Nerd and Talk:Belief: Difference between pages

Revision as of 15:17, 18 July 2006

Revision as of 18:19, 22 July 2007

Line 1:

{{verifytalkheader}}

{{philosophy|class=start|importance=}}

{{otheruses}}

{{WikiProject Psychology|class=start|importance=Mid}}

{{wiktionary}}

{{WP1.0|class=Start|category=category|VA=yes}}

Hmm. Im wondering, how come Hume and Kant seem to be quoted so often here in WP.

Certainly they are [[pillar]]s of western thought, but they do have some [[holes]] in their ideas, and besides, I thought we had long ago begun the process of [[weening]] ourselves off of our [[sacred cow]]s of [[westernism]].

----

"Westernism"? What's that? If you mean Western culture generally, um, no, I'm not aware that anyone other than some "postmodern" and extremely politically correct types are making a move to "weaning ourselves" off of this material. We've got to have a huge amount of such material on Wikipedia if it's going to be complete. But this doesn't stop you from adding as much "non-Western" (whatever that means) type material as you like. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]]

----

Not again... More silly resentment towards "postmodernism" and "politically correct types".... they're not out to kill you. So you disagree with them, get over it. I'd be willing to bet that you (yes, you, Larry Sanger) will be dwelling on this absurd cynicism for a very long time. Postmodernism is just a catch-all phrase for something easy to criticise; the fact is that there is no such thing as a postmodern "movement" or "school of thought" or "belief system"... The obsession with postmodernism is simply a phenomenon among critics who are desperate for a board to throw darts at.

----

[[Image:2005 0308 urkel.jpg|thumb|right|The character of [[Steve Urkel]] in the television show ''[[Family Matters (TV series)|Family Matters]]'' (1989–1998) is portrayed as being a nerd.]]'''Nerd''', as a [[Stereotype|stereotypical]] or [[Archetype|archetypal]] designation, refers to somebody who pursues intellectual interests at the expense of skills that are useful in a social setting, such as communication, fashion, or physical fitness.

Would it be relevant (or interesting) to mention the logical convolutions of [[Raymond Smullyan]], eg characters who believe one thing, but consistently lie, so say the opposite, etc?

----

I'm not sure--why would it (on this page)? Wouldn't that belong on [[lying]] or something like that? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]]

==History==

: Just a thought (I'll crib what I've typed here to pad out the stub on Smulllyan, at any rate). At one point he introduces characters who only believe only false things, yet lie: hence all their statements are true. -- [[User:Tarquin|Tarquin]]

For quite some time in the later [[20th Century]], the term "nerd" was generally considered derogatory, and was a common insult, especially among school-age boys. However, beginning in the late [[1990s]], many nerds on the [[Internet]] reclaimed the word ''nerd'' as a badge of pride and began using it as a positive description of a technically-competent person. Although traditionally used to describe men and boys, the terms "nerd" and "[[geek]]" have been adopted by many women interested in technology, science, mathematics and other typically male-dominated intellectual fields as badges of their accomplishments in these areas. However, many, if not all, self-styled nerds, even if they possess some of the above prerequisites, do not fit the traditional definition of nerd which also heavily emphasizes social alienation and awkwardness. Dictionaries define the word as one who is 'socially inept'.[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nerd]

I wonder what point he was making with that. Sounds interesting...

