The future of Fall from Heaven
- Thread starter Kael
- Start date
So according to Nikis-Knight's definition, I am a video game and computer geek but a physics nerd, and my wife is an art geek and a literature nerd? Meanwhile, we're both dweebs.
And link16? This train went off the rails about ten pages back. Woe be it to anyone who baits nerds, geeks, dweebs, and Ekolite with news like this and then reverts to silent mode.
You know, those are great definitions. I think I'll be using them. Looks like I'm mostly a nerd, as well as a bit geek and dork.
well, I would say 95% of the population is interested in sex, so yea there is too much overlap for it to be considered part of a definitive social caste. That being said, there is also too much overlap to associate any group of people with not being interested in sex.
Don't mind me, I am suffering from lack of sleep and over caffeination
Well, by these great new definitions we have been imparted with, it is our duty to hold a vote on whether Fall From Heaven is a Nerd activity or a Geek activity.
In addition, I would like for Ekolite to define himself based upon these three definitions.
I would vote that, as a whole, Fall From Heaven is a Geek Activity ... however parts of its lore bleed into the Nerd-dome of literature and philosophy (especially philosophy)
In addition, I would like for Ekolite to define himself based upon these three definitions.
I would vote that, as a whole, Fall From Heaven is a Geek Activity ... however parts of its lore bleed into the Nerd-dome of literature and philosophy (especially philosophy)
Ekolite
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Messages
- 5,451
Under those definitions I'm none of them.
I wouldn't describe myself as enthusiastic about intellectual things beyond the neccessary determination to ace my finals. At this stage everyone is, so it's the norm. Not a nerd.
I'm a conformist, I rarely do anything that isn't considered mainstream. My tastes in most things are perfectly in line with the majority. The biggest non-mainstream thing about me is being a bisexual but I hardly think you can be a geek of man on man. Not a geek.
And as for social skills, well I'm not a socialite but I have a good circle of friends, I've had several girlfriends (although I'm single at the moment), and I have no trouble talking to most people I meet. Not a dork.
I like these definitions!
Valkrionn
The Hamster King
And if you enjoy modding (which falls under Programming, which is intellectual) it is Nerdy.
And if you enjoy modding (which falls under Programming, which is intellectual) it is Nerdy.
And here I thought being good with computers was an alternative form of the definition Geek. But yes, programming does require intelligence, so I will allow you to hold a Nerd title on that aspect
Ekolite
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Messages
- 5,451
The UK, why?
Actually I tell a lie, I am fairly enthusiastic about my NES (online game which I host on this site). That's definitely not mainstream, but then ultimately it's mainly writing on my part which isn't all that bad. It's also far more sociable then video games.
I don't think you can really be a nerd/geek/whatever in just a single small area though. To really be classified as one there has to be a combination of factors, because after all everyone has their own little quirks. Even me.
Also, I think appearance counts for something. Oftenly nerds/geeks aren't all that interested in their appearance, and when I picture one in my head I see a shrimpy, pale, brown-haired kid with braces and glasses. That is very subjective though.
If you have the right appearance, and you're confident enough you can usually carry off the odd nerdy impulse without being thought off as out of line with the mainstream.
See, I have historically vehemently hated anything mainstream just on principle that it was mainstream.
Even now, when something is mainstream my personal opinion of it dips slightly.
I just find it interesting that your views, in that regard, are almost entirely opposite.
Even now, when something is mainstream my personal opinion of it dips slightly.
I just find it interesting that your views, in that regard, are almost entirely opposite.
Why would you not like something (or be ashamed about something) just because other people don't like it?
To answer your earlier question, I used to be extremely elitist and extrapolated that if something became immensely popular that it had somehow leaked into "dumb appeal."
Not only that, but the tendency of something completely sidelined and original to try even harder to be amazing, increasing the overall quality. Once something becomes popular and mainstreamed, usually it becomes dumbed down to appeal to an even boarder audience in a never-ending cycle. Or, worse still, the creators of something gone popular no longer feel they need to put forth the effort and thus the franchise/artist/company begins to stink. (Windows, Creative Assembly "look at TW:Empire", et al)
Its similar to sequel syndrome but worse. That being said, this is my biased interpretation of the data.
Tied to this is a idea that a person thinking according to their own will is more intelligent/flexible than a multitude of peoples thinking according to a combined will (due to the simplicity of shared perspectives, since everyone has their own perception of the world, so combined thought always needs more simplification in order to smooth out any differences or objections)
AND I prefer the Republic, where educated representatives rule rather than the combined view of the huddled masses. also, if I had to choose between Aristocracy of Skill or Nobility vs Pure Mass-vote Democracy I would choose Aristocracy because excess in democracy can lead to Charismatic Dictatorship and Mob-rule.
