The term “geek” has evolved a lot during my lifetime. When I was a kid, nobody wanted to be called a geek. It meant you had no romantic mojo, that you didn’t fit in with your peers, and that you were deeply, passionately into something weird. Today, some of that is still true, but the word has been embraced by many who would have been called geeks when I was a kid, and by even more who wouldn’t have been considered geeky at all. What’s changed even more is that the geeks are among the most powerful people in the world today.
Aaron Swartz helped create RSS, Creative Commons, and markdown. He was a very effective online activist for progressive causes and fighting the kind of digital f**kery that's taken over the 'Net.
He committed suicide after being persecuted by MIT and federal prosecutors for downloading peer-reviewed literature from JSTOR. JSTOR had already settled with him and he had "returned" the material. That wasn't good enough for someone....
Two tragic losses that come to mind are the deaths of Stephen Jay Gould and Randy Pausch, both brilliant scientific thinkers. Each was diagnosed with a terminal illness at the peak of their career and faced their fate with full awareness of their impending death.
Now this is a topic I can nerd out to. Speaking of, how would you differentiate “geek” from “nerd”? Or have they come to mean the same thing? Well “back in my day” (said in grumpy old man voice) there was a difference.
Man, what a dweeb. “Geek” was always used in my circles as being more freakish and scary whereas nerd was just hopelessly awkward. Intense fascination with certain topics was part of it, too, but not exclusively. But then I’m sure it varied by region.
Nobel disease, also known as nobelitis, is a phenomenon where a Nobel Prize-winning scientist endorses or performs "research" in pseudoscientific areas in their later years, generally (though not always) after having won the esteemed prize for some legitimate scientific achievement.
Also, I do not remember where I read about a similar phenomenon once a scientist wins a Nobel prize (not true for everyone, as Marie Curie received a second Nobel and others also contributed significantly even though they did not get another Nobel), they try to outdo their earlier research by doing something much-much bigger for which the time may not have come and end up not producing anything substantial. For example, Einstein started working on "unified field theory" and eventually did not accomplish anything significant after winning the prize.
"After 1915, when Albert Einstein published the theory of gravity (general relativity), the search for a unified field theory combining gravity with electromagnetism began with a renewed interest. In Einstein's day, the strong and the weak forces had not yet been discovered, yet he found the potential existence of two other distinct forces, gravity and electromagnetism, far more alluring. This launched his 40-year voyage in search of the so-called "unified field theory" that he hoped would show that these two forces are really manifestations of one grand, underlying principle. During the last few decades of his life, this ambition alienated Einstein from the rest of mainstream of physics, as the mainstream was instead far more excited about the emerging framework of quantum mechanics. Einstein wrote to a friend in the early 1940s, "I have become a lonely old chap who is mainly known because he doesn't wear socks and who is exhibited as a curiosity on special occasions."
I'm not sure I agree that Einstein didn't accomplish anything of note after 1921, but your point is definitely accurate, and very telling about the human ego.
I found an article on the same topic. I have not done further research, so if the below is wrong or misstating the facts, I agree with your statement. Again, as this article mentions, I was talking about a significant scientific contribution or second act.
Let's start with the two physicists who are considered the most important ones of the twentieth century in terms of their scientific accomplishments and philosophical influence - Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr. Einstein got a Nobel Prize in 1921 after he had already done work for which he would go down in history; this included the five groundbreaking papers published in the "annus mirabilis" of 1905, his collaboration on Bose-Einstein statistics with Satyendranath Bose and his work on the foundations of the laser. After 1921 Einstein did not accomplish anything of similar stature but he became famous for one enduring controversy, his battle with Niels Bohr about the interpretation of quantum theory that started at the Solvay conference in 1927 and continued until the end of his life. This led to the famous paper on the EPR paradox in 1935 that set the stage for all further discussions of the weird phenomenon known as quantum entanglement.
It is quite curious how "geek" morphed from practically an insult to how we now casually describe something you're really into.
Side note: The site I visit for most board game research is the BoardGameGeek. Playing board games is another thing that morphed from being a weird niche geeky thing to a more widely accepted pastime in my lifetime.
