point to my web page? Without such references, they are unsubstantiated claims, as well as speculative. With the references, they are interesting possible origins, but as I have done major editing on the History section of the article, links to my site may be seen as self-serving.


 * I am entirely content to see either or both removed, kept, ref'd to my site or whatever the general will is. I remain something of a novice to Wikipedia, and make no claim as to fully understanding its rules, practices or guidelines. I welcome and seek guidance. --Brons 06:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is a quagmire
I agree...this article is almost totally made up it seems. ESPECIALLY the bit about the personality types, and about the rise of "nerd pride". Statements that make up the bulk of this article are at best ambiguous and at worst completely fallacious and misleading. This article needs SERIOUS attention, pruning, and cites.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 03:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I just pruned the article. Please make any suggestions or restore anything that you can find a reference for (although I doubt the likeliness of this since Nerd is such a un-scientific term).--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 03:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I've been concentrating on cleaning up and documenting the section on the history of the word, which is the only area that I have actually researched, but a lot of the claims in the other sections bothered me. Glad to see the article shortened and punched up. --Brons 03:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Nerd/geek
Does "nerd" or "geek" have more negative connotations? In my opinion, this is highly debatable. We need some citations here, especially for pieces of information like the East Coast/West Coast division that seem to be little but original research.

Also, the nerd/geek section is often confusing: "The lines between geek and nerd are often thin and ill-defined, however a general consensus is that a 'geek' is a person who obsesises in one area or another, whereas a 'nerd' is a highly intelligent person who is very scholarly and does well in many domains such as math, science, computing, etc. Nerds are more associated with obsessive knowledge. For example a Star Trek nerd (or Trekkie) is someone who could tell you extremely trivial details about Star Trek and may be likely to watch the show on a daily basis or go to Star Trek conventions." So is a nerd or a geek more obsessive? This section merits extreme clarification if not removal altogether. Allispaul 09:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. That section is confusing, but do we need to do anything but check the geek page and compare it to the Nerd page on wikipedia to remedy that? Sporks.Are.Loverly 18:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Sporks.Are.Loverly

In what way does the Star Trek fan differ from a football fan? Only in choosing interests according to taste rather than being raised to an interest to "fit in". Both go to conventions, have celebrity "heros", dress in costumes, etc. The stereotypically macho football fan can be just as obsessive about scores and plays (which to anyone else is boring). However, a Star Trek fan will not beat you up or sabotage your life for not being interested in Star Trek. So, which is more dysfunctional? People who choose to be what they are, or people who insist everyone pretend to fit in with their own narrow perceptions? Someone who flushes someone elses head down the toilet and beats them up for reading books is seriously disturbed. They cannot achieve, so they sabotage others.

The alleged "lack of social skills" is often a characteristic of the people surrounding them: if you have an IQ of 160, you can be as social as you like, but everyone around you will still be like children in comparison. Someday, labelling someone as "nerd" or "loner" or "geek", etc, will be seen as no different to labelling someone as "nigger", "wog" or "gook". The root cause is very similar and I think a strong case can be made for regarding people who use such terms in the same light.

Merging Nerd and Geek?
I would like to suggest a merge of the Nerd and Geek articles, since most people use them interchangeably. --Devnevyn 17:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Nerd and Geek should not be merged. They are not completely interchangeable. For the most part, geek is used to refer to someone who is knowledgeable in the technology field, and nerd is used to refer to someone who is "book smart". Geek could also be used for someone who is really into something. Like Band Geek, or Game Geek.


 * I have always thought that the whole "geek vs nerd" comparison in this article as well as the "authoritative" claims on the nuances of the various terms was nothing more than personal opinion and didn't have a lot of business here. It's pretty clear that many people who have been called geeks or nerds or who have embraced one or both of the terms have a lot of emotion involved in their commitment to their understanding of the terms, but it is far from clear that they really agree on the meanings (note the discussion in the next Talk section).


 * I'm guilty of such bias myself. I can't abide the term "geek", as I had a some decidedly negative interactions with carnies, lo those many decades ago and, their usage of the term overshadows the more positive popular modern usages in my mind. I've therefore tried to bring only the most well documented information here from my own web site. Given my bias agains "geek", my opinions on all of this "geek vs nerd" stuff is suspect, but I figure it's worth putting my 2 cents in in the talk page. --Brons 17:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Another note on "Nerd vs. Geek": Nerds lack nearly all basic social skills except for the ability to talk incoherently about some obscure science topic. Geeks, on the other hand, have the ability to carry on a conversation like most non-nerd/geek people. If you were to release both a nerd and a geek into the wild, the nerd would seek out the other nerds already present, while the geek would mingle with the non-nerd/geek people for a while, possibly a few hours. Nerds are generally lower on the social totem pole than geeks are, you might say. So geek and nerd cannot be used interchangably, similar to how you really cannot interchange the words swan and duck even though the two seem very similar.


 * I agree that Nerds and Geeks aren't the same, and have my own personal opinions, but is there ANY AUTHORITATIVE info on all these claims that are being thrown out here? We can't all just chip in what we think sounds right, thats OR people.  This is suppost to be an encyclopedia and articles like this are undermining that goal.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 23:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Nerds and geeks are not the same, but in my social circle (mostly self proclaimed nerds) geeks are the ones with few social skills. It is all a matter of opinion.  We see geeks as being more like computer science people, the the people who could be classified as 'treckies', etc.  Nerds are smart, usually mathematically inclined, but when someone else is asked to pick them out of a crowd they can't.  My best friend and I are both engineering majors, but when asking others to guess our major, most pick education or business.  The two articles should not be combined, and I doubt you will get any sort of agreement on what makes a nerd vs. a geek.

Try substituting the words 'nerd' and 'geek' in the "Another note on 'Nerd vs. Geek'" paragraph with 'nigger' and 'gook': it reveals a lot about the attitudes behind the concepts.

This article would be more balance if it contained some discussion on the social problems surrounding these abuses: bullying and the negative effects it has on development, for example.