The term "nerd", meaning "[[square (slang)|square]]", goes back at least to [[1951]], when [[Newsweek]] reported the usage as relatively new in Detroit, Michigan. By the [[1960s]], it took on connotations of bookishness as well as [[social ineptitude]]. The word itself first appeared in [[Dr. Seuss]]'s book ''[[If I Ran the Zoo]]'', published in [[1950]], where it simply names one of Seuss's many comical imaginary animals. (The narrator Gerald McGrew claims that he would collect "a Nerkle, a Nerd, and a Seersucker too" for his imaginary zoo.) Another theory of the word's origin sees it as a variation on [[Mortimer Snerd]], the name of [[Edgar Bergen]]'s ventriloquist dummy. Yet another theory traces the term to ''[[Northern Electric Research and Development]]'', suggesting images of employees wearing [[pocket protector]]s with the acronym N.E.R.D. printed on them. In the 1933 film, [[Dinner at Eight]], [[Jean Harlow]]'s character replies to her husband's suggestion that she might enjoy mingling with Washington "cabinet members' wives" by saying, "Nerds!... A lot of sour-faced frumps with last year's clothes on, pinning medals on Girl Scouts and pouring tea for the DARs..." [Spelling is from Turner DVD subtitles and not verified by the original script.] Finally, oral history at [[Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute]] holds that the word was coined there, spelled as "knurd" ("drunk" spelled backwards), to describe those who studied rather than partied. (This usage predates a similar coinage of "[[knurd]]" by author [[Terry Pratchett]].) The term itself was used heavily in the American 1974-84 television comedy [[Happy Days]] which took place in [[Milwaukee, Wisconsin]] in the mid-1950s.

==Is belief voluntary?==

Actually, there is something interestingly relevant we could add from the literature in epistemology: it's widely held that most people have no control over most of what they believe... --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]]

: I made a stub section on this matter. Please expand and improve. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 11:03, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If I may add my own experience (and I am quite sure many people would recognize a pattern here)...

I have a firm belief that reincarnation exists because instinctively I can't imagine I could stop being conscious after death, but I also admit I can't live forever. But by rational thinking I also know that nothing to my knowledge can justify reincarnation. This is only one example among others where belief seems to oppose knowledge. I think there are many other such examples, essentially about concepts difficult or impossible to prove, for example involving the existence or non-existance of God.

[[User:Fafner|Fafner]] 09:47, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

If I find the time... I'll try to add sometime here. Hume (amongst others) noted that we acquire beliefs passively, that the aquisition of them is not subject to the will. Bernard Williams' paper 'Deciding to Believe' investigated this and tries to show that the coneptual relations between belief, truth and evidence rule out voluntary believing. While some have shown that his argument for the incoherence of 'believing at will' is not quite right, most philsophers do believe that decision and belief can't be linked in the same way as, for instance, decision and imagination : I can successfully decide to imagine a scene, but I can't successfullly decide to belief that scene represents truely. However, as Williams noted, this doesn't rule out deciding and influencing our belief by more "roundabout routes". One could embark on a course of action, hypnosis or drugs were his suggestions, such that afterwards you would have brought it about that you belive some proposition or other. Williams remarks that this would make the person "deeply irrational". Some have questioned this but it reamins to be seen whether any convincing account of belief at will can be found. ([[User:Fabulist|Fabulist]] 18:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC))

In the 1940s, the word 'weakling' or 'wimp' was used before the word 'nerd' was used widely. Comic book ads for [[Charles Atlas]] weights and workout books were often accompanied by a short comic strip about a skinny 'weakling' and his girlfriend at the beach. In the strip, a muscular bully kicks sand on the weakling. His girlfriend leaves him for the bully. The weakling exercises (using Atlas's weights) until he has bigger muscles than the bully. He then defeats the bully in a fist fight. The girl leaves the bully, and joins the former weakling again as his girlfriend. This simple comic strip may have shaped nerd-versus-bully storylines thereafter. The nature of the strip tapped into men's fears, hormones, and competitive instincts over women.

==TheDegree Nerdof 'Look'certainty==

Why is there no mention of degree of certainty? If I believe something then it means that I think that the chance that something is true is >50%. I can believe something with 51% or 99% certainty. Quite a big difference [[User:Andries|Andries]] 20:35, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The [[USA|U.S.]] visual stereotype is of a young man wearing [[horn-rimmed glasses]] (possibly broken and repaired with tape), a pocket protector, hiked up [[pants]] (UK: trousers) and possibly [[suspenders]] (UK: braces). This appears to stem from a [[1977]] ''[[National Lampoon]]'' poster titled "Are you a Nerd?", featuring a similarly dressed individual. The look was based on several earlier depictions, such as the character [[Poindexter]] from the late 1950s cartoon ''[[Felix the Cat]]'', and Julius Kelp from the 1963 comedy ''[[The Nutty Professor]]''. During the 1980s and 1990s, popular U.S. comedic characters such as [[Steve Urkel]] and parody movies such as ''[[Revenge of the Nerds]]'' helped cement the stereotypical image in the popular consciousness. A more sympathetic treatement of nerd lives and culture has recently begun to emerge in popular culture, in movies such as ''[[American Splendor (film)|American Splendor]]'' and ''[[Ghost World]]''.