Oddly, I have perceived the opposite taking place with board games throughout my own lifetime. During the late 70s and early 80s, everyone played games at lame parties. I'm talking about everything from Trivial Pursuit to Monopoly - these games were staples everywhere.
Over time, these games became considered more and more lame as video games and other digital entertainment became more and more prominent.
Now, with role-playing games, this is very much not the case, and I see things the same way you describe them for board games: anathema when I was a kid, but considered cool (or at least semi-mainstream) nowadays. Game of Thrones did a lot of the final leg of heavy lifting.
Agreed, I should've probably specified. Basic stuff like Monopoly and Risk have always been popular fixtures. I'm referring to "gamer's games" with more involved mechanics and elements of role-playing, strategy, etc. Those used to be niche hobbies and now they're increasingly branching into the mainstream.
Yeah, I think that goes for pop culture in general. One of the first new-era games that straddled the line between a "gamer's game" and mainstrem that I recall is King of Tokyo, which build heavily on the King Kong. Godzilla, and other giant monster lore. And then there are plenty of games like Unmatched, Marvel Legendary, that are all about leaning on known characters and franchises to appeal to a mass audience.
this just feels metaphoric! (applicable to more than mathematics): "even with the most rigorous rules, there will always be unprovable truths lurking within"
Van Gogh is probably a good example. He produced 2100 paintings in his lifetime and only sold one. He committed suicide
Good point about Van Gogh. He certainly was eclectic!
Aaron Swartz helped create RSS, Creative Commons, and markdown. He was a very effective online activist for progressive causes and fighting the kind of digital f**kery that's taken over the 'Net.
He committed suicide after being persecuted by MIT and federal prosecutors for downloading peer-reviewed literature from JSTOR. JSTOR had already settled with him and he had "returned" the material. That wasn't good enough for someone....
I wrote a fugue after meeting him. Terrible suicide. A stone cold vicious move to prosecute.
Will post the fugue tomorrow.
Two tragic losses that come to mind are the deaths of Stephen Jay Gould and Randy Pausch, both brilliant scientific thinkers. Each was diagnosed with a terminal illness at the peak of their career and faced their fate with full awareness of their impending death.
Nice! More recent examples from history like these are most welcome.
"Geek" was originally a term used in carnivals for a performer who bit the heads off of live chickens. The modern version came later on.
(Michael Swanwick's short story "The Last Geek" features one of the last of the original kind of geek at an academic conference.)
Maybe the distinction during the 1950s was "nerd = bookworm; geek = just super duper weird."
Now this is a topic I can nerd out to. Speaking of, how would you differentiate “geek” from “nerd”? Or have they come to mean the same thing? Well “back in my day” (said in grumpy old man voice) there was a difference.
What was the difference? I always thought of them as synonyms.
Man, what a dweeb. “Geek” was always used in my circles as being more freakish and scary whereas nerd was just hopelessly awkward. Intense fascination with certain topics was part of it, too, but not exclusively. But then I’m sure it varied by region.
Synonyms weren't terribly common in the south.
Would you consider Nobel disease a tragedy too?
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_disease:
Nobel disease, also known as nobelitis, is a phenomenon where a Nobel Prize-winning scientist endorses or performs "research" in pseudoscientific areas in their later years, generally (though not always) after having won the esteemed prize for some legitimate scientific achievement.
Also, I do not remember where I read about a similar phenomenon once a scientist wins a Nobel prize (not true for everyone, as Marie Curie received a second Nobel and others also contributed significantly even though they did not get another Nobel), they try to outdo their earlier research by doing something much-much bigger for which the time may not have come and end up not producing anything substantial. For example, Einstein started working on "unified field theory" and eventually did not accomplish anything significant after winning the prize.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything:
"After 1915, when Albert Einstein published the theory of gravity (general relativity), the search for a unified field theory combining gravity with electromagnetism began with a renewed interest. In Einstein's day, the strong and the weak forces had not yet been discovered, yet he found the potential existence of two other distinct forces, gravity and electromagnetism, far more alluring. This launched his 40-year voyage in search of the so-called "unified field theory" that he hoped would show that these two forces are really manifestations of one grand, underlying principle. During the last few decades of his life, this ambition alienated Einstein from the rest of mainstream of physics, as the mainstream was instead far more excited about the emerging framework of quantum mechanics. Einstein wrote to a friend in the early 1940s, "I have become a lonely old chap who is mainly known because he doesn't wear socks and who is exhibited as a curiosity on special occasions."