Nerds/Nuts/Nertz
Re: the Jean Harlowe line referenced -- I think you'll find that the character is saying "Nertz!", which was a polite way to say "Nuts!/Nuts to that!" This line should probably be removed, methinks. Ihnatko 01:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I suspect you are correct. I was going to check the DVD before recommending this myself. Just to be sure. Have you checked it directly? --Brons 19:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The Misogynist Original Research
They may also do so as a statement of non-conformity or as a desire to be seen as eccentric. Even if they meet the standards requiring intelligence, many of them do not fit the traditional definition that includes some degree of social ineptitude or alienation. They may profess to grok (the understanding or use of the term often being associated with "geeks" or "nerds") the struggles of traditional nerds even if only as a form of lip service. Given the traditional gender differences, female nerds tend to be more often self-styled than pejoratively labelled. Also, women are far less likely than men to experience peer alienation due to nerdy interests or eccentricities in general. -- Given traditional gender differences, being a girl with an interest in math, science or technology is very alienating indeed. ~ 24.168.57.47 01:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't get so bent outta shape. Maybe they were simply trying to say that women can get away with a lot more offbeat behavior without being labelled nerd, dork, or spaz. Believe it or not, the standards for normal behavior are far stricter for men than they are for women. This is generally assuming the man is straight. If not, that's another story....206.192.18.14 20:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This must be from a very old edit. Whomever posted it had a point, albeit stated in a POV fashion. Misogysistic or not, women are far less subject to criticism for being different. Men are expected to be a certain way and act a certain way in order to be the things that make a man a man. Nerdiness, unfortunately, falls outside the boundaries of manliness. I don't make the rules, I just report them.Mr. ATOZ (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Amisha & Jill?
WTF is that? And what does N.E.R.D. supposedly stand for? If it's not explained in a coherent manner I'm going to remove the line. 68.166.69.228 06:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This was vandalism of Feb 15 by 74.101.132.29. The original read "Northern Electric Research and Development". This origin is admittedly of questionable providence as it is second-hand original research suggested by a reader of my History of the Nerd web page. It's a rather cute suggestion but is just as much pure speculation as the "Mortimer Snerd" hypothesis. Neither has any sort of documentation. Snerd is a bit older and more often repeated than the N.E.R&D labs, suggestion I regard both as folk etymology. The RPI Drunk/knurd likewise is completely lacking in documentation, but has the virtue of being very strongly believed by RPI graduates and a small subset of MIT graduates. Personally, I don't object to the inclusion of any of these, but I understand folk who do. -- Brons 16:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't beleve a Nerd can be a sienctist eh? 81.132.69.34 18:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Protected edit declined. I can't tell what edit exactly is being requested. Sandstein 08:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"Weakling"/"wimp" really relevent?
I'm not at all convinced that the Charles Atlas "97 pound weakling" story is really applicable. First of all, while "wimp" is slang "weakling" really isn't. Secondly, the original meaning of "nerd" was "square", a dull person, which is not the same as "wimp" or "weakling". The "Made a Man out of Mac" cartoon does illustrate the jock/bully vs wimp/nerd/geek/outcast tension, but doesn't specifically relate to the meaning or usage of nerd.

As someone who has been pushing the notion of nerd pride on the net for better than a dozen years, and someone who read roughly a zillion comic books with the Charles Atlas ad on the back cover, I can understand how this entry attracts a lot of personal identification, but I'm just not sure that we need to bring in the 97 pound weakling and all the elaborate geek vs nerd detailed comparisons. (Or even the whole personality classifications thing, but that's a whole nother kettle of fish.)

Anyone object to losing the "wimp/weakling" section?

--Brons 18:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

While wimps are not necessarily nerds, nerds are traditionally thought to be wimpy, at least if you define a wimp as someone physically inept. Of course, a wimp can also be defined as someone weak-willed, and nerds can be strong-willed. In any case, we need to keep in mind that these are stereotypes that do not necessarily correspond with reality. In the real world, a nerd may in fact be physically imposing (think Stephen King). Still, nerdiness and wimpiness tend to be related and strongly overlapping qualities. marbeh raglaim 21:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed the weakling/wimp section back on March 11, having heard no objections. --Brons 17:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Characteristics
The "characteristics" section is especially weak.

The Meyers-Briggs inventory is a controversial measure and the claim of association of Meyer's Briggs types with nerd-like traits is unsourced and otherwise unconvincing, and I suggest that paragraph be removed if someone doesn't add some sources soon.

I've added a section on the association between the nerd stereotype and autistic spectrum traits, which is backed up by at least some solid research.

Schomerus 07:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The fellow in Napolean Dynamite seemed borderline autistic or aspy. And I have met nerds who do not come out as NT on the Myers-Briggs scale. marbeh raglaim 21:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate photos
Time to stop using this page as a place to publish photos of your friends, on the pretext that they are "nerds"! I strongly suspect that all the photographs here are in fact private jokes about (unsuspecting?) individuals. Whether or not the person portrayed has given his/her consent, however, it looks very like an inappropriate use of personal images. I'd delete the lot of them, and go looking for something like a cartoon (or maybe a public-domain image such as a publicity shot from a film with a "nerdish" character) to illustrate the stereotype. Is there even a case for banning all photos of private individuals on such a page as this? Snalwibma 09:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How about the "Image:Nerd.jpg" that is used on the Robert Carradine page? It matches the classic stereotype of a nerd, and helped shape the image ever since the movie came out. Carradine worked very hard at presenting the physical archetype. The argument against it is that the article is not specifically about Carradine's portrayal, but we do cover it already in the body of the article and as I have been working my way through the history section chronologically adding references and citations, I was planning on including a "Revenge of the Nerd" along with the mention of "Happy Days"  as they both contributed to the usage of the term. --Brons 13:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As noone has put an objection, I proceed to put the image Nerd.jpg that is used on the Robert Carradine page. WikiSky 01:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm almost certain that this does not qualify for fair use. -Chunky Rice 02:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Plase make your args, so we can get a image for this article, since March 2007, Brons ask the question and nobady answered. I would be thankful if you suggest another image. WikiSky 03:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no suggestion as to what image would be appropriate. I can only say that this image could only be justified as fair use if used to discuss the character or the film that the character appeared in.  See WP:NFC for the guideline regarding non-free images.  -Chunky Rice 04:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess it is time for me to get off the stick and add a bit of discussion of the contribution of "Revenge of the Nerds", Carradine's portrayal of Lewis Skolnik, and the Fonz's use of the term "nerd" to the popular image of the nerd. I've been slow because I've been trying to give references to my contributions to teh History section and silly things like my job and family keep getting in the way of doing proper reference checking. Sigh.
 * Also, since the original poster of the image did not give a rationale, I added one to the image. Of course, I can only speak in general about the source and history of the picture and since I haven't see one of the actual physical photos in a decade or two, I can't prove any of what I said, but at least I provided grist for the discussion mill. -- Brons 16:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

''The stereotypical nerd is intelligent but socially and physically awkward. In film and television depictions, nerds are disproportionately male and white with glasses and braces. [13][14] However, after the introduction of the Steve Urkel character, nerds have been seen in all races and colors, especially, in recent years as a recurring young Asian male stereotype. They typically appear either to lack confidence or to be indifferent or oblivious to the negative perceptions held of them by others, with the result that they become frequent objects of scorn, ridicule, bullying, and social isolation. They show a pronounced interest in subjects which others tend to find dull or complex and difficult to comprehend, especially topics related to science, disambiguation, mathematics and technology.'' This description is (almost) exactly what the picture shows. So, why don't put it on?. If the picture does NOT describes corretly SO the "Characteristics" section must be changed or ereased! Understand my point? . Well, you could say "It says: "In fim and television..."", ok, but then a note must be added, explaining that this media nerd's descriptions isn't correct or not apply to reality. So.. the picture isn't ok -> then char seccion not correct or if ok then a note must be added. What do you think?WikiSky 18:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What I don't understand is this, in the "Characteristics" section explains:


 * On the whole, I believe that Carradine's portrayal of Skolnick does a good job of capturing the stereotype of the time, and establishes it for the next few decades. It is, in a word, iconic. But arguing that here isn't of much use. The propriety of the picture, per se, is being challenge in its [own entry], and that's where it has to be defended.