---

''Attempted anwer'': Certainty looks like an absolute, and it may be hard to see how something can be 'a bit certain', or 'fairly certain'. Perhaps it can only be 'absolutely certain'. Sceptics seem to have a similar problem over ‘knowledge’ and conclude, rigorously, that it cannot be truly achieved. Anyway, if belief is accepted as ‘a strong feeling’ this confusion as to whether it must entail any particular degree of certainty seems to go away[[User:Yanx|Yanx]] 19:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

In the [[United Kingdom]] the visual [[stereotype]] emerged from earlier longstanding ones about [[Eccentricity (behaviour)|eccentric]] scientists ('[[boffin]]s') and English eccentrics in general, as seen in movies such as ''[[The Man in the White Suit]]'' (1951). The stereotype was strongly disseminated by British television comedy (''[[The Goodies]]'', ''[[Here Come the Double Deckers]]'', and many others) and [[Open University]] broadcasting from about 1970, when it came to be applied to younger and younger characters.

==Belief system==

==Nerds in art and literature==

Dramatic depictions of good nerds typically reveal them to be good-hearted people who wish harm on no one, but are bullied by their obvious intellectual inferiors. Many nerds in fiction play roles as supporting characters who provide valuable sources of information or useful skills for the heroes. Nerds as lead characters often have a [[secret identity]] as a [[superhero]]; in these cases, a put-upon person has a wonderful secret (examples include [[Peter Parker]]/[[Spider-Man]] and [[Clark Kent]]/[[Superman]]). Nerds in supporting roles often feature as technological geniuses who invent or repair [[plot device]]s that enable the main characters to move towards a goal. They also serve as socially inept foils to much more charming main characters, and are sometimes depicted as being lovelorn and longing for attractive females who are beyond their status.

Please help with the [[belief system]] entry at [[Talk:belief system]]. Thanks. [[User:Adraeus|Adraeus]] 02:06, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Evil nerds, typically embittered through lifetimes lived as social outcasts, and thus seeking revenge upon the world, provide a popular archetype for the [[supervillain]], often as a [[mad scientist]]. This suggests that these characters represent the subconscious cultural fear that the highly intelligent have the ability to do great harm, and a willingness to do it. This seems to be the modern equivalent of the portrayal of scientists as the science fiction 'bug movies' of the 1950s, representing societal fears about the harmful effects that nuclear power might cause. {{citationneeded}}

:Because that article is on VfD and looks to be deleted due to no content, I am moving the associated talk page, which does have content to here:

=== Moved content from [[Talk:Belief system]], currently on [[WP:VfD|VfD]] ===

The total opposite of a nerd is shown in [[Jay Ward]]’s "Mr. Know-It-All" cartoons. Bullwinkle, aka Mr. Know-It-All, thinks he can do certain things, when he cannot at all due to his stupidity and low instinct. In the cartoons, Boris Badunov (or some other evil character) usually beats Mr. Know-It-All up. Meanwhile, the time-traveling duo from this cartoon series—Mr. Peabody, a talking dog, and his boy, Sherman—are both nerds; they both sport dark-rimmed glasses, and the dog wears a bow tie.

'''Note:''' This entry needs work. [[User:Adraeus|Adraeus]] 02:10, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)<br>

A '''belief system''' (also ''system of beliefs'') is...<br>

Here is my small contribution. It will probably need lots of works,

but after all we have to start from somewhere ;-)

I don't know if the comparison has been used somewhere, but a belief

system really looks like a mathematical logical system with a set of

axioms (unproved beliefs) and inferring rules (reasonnings).

Axioms (beliefs) are very debatable since it usually involves beliefs

in God(s), supernatural, or even science after all (how many people

among you has ever ''seen'' and ''verified'' an experiment in quantum

mechanics? probably not the majority, certainly not my case but I

''believe'' in quantum mechanics) ;-)

Inferring rules (reasonnings) are usually common to most people.

