Genus Nerdus

With all the hoo-hah around the Star Trek reboot, what better time to think about nerds, with the question: What qualities does a nerd make?
I've been thinking about this for a while. Nicholas Nassim Taleb in 'The Black Swan' has a personal definition of nerds, being 'people who are incapable of thinking outside the box' which I think is certainly a workable definition, but I think it goes deeper than that.

1. Nerds are not very imaginative.

What's that? But aren't nerds those people who draw Ligers, and go to renaissance fares and sci-fi conventions and love all that crap? Yes, they love all that crap, but the important word is crap. Why do nerds love stuff of nieche appeal? and particularly why do they go for low quality products too, like Stargate SG1, The Malazan Book of the Fallen, 300 (the movie, and arguably the graphic novel) and so fourth...?
Of course quality is a matter of opinion, but behavior is observable, it can be seen and documented.
And for me one of the defining behavioral traits of the nerd is that they are fans of shit, dogmatic, proscriptive fans, they fall in love with shit that to others is just good. Sometimes they are described as 'hardcore' they will 'hate' on other fans of competing products.
Case in point, at De La Soul's concert I was embarassed to be associated with some white fans quizzing eachother on De La Soul trivia to see who had the right to stand in front of the other, ie who was the biggest fan.
BSNYC/RPTMS once described belief in 'miracles' as an indicator of stupidity, such that a really stupid person would go through life observing what to them appeared to be a long succession of miracles, such as the miracle of elevators, escalators, sliding doors, the automobile, the cell phone, smoothies etc.
So too, a feel the first qualifier for nerdom is the lack of imagination that means they don't scrutinize/criticize any of the products, services or subcultures they enjoy because they simply lack the imaginative capacity to form the necessary ideas.

Thus you take the two biggest nerd magnets of last year 'The Dark Knight' and 'Watchmen' (and here I craftily extract myself from nerdom, because I was not impressed by the first and didn't even bother to go see the second). Nerdy observable behaviour was the outrage that 'TDK' didn't get 'Best Picture' consideration at the Oscars, demonstrating an inability to imagine A) that people could exist that didn't think it was the greatest film ever made "it made heaps of money!" B) that a story revolving around action and unrealistic psychological archetype characters might be considered not even in the same league as films that do actually explore the human condition such as 'Slumdog Millionaire' and 'Revolutionary Road' and shit. C) Maybe the Oscar itself isn't as important and even necessarily true validation of what the 'best picture' of the year was.

And Watchmen, oh god, apparantly when the legal dispute was up in the air as to whether Fox would let Watchmen be screened or not (because the film rights where effectively filched from fox by WB or whoever made it) internet fangroups tried to arrange a boycott of the current Fox release 'Wolverine' demonstrating an inability to imagine: A) That people who would fork out money to see Watchmen might not even bother to go see Wolverine anyway. B) That 'Watchmen' needed to be made into a film, since the fans were excited because they'd obviously already read it anyway and at best could only hope for a faithful adaptation. C) That if Losers win, that may not necessarily mean they are no longer losers.

So I hope I've made the point. The lack of imagination naturally makes nerds fans of things that otherwise normal people wouldn't get into because they can imagine a higher standard for which the work does not favourably compare too.
And this I feel distinguishes nerds from the a-typical fan. For example, I am a fan of Primus, I lack the imagination to concieve how I could play bass guitar like Les, and even if I could whether I could actually compose the same music. Les does something for me that I can't do for myself. This might explain why many men are fans of blowjobs. But I'm not a fan of say Stargate SG1, because I'm sure if you gave me the same budget I could make a better written, better acted and better executed TV show (albeit it may not make as much money).