 * It was initially challenged as having no fair use rationale, which was clearly a mistake on the part of whoever initially contributed it. I have therefore supplied such a rationale. It is now being challenged because its "fair use appears to illustrate a subject for which a free image could reasonably be found or created" and it will therefore be deleted Thursday, July 19, 2007.


 * The arguments against its inclusion are reasonable. The image is copyrighted and the legal definition of "fair use" is not precise. The Wikipedia policy is somewhat clearer, and quite reasonable. Policy requires that fair use of copyrighted images be exercised only when there is no free alternative. I have been making the necessary arguments in what I believe are the required manner, but have never gotten involved in this sort of debate before, and am not entirely up on all of the details. Anyone who feels that there are legitimate reasons for using this picture should get involved in the procedure over in the image's own entry, especially if they believe they understand the procedures better than I. --Brons 17:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The official decision on the Skolnik image is that it is not replaceable, and so is to be kept, so I have added it back in! Maybe we can now put the whole question of inappropriate images to rest! --Brons 18:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I lol'd at noone. After all, noone cares :D  Anyways, if you guys want to post pics of nerds as inside jokes, just go to encyclopediadramatica, where they're more than welcome as long as they're lulzy enough. Sandwiches99 03:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Arrrrg!!! After all of this someone has put a picture he claims is of himself in in addition to the Carradine. After all we've gone through, I am really tempted to remove it. The contributor doesn't have a user page. How exactly, do we know that it is a self portrait and so on and so on... --Brons 04:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

External link
The external link to NerdPoint isn't working. Maybe someone should take it out. If a nerd discussion forum is needed, you might want to add nerdcouncil.com 71.224.165.3 20:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Bucholtz citation
I've made a small edit to the reference to Bucholtz's "hyperwhite" contention, but left it in place. I am not convinced, however, that it was inserted at the ideal point in the article. At present, it is in the section on "Characteristics" and Bucholtz's work is more of an interpretation of the characteristics, their origin and meaning. As such I could see it going in a section with the Asperger Syndrome theory or even the contemporary pride, as both talk about the intent of contemporary nerds.

Or given the writers and academics who have spent time analyzing nerds and nerdiness, maybe a new section on the the scholarly study of nerds? Thoughts? --Brons 18:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Aspergers vs. Nerdiness... A controversial diagnosis, a risky comparison
The reference to Asperger's syndrome, (which itself is still very controversial among Psychiatrists) and comparing it to nerdiness is a dangerous idea. Imagine... If nerdiness becomes a diagnosable medical condition, every "nerd" in the world would need a prescription for medication. What a boon for drug companies! And potentially, what a risk to humanity.

A personality trait is not a medical condition. I know this article is light-hearted, but it Wikipedia is an important bank of human knowledge and understanding. This comparison frightens me, and it isn't accurate. At best, nerdiness may be partly symptomatic of the condition, but it does NOT represent a complete list of symptoms necessary for diagnosis. (And if I'm wrong, and nerdiness alone warrants a diagnosis and medication, humanity is in serious trouble... I'm not entirely against psychoactive drugs, but we don't need the entire staff of NASA on them.)

I feel that *if* the comparison of nerdiness with Asperger's should exist at all, it would belongs in the Asperger's article, used only as one of many a characteristics defining the condition.


 * You are presuming way too much here. The section simply is comparing Aspergers with colloquial properties of being a nerd, and drawing out some common characteristics (which there are many, surely you wouldn't deny).  I don't think it is explicitly saying that being a nerd is necessarily caused by a condition, that it is some type of "disorder", or any other type of Brave New World scenarios you described.  These are all inferences that the intelligent reader can make on their own, the article is just drawing a comparison, which I believe is relevant.  Feel free to ask for a consensus.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 02:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like textbook original research to me. Unless a compelling argument is made to keep the material OR references added which explicitly link these two disparate topics, the material must be removed.  --ElKevbo 03:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * How is it OR? OR would be stating that being a Nerd is caused by Asperger's, and then listing reasons and consequences.  That section is just stating the fact that Mathematicians, Physicists and Computer Scientists have very high AQ scores, indicating Autistic-like thinking, which is NOT OR but actual research conducted by the referenced authors (Baron Cohen, et al).  All the section puts in is essentially the word "nerd", which these types of professions would surely qualify (the entire article is colloquial anyway).  The only reason those stated authors didn't put in the word "nerd" is because it is an unscientific, pejorative term and they would have no reason to do so.  Therefore, narrowing criterion for what is actual research to a scientist saying "this looks like properties of a nerd" is never going to happen, because a scientist would never say that.
 * They are not two "disparate" topics at all. In fact, Asperger's has been called the "Nerd Syndrome" by a article in WIRED (I believe).  The entire paradigm of someone with Asperger's as extremely reminiscent of a stereotypical nerd, that's all the section is saying.  Do you really need a published author saying this for it not to be OR?--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 00:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as establishing any kind of diagnosis, modern diagnostic criteria are quite emphatic that to be a "disorder", the trait in question has to lead to substantial personal distress and impairment in social and occupational adjustment. In fact, quite the reverse is true for Autistic spectrum traits: in moderation these are beneficial, at least in contemporary Western society where there is a high demand for scientists and engineers and other professions that require focused and systematic thought. Nowhere does the section claim that people exhibiting these traits suffer from a disorder. It merely points out that there is an interesting relationship between a social stereotype on the one hand, and a set of prevalent mutually associated traits on the other, which in turn have an interesting relationship with a recognized disorder. It's the same kind of association as between manic depressive illness and artistic creativity, or the heterozygote advantage in some Mendelian disorders: a beneficial trait is associated with an extreme variant which is considered a disorder, or which might be beneficial in one context and harmful in another. This is not a controversial idea. As a footnote, though, I think ideas should be added and deleted from Wikipedia entries according to their merit, not based on whether they are "dangerous", whatever that means. I find the censoring of "dangerous" ideas to be far more dangerous than any idea I can think it might be applied to.    Schomerus 20:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, yes there's always the risk that knowledge is used for negative purposes. But that shouldn't scare away us objective smart guys (in my case a non AS-nerd) from reflecting what the world thinks about nerds. The representative wikipedian answer to this censoring risk should be that we NPOV-balance the text to all the time refer to who out there says what. If we can find a source criticising the belief in an alleged connection between nerdiness and asperger, then we should try to include such criticism in the article.  Said: Rursus   ☻   11:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Nerd is clearly original research as presented. WLU and I have added some tags asking for citations supporting the claims. If they're not given shortly, the section should be removed. Eubulides (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've reinstated the section with an additional scholarly citation that makes the nerd-AS connection. See Talk:Nerd for discussion.Schomerus (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Protecting the page
Can this page be protected already? Thanks in advance.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 00:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Fact Checking Carradine's Role
There's a request for a fact check on the claim (my claim) that "Carradine in particular worked very hard to embody the nerd stereotype and in so doing helped define it for many years to come." The claim come in two parts, one more defensible than the other. The first is that Carradine put a lot of work into getting the role just right. My source for this is a magazine article of 10-12 years ago, that I have long since lost and forgotten the details of. In it, Carradine described the effort they put into getting the role just right. There were two aspects that were mentioned. One was as a part of a pattern he has of doing things like gain or lose a lot of weight for a particular movie, and the other was the outing he and Edwards to ut the University of Arizona where they "field tested" their costumery by trying to pledge in character.