... With all that being said, if I like something I will try to introduce it to other people, because I do enjoy having the same interests as those close to me (don't we all) ... however keeping a clear distance from the "majority." Also, I am presently significantly less elitist.
To answer your earlier question, I used to be extremely elitist and extrapolated that if something became immensely popular that it had somehow leaked into "dumb appeal."
Not only that, but the tendency of something completely sidelined and original to try even harder to be amazing, increasing the overall quality. Once something becomes popular and mainstreamed, usually it becomes dumbed down to appeal to an even boarder audience in a never-ending cycle. Or, worse still, the creators of something gone popular no longer feel they need to put forth the effort and thus the franchise/artist/company begins to stink. (Windows, Creative Assembly "look at TW:Empire", et al)
Its similar to sequel syndrome but worse. That being said, this is my biased interpretation of the data.
Tied to this is a idea that a person thinking according to their own will is more intelligent/flexible than a multitude of peoples thinking according to a combined will (due to the simplicity of shared perspectives, since everyone has their own perception of the world, so combined thought always needs more simplification in order to smooth out any differences or objections)
AND I prefer the Republic, where educated representatives rule rather than the combined view of the huddled masses. also, if I had to choose between Aristocracy of Skill or Nobility vs Pure Mass-vote Democracy I would choose Aristocracy because excess in democracy can lead to Charismatic Dictatorship and Mob-rule.
... With all that being said, if I like something I will try to introduce it to other people, because I do enjoy having the same interests as those close to me (don't we all) ... however keeping a clear distance from the "majority." Also, I am presently significantly less elitist.
Ekolite
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Messages
- 5,451
Hmm. I don't know how well I can answer that to be honest. In society people who disobey its norms are often negatively perceived or judged by the majority of people who adhere to them. Maybe not in all contexts, but this has certainly been the case in my background. How I'm perceived by other people has always been almost an obsession to me. I can't stand the idea that people might view me as different to the majority, especially if it's different in a negative way. I guess there's probably some deeply ingrained psychological reason for it, but who knows?
![[to_xp]Gekko](https://civfanatics-data.community.forum/avatars/m/74/74677.jpg?1475248346){kind=avatar}
[to_xp]Gekko
QCT junkie
your way of playing the Calabim is very non-mainstream Ekolite
I will also quote everything Tasunke said.
I will also quote everything Tasunke said.
Well yea, that is hard core conformity ... I wonder if part of it is just how individualism is less idolized in Britain (as opposed to America).
Either way, the differences in countrymen is much smaller than differences among individuals. Thus, its a very you thing, and less to do with (albeit slightly influenced) where you live.
(Topic Shift)
While Ultimately there does need to be a sense of harmony and cooperation among the whole of society, this doesn't mean that you need to all be clones of each other (like in TW: Rome), rather to instead embrace your own peculiar nature and interact harmoniously.
While some Virtue ethics value a strict adherence to roles, I would almost argue that what you described is not even a role obligation but a cloning factory ... however you also (it would seem) share a strict adherence to roles (even as they may be near identical to the role of your neighbor).
I would argue, however, that even proper and varied roles aren't really what is needed, merely your inner integrity, or inner light, to shine through in your actions.
Either way, the differences in countrymen is much smaller than differences among individuals. Thus, its a very you thing, and less to do with (albeit slightly influenced) where you live.
(Topic Shift)
While Ultimately there does need to be a sense of harmony and cooperation among the whole of society, this doesn't mean that you need to all be clones of each other (like in TW: Rome), rather to instead embrace your own peculiar nature and interact harmoniously.
While some Virtue ethics value a strict adherence to roles, I would almost argue that what you described is not even a role obligation but a cloning factory ... however you also (it would seem) share a strict adherence to roles (even as they may be near identical to the role of your neighbor).
I would argue, however, that even proper and varied roles aren't really what is needed, merely your inner integrity, or inner light, to shine through in your actions.
Ekolite
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Messages
- 5,451
Well like I said, everyone does have their own little quirks and for the most part that's fine, so I wouldn't call it a cloning factory. However, each unusual or negative thing about you really does add up in people's minds. How I see it is that there's an acceptable limit of how nonconformist you can be, but if excede that people will judge you for it.
I don't play FFH (or Civ etc etc) for more then about 1 hour per month or so, which is mainstream of me
lol. In fact I'd totally forgotten I even had that strategy until you mentioned it. How I actually play when I do is probably more unorthodox then non-mainstream though.
I don't play FFH (or Civ etc etc) for more then about 1 hour per month or so, which is mainstream of me
lol. In fact I'd totally forgotten I even had that strategy until you mentioned it. How I actually play when I do is probably more unorthodox then non-mainstream though.