I'm not sure I agree that Einstein didn't accomplish anything of note after 1921, but your point is definitely accurate, and very telling about the human ego.
I found an article on the same topic. I have not done further research, so if the below is wrong or misstating the facts, I agree with your statement. Again, as this article mentions, I was talking about a significant scientific contribution or second act.
http://wavefunction.fieldofscience.com/2017/01/physics-nobel-prize-winners-and-second.html
Let's start with the two physicists who are considered the most important ones of the twentieth century in terms of their scientific accomplishments and philosophical influence - Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr. Einstein got a Nobel Prize in 1921 after he had already done work for which he would go down in history; this included the five groundbreaking papers published in the "annus mirabilis" of 1905, his collaboration on Bose-Einstein statistics with Satyendranath Bose and his work on the foundations of the laser. After 1921 Einstein did not accomplish anything of similar stature but he became famous for one enduring controversy, his battle with Niels Bohr about the interpretation of quantum theory that started at the Solvay conference in 1927 and continued until the end of his life. This led to the famous paper on the EPR paradox in 1935 that set the stage for all further discussions of the weird phenomenon known as quantum entanglement.
Here's another good one for you: why is so much of the best music ever made written and performed by teenagers and very, very young adults?
It could be multiple reasons but two come to me quickly ( I am sure you will tell me I am wrong):
Planck's principle - "Science progresses one funeral at a time,” is true here too
And
Risk taking (nothing to lose)
It is quite curious how "geek" morphed from practically an insult to how we now casually describe something you're really into.
Side note: The site I visit for most board game research is the BoardGameGeek. Playing board games is another thing that morphed from being a weird niche geeky thing to a more widely accepted pastime in my lifetime.
Oddly, I have perceived the opposite taking place with board games throughout my own lifetime. During the late 70s and early 80s, everyone played games at lame parties. I'm talking about everything from Trivial Pursuit to Monopoly - these games were staples everywhere.
Over time, these games became considered more and more lame as video games and other digital entertainment became more and more prominent.
Now, with role-playing games, this is very much not the case, and I see things the same way you describe them for board games: anathema when I was a kid, but considered cool (or at least semi-mainstream) nowadays. Game of Thrones did a lot of the final leg of heavy lifting.
Agreed, I should've probably specified. Basic stuff like Monopoly and Risk have always been popular fixtures. I'm referring to "gamer's games" with more involved mechanics and elements of role-playing, strategy, etc. Those used to be niche hobbies and now they're increasingly branching into the mainstream.
Gotta imagine that stuff like GOT (being able to visualize some of the cool aspects at long last) has had a lot to do with turning this nerd corner.
Yeah, I think that goes for pop culture in general. One of the first new-era games that straddled the line between a "gamer's game" and mainstrem that I recall is King of Tokyo, which build heavily on the King Kong. Godzilla, and other giant monster lore. And then there are plenty of games like Unmatched, Marvel Legendary, that are all about leaning on known characters and franchises to appeal to a mass audience.
Marvel continues to amaze me by digging deeper and making mediocre 70s comic book heroes into TV show or movie rock stars.
Yeah, you would've thought they'd exhaust the formula by now, and yet....
I was geek and proud of it.
Gould. Turing. Gödel. Cantor. All saviours of mine.
Something tells me that Hart Crane belongs to this group.
I can't believe that dude was in his early 30s when he died!
Socrates fits the geek mould almost perfectly: obsessed over a niche fiel, slightly overbearing, executed on flimsy grounds.
Now that I think about it, there probably IS a tragic play about his trial out there somewhere.
Definitely an OG example!
(Original Greek philosopher)
this just feels metaphoric! (applicable to more than mathematics): "even with the most rigorous rules, there will always be unprovable truths lurking within"
It certainly seems to be true!