Deduction is the most reliable, induction is used to assert probable

conclusions (although I met someone acknowledging ''only'' induction

as reliable and rejecting deduction).

[[User:Fafner|Fafner]] 08:05, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)<br>

See also

[[belief]],

[[worldview]],

[[paradigm]],

[[model]]<br>

External links

[http://www.general-semantics.org/library/conf-papers/eddy.pdf On Belief and Belief Systems] by the late [[Bob Eddy]] (Institute of [[General Semantics]])<br />

[http://www.cognitivebehavior.com/theory/beliefsystems.html Belief Systems] by [http://www.cognitivebehavior.com/ CognitiveBehavior.com]

[[User:Eric Herboso|Eric]] [[User_talk:Eric_Herboso|Herboso ]] 04:16, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

== Self-consistent sets of beliefs ==

==Nerd characteristics==

I seem to recall something about the application of G&ouml;del's proof to beliefs, to demonstrate that one's beliefs cannot, taken as a whole, be logically self-consistent. It seemed very interesting at the time, but I can't pull up a cite -- can anyone help? (Yes, I know that G&ouml;del's proof actually demonstrates "incomplete or inconsistent", but the argument did something plausible at this point...) -- [[User:Karada|Karada]] 07:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Non-nerds often think of nerds as intelligent yet socially awkward people. Stereotypically, in high school, the more “popular” or more socially adept [[teen]]s often ridicule and bully those labeled as nerds, who have a reputation of engaging deeply in academic areas. Nerds generally express an above-normal interest in complex subjects and often function as [[polymath]]s. Topics dealing with [[science]], [[computer]], [[technology]], [[comic books]], board games of types that take hours to play and have complicated rules (particularly [[chess]]), [[role-playing game]]s, [[risk (game)]] and [[European classical music|classical music]], and paradoxically, music at the other extreme, heavy metal and punk (due to the current crop of nerds having grown up in the early 1990s when anti-social music became popular) {{citation needed}}, [[artificial intelligence]], [[manga]], [[video games]], and [[science fiction]], horror and [[fantasy literature]] books, TV shows and movies have all become heavily associated with nerds, as have conventions relating to these various topics.

[[Gödel's incompleteness theorem#Misconceptions about Gödel's theorems]]: "The theorem only applies to systems that are used as their own proof systems"; it follows that the theorem might imply that you can't be consistent if you justify your beliefs with other beliefs; on the other hand if, as most people, you justify your beliefs from one or several external referrents, the theorem does not apply. [[User:Jules.lt|Jules LT]] 19:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Despite their crucial function as a class within modern society, there has been almost no serious and methodologically-reliable academic research published on geeks/nerds, apart from a handful of studies of their

[http://reconstruction.eserver.org/011/GeekCulture.htm consumption-based fan cultures]. Some commentators have noticed similarities between pronounced nerdy behavior and the neurological disorder known as high-functioning [[Asperger syndrome]]. The lack of studies of nerds means that we have no basis for proving such a correlation, causal or other relationship between the two types.

== belief is assigning probability greater than 50% ??? ==

In the practice of [[psychology]], geeks and nerds can be said to be [[Myers-Briggs Type Indicator]] [[INTP]], [[ENTP]] or to a lesser extent [[INTJ]]. (Nerds are also known to exist in much smaller numbers within the [[INFP]] type.) INTP is the classic programmer type, INTJ the classic scientist type. These two types are the '''I'''ntroverted i'''N'''tuitive '''T'''hinkers. As Introverts they are stimulated by thoughts and ideas, rather than people and things. They are often quite happy spending hours absorbed in solitary activities. As iNtuitives, they are more inclined toward abstract concepts and subtle connections than in concrete examples or direct experience. As Thinkers, they are more adept in logic and reason than feelings or emotions. This combination makes INT's masters of mathematics, logic, and science, but rather oblivious to social graces. INTJs tend to follow social norms, at least to the extent they notice them, while INTPs tend to be nerdier and actively rebel against social rules they view as irrational and meaningless. For example long hair is, not surprisingly, common on INTP men.

