sulkyblueblog: (Default)
[personal profile] sulkyblueblog
Have a look at this video: http://geekadvancement.com/
"The reality is, while geek seems to be the new chic and is spreading its wings in the land of mainstream culture, us native geeks are still a misunderstood community. What better time to share with the world what we are really all about!" (from their about page)

I came across this via Wil Wheaton's blog post:
After watching the video yesterday, I was impressed by the production values, and I thought it was really awesome that it was just one small part of a larger project. I love that the whole thing is supposed to encourage literacy (if you really look for the links) and intends to support a good cause. As a writer, I certainly want more people to be readers!

But as I watched it a second and a third time, something didn't feel quite right to me. I couldn't put my finger on it, until e-mail started flooding in from people who could: this was supposed to be about refuting stereotypes and celebrating the things we love, but it ends up feeling like we're trying to convince the Cool Kids that we're really just like them, and a promotional opportunity for celebrities who don't know a damn thing about our geek culture, and don't care about the people who create and live in it.


I agreed with Wil's initial response (I don't know how to refer to him - Mr Wheaton, @wilw, the esteemed gentleman?), I thought it was a nice little video - well made, funny and cute. But it didn't really sit right with me for some reason. So I re-watched it 10 or 12 times.

The first thing that struck me was it started out in negative terms, with people saying what they *don't* do and implying that the things they don't do are sad and pathetic. "I DON'T play D&D or Magic the Gathering" and Wil's own "I speak python and css, not Klingon". Both seem to be trying a bit too hard to distance the New Geek from the old school Geek. They say "this is what geeks are seen to be, this is what people think they do... but we don't do that". It's as someone saw that geeks were about to become cool and that the cool kids should therefore want to be geeks. But then remembered they'd been mocking geeks for years so they must simultaneously embrace the cool while distancing from the pathetic.

I re-watched it yet again, and realised my core objection... the opening screen defines geek as:
- A person who is interested in technology, especially computing and new media
- who has chosen concentration rather than conformity
- one who passionately pursues skill and imagination, not mainstream social acceptance

But they don't talk about that in the video, they're not talking about being geeks, they're talking about being a subsection of geek - social media junkies. Being a geek is about more than twittering, podcasting, and using facebook. What makes Stephen Fry a geek isn't that he twitters, it's that he's interested in technology and ideas and he twittered EARLY. Ashton Kutcher and MC Hammer may twitter, but it doesn't make them geeks.

To embrace the life you need to do more than just use the tools. One of the people says "Just because you own a Nintendo wii, does not make you a geek". Well just 'cos you have a twitter account doesn't make you a geek either. As [livejournal.com profile] sammoore said when we were discussing this concept "using twitter to keep on top of your personal productivity system which brings together google calander, remember the milk and the moleskin notebook in your pocket is being the geek". Telling me you're getting on a plane to New York does not qualify you.

Being a geek is about using twitter because it's interesting, not because it's popular. It's about finding xkcd funny and scarily accurate. It's about a heartfelt discussion about Manic Miner, Elite or Pong. It's about wanting an iphone, or an eee, or a smaller, faster doodad despite the fact that your current large clunky doodad fulfills the actual need. It's about getting lost in ThinkGeek for 20 minutes when all you wanted was a link to illustrate a point. It's about spending 3 hours re-watching a video and writing a blog post on why it annoys you.

I think this is a classic example of a project starting out cool with a focused message and then gradually getting more and more muddled. I'm sure most of the people in that video really are true geeks, but it doesn't come across terribly well with that edit and script. They lost sight of the core message somewhere along the way and once it's gone it's very hard to fight it back.

Date: 2009-05-14 02:49 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gaspodog.livejournal.com
This made me think too.

I run into something of a problem when I try to define 'geek'. For me, there is inherent in the term a refusal to be defined by the opinions of those who conform to the prevailing societal norms. Geeks are, to me, those who have no interest in being labeled by the popular people and those who populate so-called mainstream culture.

Geek is a very broad and tolerant church, and developing the above idea, I get the feeling that a part of it is about the freedom to self-identify rather than be pigeonholed by the opinions of others. We are accepting people because we allow people to identify as whatever sort (or multiple sort) of geek they choose to.

Now of course I can't claim to speak for all geeks, because that would be hugely arrogant - after all I haven't asked them all... However, I personally feel as though geeks define themselves at least in part in terms of what they are not, whereas non-geeks define us in terms of what they perceive we are.

Or, you know, maybe not. :)

Date: 2009-05-14 03:14 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sulkyblue.livejournal.com
Well said, that's actually helped clarify it for me too. I don't think (or maybe just, I don't like to think) of geeks excluding anyone based on something they do. I guess the line between geeks and nerds is a bit fuzzy at times, but for the most part, as Richard said, whether you're a retriever geek or a steam engine geek, you can still play with us. Well maybe not WITH us in person, 'cos the train people are weird, but philsophically it's ok. ;0)

Date: 2009-05-14 03:52 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gaspodog.livejournal.com
Hey, they can talk retrievers and trains if they like - I'll even participate such as my interest allows, and will take an interest in learning more where it does not. If they want to come play with us they're more than welcome - I'm won't exclude them because of their interests. If they happen to be insufferable bores as individuals then perhaps I might ;-)

Also, I apologise for the phrase "prevailing societal norms". Not sure what came over me there...

Date: 2009-05-14 04:02 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sammoore.livejournal.com

If they happen to be insufferable bores as individuals then perhaps I might ;-)

And therein lies a lot of the problem, when you are so "far from the mainstream community to see daylight anymore", you run the real risk of being boring to many people, whether you are an interesting person or not.

If you can't engage with someone it's very hard to like them, or even spend time with them. I know technical people who can bring their in knowledge down to my level and make me feel smart for understanding it and I know technical people who confuse me about things I already thought I understood. I'm pretty tolerant but I know who I'd *rather* spend my time with.

Date: 2009-05-14 04:40 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gaspodog.livejournal.com
Absolutely, but this comes down to individual characteristics. It isn't a universal geek characteristic - or even a universal characteristic of certain types of geek. I've had very interesting conversations with geeks on subjects I know nothing about - because they were able to make it interesting and took an interest in having a conversation and not delivering a a soliloquy.

Admittedly, a tendency to be unaware of the suffering of others during your conversations may be more prevalent amongst geeks than everyone else...

Date: 2009-05-15 02:34 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sulkyblue.livejournal.com
... and the tendancy to use words and phrases that are 'exclusive' to your group without explaining them. (One of the things that started irritating me about some SF groups with their singularities and whatnots).

Mind you, I've spent plenty of time with marketing and business people who talk in a similarly different language!

Date: 2009-05-15 02:58 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sammoore.livejournal.com
Language is a key identifier of tribes. Many (most?) people want to belong to one tribe or another, it seems quite innate in human beings. By having your own language you are demarcating the boundry between who is in and who is outside your tribe.

One of the keys to be able to spread ideas from within your tribe to outside is to break down this barrier to entry of 'learning the language'. Of course the counter is true, if you want to be a member of a tribe, the fastest way in is to learn and use their language.

Profile

sulkyblueblog: (Default)
sulkyblueblog

February 2015

M T W T F S S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
161718192021 22
232425 262728 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 24th, 2025 08:24 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios
OSZAR »