I can't find that article, but there is one at Lumino that contains a more recent interview that talks about some of the prep work including the real world pledging. Does anyone have a better citation on this?

The second part of the claim is that the portrayal of Skolnik helped define the image for years to come. As a nerd scholar, and you may take that in both senses, it is clear to me that it did, that the aspects of nerd stereotype that Carradine and Edwards focused on really established the iconic image for the next 2-plus decades. But citing me just really isn't good scholarship, at least on this point and not when I do it. So, does anyone know of any more reliable sources that will backup the claim, or should I just remove it as personal opinion and original research?

--Brons 20:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Take away the MMORPG section
Most would agree that its more of a gamer/geek thing to play MMORPGs, not a nerd. MMOs take away time from studying and scholarly like things. Star Trek and other fantasy things are fine, but MMOs eat your life, and, might I mention, are becoming more mainstream. Nerds would be as far away from mainstream as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koroshisama (talk • contribs) 03:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add that I don't understand the correlation between "nerds" and overall fantasy/science-fiction. Are you saying all people playing Dungeons&Dragons, read Lord of the Rings or Isaac Asimov are "nerds"? Dungeons&Dragons furthermore is an extremely social game; nothing awkward about it --- Unregistered —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.47.135.188 (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Connotations of first sentence
The 'instead of engaging in social life' bit really makes me wonder who wrote this article. There's nothing wrong with pursuing intellectual and esoteric subjects and it certainly should not have a negative connotation of being something other than 'right'. Shit, parts of social life are actually rather dumb.

144.92.228.31 00:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * For my money, the problem is not in the first sentence, but in the elaborations of the latter half of the paragraph, to wit:


 * While nerd, dork, and geek share in passionate intellectual pursuits and social ineptitude, nerd has the added implication of being affable and amusing. A nerd is often excluded from physical activity, and is often considered a loner by peers.


 * The attempts to draw distinctions between "geek" and "nerd" have always been particularly fraught with difficulties, especially when put forth by those who regard themselves as one or the other and think that of them as positive terms. Self-identification seems to lead to advocacy rather than reportage.


 * One need not agree that engaging in a social life is more important or better than intellectual pursuits to report that the term was used as an insult, like "drip", "square" or "scurve" to describe someone who was dull and un interesting to the socially conscious folk who coined it as an insult. The first sentence is accurate reportage, as I see it.


 * --Brons 00:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"ne'er do well"?
I've been researching this word for a decade and a half and never heard a suggestion that it was related to "ne'er do well". And to be honest, I don't really think it makes much sense. The meanings of the words really aren't at all close, at least in the 1950's usage.

Can anyone produce any evidence for this one? Or is it merely the theory of the person who added it to the page?

--Brons 00:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed it. I still cannot find any source for this, never heard the claim before, and no one has supplied a source since the September fact check request or my note here. Feel free to restore it with sourcing --Brons (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Pride day in Spain
This involves again the geek vs. nerd debate, but May 25th is about pride in being the kind of person whose hobbies are comic books, science fiction, heroic fantasy and the like. It is implied that such a person may devote too mcuh time to pursuing such activities, but personal traits are not an explicit part of the profile. Does that fit in the nerd definiton, then? Some of us feel May 25th is rather Geek Pride Day. 80.31.25.72 15:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Sergi

Nerd v dork
The informal definition that I've heard floating around Sydney is: "a nerd is a socially awkward person who is intellectually gifted, a dork is not gifted." Now I could cite addresses for the various establishments licensed to sell alcohol where I've heard this, but I'm not sure that'd count as reliable enough. It doesn't settle geek v nerd either. I thought geek suggested computers more specifically, where nerd is the generic term. Alastair Haines 21:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's what Webster's says-
 * Nerd - an unstylish, unattractive, or socially inept person; especially : one slavishly devoted to intellectual or academic pursuits
 * Dork - slang for Nerd also Jerk
 * -- Blind Eagle  talk ~ contribs  21:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's certainly a more reliable source than my local thanks. ;) Alastair Haines 22:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Nerd vs Geek
What about a section that mentions the difference between nerds and geeks? --218.103.194.237 (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There have been such sections in the past, but there is nothing other than a bunch of unsourced personal opinion that clearly defines these differences. It is hard enough to get a clear definition that is agreed upon and documentable. let alone contrast it. If you plan on trying to put the section back, be prepared to provide sources. I suggest trying it out here. --Brons (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Nerds are cleaner and better at social interaction. A geek may have a very narrow intellectual interest, for instance in science fictiopn or computers. That's how it was in the 80s and 90s. Now a geek is just an aficionado of anything, though compouter geeks are the most named type. Nerds have come a long way though. The word nerd isn't even necessarily an insult anymore, and neither is geek. Dorks and dweebs however have made no such recovery. CRATYLUS22

Offensive
The phrase "nerd" is an offensive term to Wikipedia users who are shown to be nerds. I am shown to be one which is why I deleted this page earlier. It's offensive and cruel. If you have a heart or mind, you shouldn't be putting offensive terms on this page. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BE AN IDIOT, I SUGGEST THAT YOU DON'T PLAN FUTURE ATTEMPTS FOR OFFENSIVE TERMS!!!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deathlive2 at 16:38 on 5 January 2008. (attribution added by Brons (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC))
 * I don't find the word "nerd" offensive at all. I've been called that since grade school (and I was one back then as well). Even if you do think that it is offensive, that doesn't matter, because Wikipedia isn't censored. Not to mention that we are mostly nerds. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Eehh, actually I feel like a nerd, but nobody have called me that. May I be a nerd anyway, please?  Said: Rursus   ☻   11:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I was reading this from a link from the "Bully" game and I just wanted to put some input in though i'm not an actual user of Wikipedia per se, even though it is just personal opinion from my area of the world which is not America.

I am generally the kind of person who is slightly a "geek" not a nerd from the definition on this page as I am social but I am intrested in education, role-playing, getting good grades and computers rather then social domination.

In fact I think the main reason i'm not really called a nerd/geek is that the person who I talk to most is one of the schoolest people in the grade...well in my homegroup at least, I'm mainly respected for being smart and people ask me for advice. There is not so much of a "nerd" hating culture here but I have several friends who fit it exactly and who are nice people if you get to know them but the only reason I know one of them is that I have known him since grade 2 a long long time ago, the others were mainly his friends and he introidcued them to me...

Nerd is usually an insult but it does seem that more recent use is as a title or general statement rather then the olden uses of the word.