2. Nerds are not very intelligent.

To me this seems apparant, but it might be taken as a departure from the stereotypical 'brainiac','science-geek' or 'computer-nerd' image. Afterall the consolation of being a nerd is supposedly that you get the superior intellect that compensates you with unnearned future millions that allows you to buy yourself a prom-queen bride, right?
Practical experience tells me this is wrong on two accounts, one most millionaires in this world I believe possess in IQ terms only average intelligence and many below average. Secondly growing up in our meritocratic education system, my experience was that the high-achievers academically seldom crossed over to those ostracised as nerds. The academic performers at my school were by and large also the jocks. Many played musical instruments or were active in the arts as baby-boomers trained from birth to expect everything for themselves wanted the all-around-genuises in their own kids.
Nerds liked computers, mathematics, physics, chemistry and other geeky subjects but they weren't necessarily geniuses at them. It was more because these subjects are very logical and literal, there's no subjectivity, and unless you are a world leader in the above fields (which education based on normal distributions doesn't encourage) almost no imagination.
If anything, if I concede that nerds can be intelligent, I would be using such a narrowly defined band of intelligence that in practice they would appear dumb. I would say an 'Idiot Savant' though is cooler than a Nerd, because at least a savant has perfect pitch, extreme analytical abilities or whatever and more importantly an excuse to be inept at sports.
But again I feel this hinges on my criterion 1, the keystone if you will of the nerd genus' evolution. Nerds were drawn to subjects that may have got them 'labelled' as geniuses because they couldn't imagine that sports might yeild much intellectual development, or learning a foreign language or whatever. Or that social skills might call upon much higher brain function intervention to yeild better results.

3. Nerds are socially inept.

I believe I put in my 'rules for cool' that self-referential or opinion leadership was cool. This could be argued as the dark side of the same coin. Many people would say 'duh' when I say that the third characteristic is social ineptitude and I'd wager many would put it first.
But I believe the dividing line between self-referential cool people and nerds is that self referential people are aware that other people have opinions, and choose to assert their own in favour. A nerd simply reflexively disregards other opinions because they don't even realize they are there.
They have if you will a low social intelligence. This I feel is the true tragedy of nerds. I'm aware one could make a case that I'm saying a nerd is just someone with aspergers syndrome, however I'm trying to argue a nurture not nature argument (although I guess low general intelligence, lack of imagination and low social intelligence are probably going to be genetic traits, but also nerds often come from nerd families whom survive Darwinism presumably because they meet at sci-fi cons and christian camps and what not.)
Hence nerds wear bright white cross-trainers with jeans, bum-bags (or fanny packs), they don't buy their own clothes unless it is a tshirt advertising they are a fan of some tv or game show, they argue passionately about star-trek in public (or apparantly even De La Soul), they get dropped off by their nerd parents at a high-school paddock party, they don't bother to put their tracksuit pants on the right way in primary school once they realise they put them on back to front. And so fourth and so on.
They are not so much self-referential as just plain oblivious. One could argue that there is a beautiful innocence to this ignorance, and that Films like 'About a Boy' are kind of vindictive in suggesting kids are better off learning to 'dissappear into the masses' than stand out as a nerdy individual.

4. Conclusion.

The title 'Genus Nerdus' suggests nerd-hood is more genetic than memetic. I'd argue that attractiveness is certainly going to be a product of your genes, and its hard for an attractive person to be a nerd when women/men pay him a lot of attention, but its not impossible, furthermore its certainly not impossible for someone ugly to be cool. It's certainly possible for someone to be neither.
I would side with Drucker though who says 'effectiveness can be learned' certainly the social ineptitude is a manifestation of ineffectiveness, social skills can be taught, as proof I would submit my own brother who has aspergers - which I would call in his case 'involuntary arseholism' that through his own ability to learn is now 'selectively charming' namely he did telemarketing for a year or so which he had the advantage of genetically not being disposed to give a shit what people thought anyway whilst learning to interact with a constant barrage of new people. He also simply practiced talking to women on friday and saturday nights by going to pubs and clubs with work-mates. I find this a really positive story and whilst he isn't the best and most socially conscious person, he can hold down relationships for about as long as most normal people whilst having an advantage in any situation that requires straight talking and literal analysis.
If someone with aspergers can learn how to chat up women (which I am yet to get around to doing) a nerd must have a half decent chance. It is understandably an uncomfortable subject to broach though. It is unpleasant to point out to someone that you don't like them as you are. It is in essence a more benign form of the 'deoderant conversation' where people are afraid to tell their colleague 'hey man you stink'.
In both cases though, I would be surprised if the reaction wasn't embarassment, followed by an alarming amount of relief for all parties when the person rectifies the embarassment through changed behaviour. Either wearing new deoderant or subbing out their cross trainers for some black dunlop volleys.
It's also a touchy subject in suggesting that if social adeptness can be learned, then perhaps we should proactively teach it. It has the potential to ruffle parents feathers if misinterpreted as 'we turn nerds into jocks' much the same as teaching people to think critically has been misinterpreted as 'turning christians into athiests' (possibly these two activities share large overlap).
I feel no affection for nerds great enough to suggest that they should be forced to endure the bullying, ridicule and social isolation that is too often part and parcel just to preserve a subculture. Just like I don't feel enough attachment to 'organic' food to want peasants to continue living subsistence life styles and the occasional famine by blocking 'GM'.
But education is narrowly focused on one hemisphere of the brain, and it kind of makes sense why this one survives and doesn't tolerate the other. But I'd like to see teachers at least representing alternative social memes for the sake of these kids. Its much healthier than outright rebellion, and parents in my opinion are frankly granted far too much autonomy over the shaping of their childrens character, treated if you will as extensions of their selves not their own persons.
I deny the right of parents to enforce any shared beliefs with their children. I concede it might occur naturally, for natural reasons. But it should never prevent anyone from making up their own minds differently down the track.