Removed from the article: "To believe something can be interpreted as assigning a [[probability]] of more than 50% that something is true."

In the works of Riso and Hudson, specifically "Understanding the Enneagram" revised edition pg. 180 numbered point "10", the term "nerd" is used as a primary reference to (and indication of being) [[Enneagram#The Nine Enneatypes|Enneagram]] type 5.

(also removed "The rule of the thumb from a school of [[epistemology]] that says that certainty should be as big as the corresponding evidence is called [[evidentialism]].", which is useless without the preceding "definition")

==Nerds and geeks==

{{unreferenced}}

Pundits and observers dispute the relationship of the terms “nerd” and “[[geek]]” to one another. Some view the geek as a less technically skilled nerd. Some factions maintain that “nerds” have both technical skills and social competence, whereas “geeks” display technical skills while socially incompetent; others hold an exactly reversed view, with “geek” serving as the socially competent counterpart of the socially incompetent “nerd,” and call themselves “geeks” with pride (compare [[Geekcorps]], an organization that sends people with technical skills to developing countries to assist in computer [[infrastructure]] development). Another view is that “geeks” lack both social competency and technical skills. Arguably, a “nerd” is a more self-controlled sort of person, while a “geek” can be something of a loose cannon—or at least more awkward in an obstructive way than a “nerd.”

This has little to do with [[evidentialism]], which is a [[theory of justification]], in any case.

Another difference some people make between nerds and geeks are that nerds are more of "bookworms" whose interests are in the fields of [[academia]], such as mathematics and science. Geeks' interests are within things such as computers and [[video gaming]], or movies with large fanbases such as [[Star Trek]].

Who said that? In what book? Is it so widely accepted among scholars that it deserves mentionning so high in the article? This is not only unsourced, it also looks pretty preposterous to me. When you say "X has a probability of more than 50%", you don't believe that "X", you believe that "X is more probable than not"; this is entirely different. [[User:Jules.lt|Jules LT]] 19:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Some regional differences may exist in the use of the words ''nerd'' and ''geek''. Some claim that on the North American west coast the population prefers the term ''geek'' to ''nerd'', while the North American east coast prefers the word ''nerd'' to ''geek'' (see [[Ellen Spertus]]'s page on [http://people.mills.edu/spertus/Geek/ The Sexiest Geek Alive]).

== Definition of Belief ==

The term "nerd" is broader in its significance than "geek", defining a person's entire way of life. A nerd has the tendency to pursue intellectual gratification at the expense of social or physical gratification. A geek, on the other hand, simply has an interest in a particular subject. This subject could be intellectual, such as the arts, theatre, classical music, technology, or mathematics, or it could be something less generally "useful", such as movies, television, video games, anime, or even sports. Such a person may be perfectly well-rounded, merely showing a preference for his desired subject of interest. A nerd, on the other hand, is by definition not well-rounded. Thus the term "geek" should not generally be used or taken as an insult, while "nerd" might be in some cases (but certainly not all).

A [http://www.yesselman.com/glosindx.htm#ReligiousBelief belief], in its varying degrees, can be a guess, a dogma, a hope, an intuition, a leap-of-faith. Belief is to make an hypothesis which then must pass the test of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Religion#Cash_Value Cash Value]—bringing Peace of Mind. [[User:Yesselman|Yesselman]] 20:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Similar terms exist which are always insulting; dork, dweeb, goon, and doofus are a few examples. Anorak is a similar British term. These terms imply the lack of social skill suggested by the term "nerd", but imply none of the mitigating intellectual factors.