Hope that helped in whatever minor ways! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.29.13.63 (talk) 11:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Proud to be a Nerd
I don't see "nerd" as an offending term. Aren't "nerds" the ones who made this country's (U.S.) computers? If someone calls you a nerd, carry that title proudly! The term "nerd" should be respected! All "nerds" should be respected! Actually everyone should be respected. But you get my point. I hope.--Wikimichael22 (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Wikimichael22

One of my favorite songs is "White and Nerdy" my "Weird" Al Yankovic.--Wikimichael22 (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Wikimichael22

More to Add
See also: Robert Lanham, author of 'The Hipster Handbook' -- see chapter on "The Loner" -- a.k.a "The Garofalo" in Playboy -- as in Janeane Garofalo -- & 'Food Court Druids, Cherohonkees & Other Creatures Unique to the Republic')  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.22.193 (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Nerdfighters.
I think a valuable addition to this article would be a short section about the new positive use of the word 'nerd'. After John and Hank Green's video project Brotherhood 2.0, the term 'nerdfighter' has become a word of praise. I thought I should discuss this first, but I really think it is needed here. Polymath618 (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal article
The Wall Street Journal has an article by Benjamin Nugent that mentions this article, and provides some criticism. JACO PLANE  &bull; 2008-05-22 20:24

American Scientist link has changed
American Scientist "The Nerds have Won"

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/the-nerds-have-won —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.118.208 (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Asperger
I've removed the Asperger section. Without a specific statement in each citation linking asperger syndrome to the term "nerd", placing them together is original research, synthesizing the statements with sources to come to a conclusion that is not explicitly backed up. Accordingly, I have removed the section - normally I would remove the sources and fact tagged statements as I consider it extremly dubious that university researchers would link asperger syndrome with a pejorative term. That would leave the entire section empty of sources. Accordingly, per WP:PROVEIT, I've removed the section. WLU (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC) "Many traits associated with the nerd stereotype&mdash;an unusual penchant for accumulating highly specialized or technical knowledge, impaired social ability, or occasionally poor motor coordination&mdash;are characteristics of Asperger syndrome, an autism spectrum disorder. The existence of the nerd concept in the popular consciousness may be attributed to covariance between certain behavioral and cognitive predispositions, which at the extreme results in forms of autism. Studies using the Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ), a measure of autistic tendencies, find that occupations commonly linked to the nerd stereotype are associated with elevated AQ, with the highest average AQ seen among computer scientists, mathematicians and physicists. Other studies have found associations between heightened AQ and prenatal testosterone exposure as well as genetic factors, suggesting a distinct genetic and developmental basis for traits associated with the nerd stereotype."


 * Here is an external link to a web site by a professor of psychiatry at UCSD, dealing with the Nerd stereotype and autism spectrum disorders: []. I think this meets the criterion for a citation to a university affiliated expert which WLU wants. Are there any objections to reinstating this section? Schomerus (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Since no one has raised any objections I will reinstate the asperger section with the added reference []. I think this reference gives an authoritative and explicit review of the relationship between the nerd stereotype and autism spectrum disorders. I find the Baron-Cohen papers to be of sufficiently obvious relevance that, having found a source linking the stereotype to the autistic spectrum, the charge of OR would be a bit on the nitpicky side, but if anyone isn't satisfied with this, go ahead and modify it. Schomerus (talk) 22:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That paper is not a good source: it's a speculative paper never published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it hypothesizes a new syndrome called "mild PDD" which is not PDD. Not only has this paper not been published in a peer-reviewed journal, Google Scholar reports no peer-reviewed sources that talk about "mild PDD" and "nerd". There are other problems with the section. The sentence "The existence of the nerd concept in the popular consciousness may be attributed to covariance between certain behavioral and cognitive predispositions, which at the extreme results in forms of autism." is unsourced and speculative. The sentence starting "Studies using the Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ), a measure of autistic tendencies, find that occupations commonly linked to the nerd stereotype" is sourced to a paper that doesn't mention the nerd stereotype; this is WP:OR. The sentence ending "associated with the nerd stereotype" has similar problems. I am moving the disputed text below, so that people can see it here. Eubulides (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (Disputed text removed, as it is a near-duplicate of the quote near the start of this section.) Eubulides (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * MPDD is an umbrella diagnosis which includes Aspergers, and encompasses the autistic spectrum. The diagnostic criteria and are vague what one person calls Asperger's another might call MPDD. To quote the cited article:


 * "This definition [of MPDD] is similar to descriptions of Asperger's syndrome (Wing 1981). Asperger's syndrome, an autistic-like disorder, lies within the spectrum of the PDDs. Because this disorder is "less pervasive" than autism, it is easy to misdiagnose in an adolescent with a personality disorder, such as schizoid or schizotypal (Munro 1987). Individuals with Asperger's syndrome characteristically are socially isolated and display abnormal social interaction (Szatmari 1986). They may be not just shy but also abnormally garrulous or intrusive; their behavior is often not appropriately modified to suit the social situation. There are impairments in nonverbal communication and oddities in the speech of persons with Asperger's syndrome. . . .Perhaps many of the youngsters with MPDD fit the criteria of Asperger's syndrome. Until recently even professionals were not familiar with Asperger's syndrome. Now there is increasing public awareness of this disorder and any Internet search engine will find numerous references to web sites dealing with Asperger's. The term "MPDD" may have some advantages as a clinical designation of nerdiness because it implies that there is a continuum of children with dysfunction in language and social development. Use of the term "MPDD" avoids splitting this group of individuals into specific diagnostic categories, at least until there is more of a basis in clinical research to do so."


 * The similarity and relevance to Asperger's is explicitly stated. You're correct about the citation not being peer reviewed, but it falls into the second tier of acceptable sources, non-peer reviewed publications by recognized experts in the field. In any case, I'm not making this association up; it is something which has been widely discussed in popular media and lay press (see this article in Wired ). It is therefore something which could justifiably be mentioned in the article. If there is reason to doubt that such an association has any validity, then it can be mentioned critically, as well.


 * I have also found a peer reviewed reference from the same author:
 * N. Putnam. Revenge or tragedy: do nerds suffer from a mild pervasive developmental disorder? Adolesc Psychiatry. 1990;17:51-68.
 * Schomerus (talk) 23:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks; have you read that 1990 paper? I dunno, a 18-year-old paper that sank like a stone, leaving hardly any mark in the scholarly literature, hardly seems like something we should hang our hat on here. MPDD seems to correspond roughly (I am just guessing here; I haven't read that paper) to what is now called the "broader autism phenotype", which is not at all the same as Asperger syndrome (nor is it an autism spectrum condition), although it may share some symptoms. The connection to Asperger syndrome is pretty tenuous. I agree that there is a lot of folk speculation on this subject, but we need reliable sources, and I'm afraid that Wired and an obscure 18-year-old paper on a somewhat-different subject don't really suffice. Eubulides (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is a positive reference to Putnam's work from a major textbook in the field, Ellis' Handbook of Mental Deficiency, Psychological Theory and Research, 3rd ed. (p. 332):