Then 2, low intelligence. It is genetic, and nothing much can be done. Except you can be hard done by low intelligence if people reinforce the idea that you are smart because they patronizingly/condescendingly believe you 'gotta have something'. The notion that nerds are smart is providing them with a security blanket to cling to rather than address critical weaknesses, and also comfort for us that people can be born dealt a hand that rates a '7 high' in poker ie. they have no real consolation.
Except in poker as in life, if you are dealt a dud hand, yes its disadvantageous, but you can learn to bluff effectively, or more courageously acknowledge you were dealt a shitty hand and ask for 5 new cards (unless you are playing texas hold'em, which is currently in vogue).
As I hope life has established, intelligence is not the sole criterion of success, nor is looks, nor is charisma, if there is anything it is persistence. And you can fucking work on any of these so long as it is acknowledged and you have the will to intervene.

The keystone then, is the one that is critical to address. A lack of imagination I would equate to a lack of creativity, many artists make a living without being creative at all, but nerds even lack that one creative idea they can endlessly reiterate. Creativity certainly can be taught, (but isn't, again logically because people with creative dispositions have a low incedence of being fans of disciplines and structure) Edward De Bono being a good example.
Ironically one of the least imaginatively taught skills in my education was critical thinking. This is because our education is still based entirely around assesment and the bell curve, you can't really test kids abilities to have different opinions from everyone else because this makes assesment really difficult.
Thus I learnt to pull apart essays by reading really cliched interpretations of symbolism and recurring themes, and was never given the essay question 'How would you improve falling down?'
But that essentially is all creativity, imagination and critical thinking consists of. All you really have to do is ask questions that prompt critical and creative thought. As a marketing lecture once illustrated for me, much of the creative process is in the single question 'why?'

Come to think of it, it would be interesting to ask nerds 'why?' as a simple challenge to ideas such as 'World of Warcraft is the best game ever' and 'Watchmen is the best comic ever' and 'Heath Ledger's Joker was the best ever' and so fourth. Because if my theory is correct answers would more or less boil down to 'it blew me away' which to me can be boiled (like ginseng) down to 'I was impressed because I can't imagine anything as good as that' whereas a non-nerd would probably provide academic reasons for it eg. 'World of Warcraft has emphasised simple gameplay over graphical polish, psychologically addictive repetition, well timed reward systems... etc' or 'Watchmen is a deconstructionalist narrative on comics itself, it enriches all comic reading experience and provoked myself to think why I even like reading comics, to which instantly all other comic form narratives and several literary efforts immeadiatly began to pale in comparison' or 'Heath Ledger kept the actual character of the Joker ambiguous whilst still being energizing and entertaining on screen, it was a captivating enigma'. I guess in the day and age of web-forums if you give a nerd time they will go and steal one of these actual opinions, but to me they need to be taught to form actual opinions on their own using critical thought. I wouldn't suggest its bad to actually like something, but liking something because its big and flashy and wow and not much else is a social liability when you make a lot of noise about it.

There is a cure, people.