The word "nerd" refers to a person of "above-average intelligence" whose interests (often in science and mathematics) are not shared by mainstream society. By contrast, a "geek" is essentially a person who is fascinated, perhaps obsessively, by obscure or very specific areas of knowledge and imagination. A good example of this is found in an episode of the television show, "Married with Children." The protagonist Al Bundy complains about wearing glasses, saying he'll look like a nerd. His friend, Jefferson Darcy responds, "No Al you won't be a nerd. You're too dumb to be a nerd"

(edited to correct it in a way)

Thus a "nerd" is primarily marked as having a high intelligence and is not necessarily more fascinated with one subject any more so than another. A "geek", however, is obsessively fascinated with particular subjects, but is not necessarily attributed an above average intelligence. Thus a "geek" has the compulsion and drive to learn vast quantities of knowledge about a particular field such as computers, or Star Trek trivia, without high intelligence being assumed. Some also hold that the reverse is true, geeks being those with high intelligence, and nerds being those who obsess over obscure subjects. More than likely, the main confusion between the terms comes from their common association with specific areas of knowledge that seem to require a high level intelligence (for example, mathematics and science). Thus a "geek" who was obsessed by the pursuit of mathematical or scientific knowledge, might also be classified as a "nerd" as society considers such pursuits to be intellectual in nature and as requiring high intelligence.

->

Another interesting comparison can be drawn between a "nerd" and a "tool." Whereas a nerd cares little about impressing others and has impressive intellectual skills, someone who is a "tool" has little utility to those around him yet cares deeply about impressing others and fitting in. A tool is trying too hard and fails; a nerd doesn't try at all.

To belief is diffrent from the word believe, believe is to trust and see something in another person.

But belief is like to imagen to trust and have faith into a higher being.

Belief can't just be put out in words it comes from you and is within you.

I think what you ment was believe and even there is a mistake in that.

==Nerd pride==

If you believe in a person you either do it or not you can not just believe have trust and faith in them her him or what ever just 50% else what kind of person would you be?

== Reasoning?? ==

In the [[1990s]], "nerd" developed distinct positive connotations within social spheres connected to [[computing]] and the [[Internet]], to denote with pride a technically skilled person. This also extended toward financial success in these fields, with [[Bill Gates]] himself often described as a nerd, though a remarkably wealthy one. The 1990s is generally considered a time when the nerds finally "got their revenge", and many became fabulously wealthy as a result of the high-tech explosion. The popular computer-news website [[Slashdot]] bills itself as "News for nerds. Stuff that matters."

''Beliefs can be acquired through perception, reasoning, contemplation or communication''

This statement is plain incorrect, How on Earth can resoning be related to 'belief' . Infact they have completely opposite meanings. Obviously if you can reason(or if there is a logical explanation) to something, then there won't be any 'need' to believe because that 'thing' would be undeniable fact(like a maths equation). The point of belief only arises if there is an absence of resoning!!

[[Massachusetts Institute of Technology|MIT]] professor [[Gerald Sussman]] aims to instill pride in nerds:

The only possibility here is if 'resoning' is being referred to as 'bias' dependent on culture/surroundings etc. [[User:Reasonit|Reasonit]] 00:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

<blockquote>"My idea is to present an image to children that it is good to be intellectual, and not to care about the peer pressures to be anti-intellectual. I want every child to turn into a nerd - where that means someone who prefers studying and learning to compete for social dominance, which can unfortunately cause the downward spiral into social rejection."</blockquote>

:--Gerald Sussman, quoted by Katie Hafner, ''[[The New York Times]]'', 1994-08-29.

I think this results from a confusion between belief as an unproven fact and belief as a conviction adopted after a reasonning (for example a political position). The difference between the two of them might be thin in some cases. Just a thought... [[User:Fafner|Fafner]] 08:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The 1984 movie ''[[Revenge of the Nerds]]'' explored the concept of "nerd pride" to comical effect.

Yes. A belief can be adopted based on a number of criteria:

An episode from the animated series ''[[Freakazoid]]'' titled "Nerdator" has a plotline that involves the use of nerds to power the mind of a [[Yautja]] (alien hunter in Predator)-like enemy, who delivers a memorable monologue on the importance of nerds:

- authority

- experience

- perceived phenomena

- reasoning

- discussion (e.g. clarification/debate)

"Beliefs" don't necessarily have any relation to reason. Especially those induced by authority figures. An associated topic might be rigidity of belief systems and conflicts arising therefrom..