 * "In a highly interesting and, in spite of its title, scholarly paper, Putnam (1990) discussed the possibility that youth identified by their (typically adolescent) peers as nerds (i.e. as socially inept individuals with poor pragmatic communication skills) have an unrecognized form of pervasive developmental disorder similar to Asperger's syndrome."
 * The author goes on to describe a case study from Putnam. So it seems the article didn't "sink like a stone" after all. In general, this is not a topic which will generate vast numbers of citations. There just aren't that many people studying the sociology of Asperger's syndrome (or any of the other related and overlapping basket diagnoses), and it's not a topic otherwise likely to come up frequently in scholarly literature. But the putative association has been discussed in several places, and is I think an important one in making sense of the Nerd stereotype.
 * Schomerus (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * More specific link. Is Ellis well-regarded?  Quickly reviewing, it looks to be discussing learning disorders, but there is mention of an unrecognized mild form of PDD similar to asperger.  Meh, I'm not convinced.  WLU (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"Major textbook" is an overstatement

 * "Major textbook" is an overstatement, I admit, but it is certainly a respectable textbook. It's important to understand that for these sorts of diagnoses, the boundaries are very fuzzy and often a matter of clinical habit as much as anything else. The section could well be rewritten using "pervasive developmental disorder" in place of "Asperger". There are several reasons for using Asperger in place of PDD, though: first, the classical profile of AS, for which the combination of social awkwardness and above average visuospatial or verbal intelligence seem to be prominent, overlaps the nerd stereotype more completely. PDD, on the other hand, includes cases of mental retardation. That's not to say someone couldn't be labeled a nerd by virtue of awkwardness alone, or only for being unusually smart, but the stereotype, the bullseye at the center of the target here, clearly lies at the intersection of intelligence and awkwardness. Second, mild "pervasive developmental disorder," sounds like...well, a disorder, while "Asperger's" is somewhat more neutral in this respect, and the idea that people with AS are not suffering from a disorder, but merely exhibiting a certain otherwise healthy behavioral type, parallels the similar sentiment for nerds.


 * Let's step back for a second and take stock of where things stand: first, the OR charge I don't think holds up, I've met at least the minimal citation standard. We're left with evaluating whether the the work I've cited has any merit. The volume of references here is slim, but unless you can find a counter-reference criticizing the idea that of an association between Asperger's or a similar autism related disorder and the nerd stereotype, I'm ahead on this count. Now I'm well aware that pretty much every claim under the sun can be supported by a "peer reviewed" reference from somewhere: if I can back up the claim that the moon is made of swiss cheese with a citation, it doesn't mean I have to be taken seriously until you produce a contrary citation. Which is why the second issue is important here: as Eubulides notes, there is, indeed, a lot of folk speculation on this subject. Notable public authors in the lay press with AS, I have in mind Temple Grandin and Benjamin Nugent, have described their experience being labeled nerds as children and linked them to their diagnoses. So it certainly seems fair game to raise the issue, and, in fact, it is one which people might very well come to Wikipedia to learn more about. The "objective" thing to do in this case is not to strike out any reference to the association, but instead to note at least that there is widespread speculation on the association of AS and the nerd stereotype, and that not all of it is of the non-peer-reviewed "folk-speculation" variety. I am perfectly happy to rewrite the section to say that the literature drawing an explicit link between the two is sparse, at best, but that there are several indirect pieces of evidence (the Baron-Cohen work mainly) which serve to fuel and provide at least some credence for such speculation. Does that sound reasonable to you?Schomerus (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not a textbook; it's a handbook. It's pretty dated. I had noted it before writing my previous comment, and had dismissed that citation as not being an important part of the research literature; so my comment about the paper disappearing like a stone still stands.
 * Certainly one can find disparaging comments about the autism-and-nerd theory; for example, Chapman et al. 1997 say "From an admittedly unscientific perspective, the extreme 'computer nerd' type seemed to be similar to that of sufferers from Asperger's syndrome - a form of autism.", which is a reasonable admission of the lack of scientific support; also, Nadesan 2005 (ISBN 0415321816) quotes an LA Times article calling the theory "fascinating speculation", and then goes on to say that this theory "speaks more to cultural preoccupations" than it does to autism (i.e., "the 'essential' autistic personality").
 * I guess I wouldn't object to a brief summary of this folk theory, so long as it's made clear that it's a speculative folk theory and that it is not at all mainstream science. (Emphasis on the "brief".)
 * One other thing: it's typically not a good idea to cite a source that one hasn't read.
 * Eubulides (talk) 09:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nerd is an ill-defined, socially pejorative term which has no scientific definition (at best a description within social sciences). Aspergers and PDD/PDD-NOS are specific, medical diagnoses.  Just because information can be cited does not mean we should or must include it.  I don't think that a whole section on the "link" between the two (which is tenuous because again, nerd is not used by scientists in venues where serious discussion of AS and PDD occurs) is merited.  At best, a sentence.  Because of the different circles the two ideas move in, I don't think there is merit to adding it to the page unless "nerd pride" develops signficiantly in the aspergers/advocacy world, or "asperger pride" develops in nerd culture (given the general lack of unity of "nerds" world-wide, I can't see it happening).  Using "aspergers in the place of PDD" would be grossly violating WP:OR in my mind.  You can't match the diagnostic criteria to your conception of what a nerd is without violating OR.
 * Indeed, "pretty much every claim under the sun can be supported by a "peer reviewed" reference from somewhere", which is why editors must decide on the weight given to an idea. The social awkwardness of people with AS should be discussed in that article, without reference to any of the pejorative terms that could be used to describe it.
 * I fail to see the merit. WLU (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to say I'm a little bit troubled by the sliding standard for citation here. First the section is OR because it isn't adequately cited-- fair enough, I admit I should have been more thorough with supporting the central claim. Then the citation I provide is not acceptable because it's not peer reviewed. Then the peer reviewed citation I provide isn't acceptable because it's not cited enough itself. Then it's dubious because the citation which cites the peer reviewed citation might not be "well regarded" enough. Please note, I wasn't citing Ellis to support the claim of the section, but merely to show that Putnam's work is taken seriously, and being cited in a textbook or handbook is good evidence for that. To repeat the point I made earlier, discussions of "nerd" and Asperger's don't come up frequently in scholarly literature because the sociological aspects of the disorder occupy a tiny fraction of the work on the topic. There is at least a compelling case in support of the speculative link, and the link has been mentioned repeatedly in both scholarly and lay press. Tony Attwood, a psychologist specializing in Asperger's and autism, Luke Jackson [ Tony Attwood wrote the foreword ] has written an entire book dealing with the social stigma attached to AS, "Freaks Geeks and Asperger Syndrome: A User's Guide to Adolescence" (ISBN 1843100983). I've already described the other references. The reason Chapman calls the view "admittedly unscientific," is that one doesn't generally think of categories associated with derogatory stereotypes as something fit for serious scientific discourse, but he clearly accepts that a link seems to exist. I happen to think the issue can be studied scientifically with appropriate sociological tools, though I also acknowledge that the work on the topic is sparse. You're right, I haven't yet read Putnam's peer reviewed paper -am waiting for it to arrive by document delivery- but I strongly suspect it will contain much the same material described in the web link. The link itself is posted on a website providing AS support out of University of Delaware, |Online Asperger Syndrome Information & Support, which is still more evidence that Putnam's work isn't off the radar. I'm not so committed to this issue that I'm willing to belabor it much further in the face of what seems to me less and less a good faith discussion. At least the relevant citations, and I think a reasonable overview of the issue is now here on the talk page for anyone who might wish to edit the article.Schomerus (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

In any case, the judgment of weight shouldn't come down to any one or two non-expert wikipedian's opinions. I suggest there be a vote on whether or not to include a section describing the speculative link between Asperger's and the nerd stereotype. Schomerus (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:VOTE - we generally don't vote. Social stigma =/= nerd; essentially, why should "nerd" be singled out as a pejorative term in question to link to aspergers?  Why shouldn't the idea of social awkwardness be left to Sociological and cultural aspects of autism?  Is there anything about the topic or idea of "nerd" that makes it pressing for us to mention it in relation to aspergers?  Questions of weight are very, very slippery and contested and are only solved through the judgements of editors (ideally through consensus, otherwise through a request for comment).  Merely having a link is not sufficient, the discussion must settle the question of "how prominent is this issue in the mainstream?"  If the answer is "not very", it shouldn't be here; that's the essensce of WP:UNDUE.  Your own statement of "...discussions of "nerd" and Asperger's don't come up frequently in scholarly literature because the sociological aspects of the disorder occupy a tiny fraction of the work on the topic." suggests the mainstream is not much concerned with this idea (though the sociological aspects do seem to have a fair bit of attention - we've got sections and pages on it).  And we really shouldn't be reporting on a purely 'speculative link' to an ill-defined term.  We've got good faith, we just don't think it's appropriate to include an extensive discussion.  Personally I think the social aspects of AS and autism are best covered in the main articles on the topic, not on a page dedicated to an inherently pejorative term that has a half-dozen synonyms and no real definition.
 * Also, if anyone is an expert on autism on wikipedia, it'd be Eubulides. He has single-handedly revised all the related articles to a near-absurdly high degree.  WLU (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

A serious and scholarly encyclopedia

 * A serious and scholarly encyclopedia article on the nerd stereotype, or any stereotype for that matter, should address current knowledge or thinking on the origin and reason for the existence of the stereotype, as well as the question of who becomes the object of the stereotype and why. The nerd stereotype isn't vague- people tend to have a rather specific idea about how nerds behave and appear, and this fact has been the topic of scholarly study. The idea that the stereotype has something to do with the autistic spectrum is very much a "mainstream" idea; just google for pages which mention "nerd" or "geek" and autism, and you'll see that, and for that reason alone it could be mentioned here, as at the very least the object of "folk" speculation. It is true that the scientific evidence in support of such a connection is largely indirect and circumstantial, and that's a point which deserves to be mentioned as well. But there is ample reason to describe this prevalent and widely discussed idea as what it is: a theory with some very limited support, giving one possible explanation for how the stereotype arises. As far as I know, it's the only idea out there which gives anything resembling causal explanation for the existence of the stereotype, which is why I though it deserved to be mentioned in this article. The mere fact that this deals with a derogatory and "unscientific" category doesn't mean that the question of why the stereotype exists in the first place can't be approached in a scholarly manner.Schomerus (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Eubulides (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A lot of misinformation is propagated about autism spectrum disorders, even in refereed medical journals; one must take extra care in this area.
 * Putnam 1990 is serious work, but it is an extremely weak source to be using here. It's old, it's speculative, and as far as we know its main hypothesis (about a proposed condition that is not an ASD) has not been followed up by any other published research studies, either by Putnam or by anybody else. There must be hundreds, if not thousands, of sources about nerds that are more reliable and/or authoritative and/or relevant and/or up-to-date, so why choose this weak source?
 * The "Many traits associated with the nerd stereotype" text (quoted at the start of this section) is not a good summary. It contains way too much original research, along with unsourced claims and claims that are not supported by their citations.
 * Brief coverage of this issue may well be appropriate given the level of popular interest in the folk theory, but it should not be given undue weight, it should not involve original research, and it should not depart from the mainstream opinion that this stuff is speculative.
 * There is no scientific evidence for this theory; none at all. There is a speculative 1990 paper which talks about a possible connection of nerdism to a hypothesized condition that is not an ASD. That is not scientific evidence; it is merely hypothesis.
 * It is not the "only idea out there". Other hypotheses include a causal relationship between nonverbal learning disability and nerdism, or between right-hemisphere brain damage and nerdism. These theories have just as much scientific support (namely, zero) as the Asperger syndrome theory, and they are just as plausible on biological grounds. For one recent source alluding to this, please see Sheehan & Thurber 2007.
 * To help move this issue along, it would be helpful for someone to draft replacement text, using the above comments (not just by me) as a guide.


 * Lest anyone get the impression that only two or three people care about this issue, let me say that I was pleased to see the Asperger/Autism Spectrum/MPDD section removed. It always struck me as speculative, and OR, but I have been far more involved with getting the etymology section in order than interested in fighting with someone who was committed enough to this the speculative theory to put it in.


 * I understand that many people have a very strong image of precisely what "nerd" means and exactly how it differs from "geek", and so we get sections here trying to compare and contrast the distinction between the two or proposing precise matches between their distinct notion of the stereotype and a speculative or real medical syndrome. Sadly, though, "nerd" is a term that shifts over time, and which is understood differently by different people as having different nuances. When we had the "Nerd vs Geek" sections in here there were people who argued that the notions were distinct but that others who also saw them as different had them backwards.


 * A "nerd" originally was "a drip, a square, need I say more?" That's it. Just not cool. A scurve. Then the Fonz started throwing it around, and RPI and MIT students started spelling it "knurd" or "gnurd", and came up with colorful explanations of where it came from. And then Robert Caradine gave us a definitive, field tested portrayal of the term. If you want an origin for a strong consensus on the stereotype, I suggest that instead of scouring the medical journals for support for a putative syndrome, you go watch Caradine and Anthony Andrews in Revenge of the Nerds and then compare Edwards' laugh to Arnold Horshack's.


 * In the end, "nerd" is a half-century old insult that has been coopted by its intended victims and embraced as a badge of pride, and neither those who wielded it as a weapon nor those who wear it as a badge of honor have ever really agreed on what it means. We should neither attempt a scholarly comparison of its nuanced meaning to "geek", nor to tie it to a specific medical syndrome, especially a speculative one. Brons (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed revision for ASD

 * Nevertheless the prevalence of the idea of an association in mainstream press makes the topic worthy of mentionn, with appropriate objectivity. Here is a proposed revision.Schomerus (talk) 06:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * An association between the nerd and geek stereotypes and forms of autism or related developmental conditions has been widely discussed in the popular media, eg. .  A few authors who have written on the experience of growing up with Asperger syndrome suggest that the nerd and geek stereotypes refer to a combination of traits associated with mild forms of Autism   . Also driving such speculation, in part, have been studies by Simon Baron-Cohen and colleagues examining the relationship between the behavioral and cognitive profile associated with the autism spectrum, measured as an  "Autism Spectrum Quotient" (AQ), to a dichotomy between "systematizing" and "empathizing" tendencies . For example, the authors describe higher average AQ among students majoring in computer science, mathematics and physics , fields which emphasize systematizing thought, and which are also commonly associated with the nerd stereotype . The association between the stereotype and any clinical diagnosis has not, however, been clearly established within peer-reviewed literature. Only a handful of scholarly works address the issue explicity  , and  it therefore remains a speculative hypothesis supported, at best, by indirect and anecdotal evidence.

Thanks for coming up with a concrete proposal. It's considerably better than what was there before, but it still has serious WP:OR and WP:WEIGHT problems. Here's a first quick review, focusing on the WP:OR problems: Overall, the proposed text gives wayyyy too much weight to this folk theory, and contains WP:OR that has to go. I suggest rewriting it down to one or two sentences, with the above commentary giving a hint as to what should be removed. Eubulides (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "has been widely discussed in the popular media" The cited sources are examples of discussion; they don't directly support claims of "widely" or "popular".
 * As far as I can tell from Google Books, Thinking in Pictures never discusses nerds, and this citation should be removed.
 * As far as I can tell from Amazon, Freaks, Geeks & Asperger Syndrome never discusses the connection between nerds and AS, and this citation should be removed. It does distinguish geeks from nerds, and it also discusses the connection betwen between geeks and AS, but this is way too tenuous to support a claim of a connection between nerds and AS.
 * American Nerd (page 143) says that the thesis that labeling the mildest manifestations of AS as "nerdy" is something that we do with "unscientfic abandon". That should be mentioned. Also, the citation to that book should be to its chapter "the autism spectrum" (pages 141–152).
 * As far as I can tell from Google Books, American Nerd does not mention speculation about association between geeks and AS, so the mention of geeks should be dropped.
 * The citation to "It's all geek to me" does not support the cited claim, which is that studies by Baron-Cohen et al. have been driving speculation. "It's all geek to me" does not make that claim, or anything like it.
 * There's no need to cite Nugent twice; his article seems to be a subset or precis of what's in his book. Citing him once should suffice.
 * The sentence "For example, the authors describe higher average AQ among students majoring in computer science, mathematics and physics[8], fields which emphasize systematizing thought, and which are also commonly associated with the nerd stereotype[9]" is WP:OR. It glues together two sources, one which does not mention nerds and the other which does not mention AQ, to make a conclusion about nerds and AQ. This sentence should be removed.
 * There's no need to cite Baron-Cohen's 2001 paper either; it has nothing to do with nerds, and never mentions nerds. Not that this matters for Nerd, but the hypothesis about an association between mathematics and AS has more-recently come under fire, as most students with AS/HFA have average mathematical ability and test slightly worse in math than in general intelligence; see Chiang & Lin 2007.
 * There is no source for the claim "The association between the stereotype and any clinical diagnosis has not, however, been clearly established within peer-reviewed literature."
 * The sources for the claim "Only a handful of scholarly works address the issue explicity" do not support the claim.
 * The Levin & Schlozman paper is a case study of a fictional character! It is more a study of culture than a study of whether nerds are associated with ASD. Furthermore, it does not discuss the relationship between nerds and AS; it discusses AS versus the character, and it separately discusses nerdism vs the character. This citation should be removed; or if it's retained, it should be clearly stated that it's an article about culture and speculation and fiction, not an article about the actual connections between nerds and ASD.

OK, Here are my responses:


 * Searching the newspaper database at access world news, there are dozens of articles that mention Asperger and Autism and Nerd or Geek (the similarity between nerd and geek is such that I don't think we should start splitting hairs on this). I can replace "discussed" with "alluded to" since in most cases the association is alluded to in passing, as though it were part of common knowledge. It would be unwieldy to cite all of them, so I think "widely alluded to" is a fair summary.
 * The quotation from American Nerd supports the contention that AS and nerd have become associated in the common understanding. Which is why the association should be addressed here-- to describe the source of speculation and to give an objective discussion of its merit.
 * Temple Grandin's quotation I had in mind comes from elsewhere, not the book, so you're right that source should be changed. It can be found here and here.
 * Baron-Cohen's work is frequently cited as evidence in support of the AS-nerd connection. Never in a peer reviewed setting- always in the context of non-peer reviewed speculation. Ben Nugent's article in Psychology Today I cite as an example, as he discusses Cohen's E-S theory as supporting the link to autism. This description supports the preceding clause, that Baron-Cohens work has driven some of the speculation on the topic. The next sentence describes why it has generated the speculation.
 * "Only a handful of..." is a summary and synthesis of the peer reviewed literature, or rather on it's sparseness. I don't see how in writing an encyclopedia entry one can avoid these kinds of summary statements which serve to synthesize available sources into a manageable form (same goes for the first bullet). The claim that this is original research seems a little pedantic.
 * The weight which should be put on this theory is not a function of how correct it is, but of how widely mentioned it is. That's what this section has become- a discussion of the origin and merits of a prevalent belief about an association between nerdiness and the autistic spectrum.
 * That's what I'm trying to do here. If somebody sees Asperger described as the "Nerd Syndrome" in the Washington Post, and wants to find out more about the basis of this supposed connection, they might well come to wikipedia. It is entirely in keeping with the purpose of the entry to describe what kind of associations people have with the word, where they come from, why they exist, and in this case, also to point out that there is scant (not quite zero, though) basis for the association with the nerd stereotype.

I'll leave it to whoever else is interested to take it from here.Schomerus (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There are also dozens of recent news articles that mention both Britney Spears and nerds. Should we therefore discuss Britney Spears in an encyclopedia article on nerds?
 * Thanks for the source about Grandin; that's better. However it is a very brief mention, just an aside; we really should be using stronger sources than that.
 * American Nerd does seem like a good source for the folk theory.
 * Nugent's paper does not say that Baron-Cohen's work has driven the speculation. It merely mentions Baron-Cohen's work. It is not our place to say that his work has driven the speculation, unless we find reliable sources saying so.
 * I am afraid that indeed we must rewrite the text to avoid synthesis. See WP:SYN.
 * WP:WEIGHT says that we should "consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources"; that's not at all the same thing as "how widely mentioned it is".
 * I agree that a brief discussion of this topic is appropriate here; we just need to do some more work to come up with an appropriate discussion, one that avoids WP:OR and WP:WEIGHT issues.
 * Eubulides (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * For what my 2 bits are worth, I can see including a reference explaining what "nerd syndrome" is in terms of autism-spectrum conditions, IFF it can be done in a short paragraph--call it 2 or 3 sentences, AND thus sentences can be written in an encyclopedic fashion. By that, I mean avoiding WP:OR, WP:SYN and WP:WEIGHT issues.


 * If you can't do that, then we're better off without it. The proposal above as originally written is way more than is needed and suffers from all the problems cited. Brons (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)