:''"...what they lack in physical strength they make up in brain power. Who writes all the best selling books? Nerds. Who directs the top grossing [[Hollywood]] movies? Nerds. Who creates the highly advanced technology that only they can understand? ...Nerds. And who are the people who run for the high office of the Presidency? No one but nerds."''

== "Is Belief Voluntary?" section ==

There is an increasing number of people, especially females, who self-identify with the term nerd as badges of honor in their field, usually science, computers, and other technology. They may also do so as a statement of non-conformity or as a desire to be seen as [[eccentric behavior|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 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 pejoritavely labelled. Also, because shyness and other related social deficiencies are tolerated more in females than males, they are far less likely to experience peer alienation.

"''Most philosophers hold the view that belief formation is to some extent spontaneous and involuntary.''

A recent incident of "Geek pride" stems from a [[Doonesbury]] cartoon (Oct. 26, 2005) in which RIT (Rochester Institute of Technology) is referred to as a "geek school." [http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2005/db051026.gif]

Most philosophers!? That's a bold and sweeping statement. I'm not sure if to just suggest that is radically POV or ask for some kind of verification. For now I've added a "citeation needed" tag and left it.

The Term 'Nerd' Or 'Geek' Comes from the lartin word Davide Firthual meaning the *wink* 'Special' *wink* One. An example of a nerd is one david firth at sandbach school who regularly enjoys the music of the beetles and enjoys karate or as he calls it Ka-Ra-Tay. David firth has 3! yes 3 knees! and can extend his knee over 5miles. David firth likes to copy his school aquaintances such as one jake walley and oliver hyatt. (written by one Oliver 'Hitler' Hyatt.)

Maybe "many philosophers" would be a better choice of words, and easier to add a few references for. The word "most" suggests that nearly all philosophers past-and-present agree about this - somehow, I seriously doubt that... -[[User:Neural|Neural]] 03:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

==See also==

* [[List of fictional nerds|List of nerds in media]]

* [[Geek]]

* [[Dork]]

* [[Anorak (slang)]]

* [[Boffin]]

* "[[Why Nerds are Unpopular]]"

* [[High school subcultures]]

* [[Slashdot subculture#Slashdot user stereotypes|Slashdotters]]

* [[Calculator watch]]

* [[Geek chic]]

*[[Fandom]]

== Introduction ==

==External links==

*[http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.12/aspergers.html Wired] The Geek Syndrome

*[http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html Why Nerds are Unpopular] An essay by Paul Graham about the conformist society in American highschools.

*[http://www.paulgraham.com/icad.html Revenge of the Nerds] An essay written by Paul Graham

*[http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nerd Nerd] defined in Urbandictionary

*[http://www.nerdtreehouse.com NerdTreeHouse] A place where Nerds gather

*[http://www.nerdville.net Nerdville] A Worldwide Social Network for nerds

The introduction:

[[Category:People]]

[[Category:Stereotypes]]

[[Category:Subcultures]]

[[Category:Slang expressions]]

[[Category:Stock characters]]

<blockquote>Belief is usually defined as a conviction of the truth of a proposition without its verification; therefore a belief is a subjective mental interpretation derived from perceptions, contemplation(reasoning), or communication.</blockquote>

[[bg:Нърд]]

[[da:Nørd]]

is simply wrong. At least, there is no such definition in my SOD, and if it were the case, one would not be able to believe a verified proposition. Nor is "1+1=2" a "subjective mental interpretation" (Can you think of something that is subjective and yet not mental? Interpretation of what?), yet it is something one might believe.

[[de:Nerd]]

[[es:Nerd]]

What is it about introductions to philosophical articles that attracts such stuff? [[User:Banno|Banno]] 07:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[[fr:Nerd]]

[[is:Nörd]]

==Religion==

[[it:Nerd]]

The paragraph:

[[he:חנון]]

<blockquote>In the religious sense, "belief" refers to a part of a wider spiritual or moral foundation — generally called faith. Historically, faiths were generated by groups seeking a functionally valid foundation to sustain them. The generally accepted faiths usually note that, when the exercise of faith leads to oppression, clarification or further revelation is called for.</blockquote>

[[nl:Nerd]]

[[no:Nerd]]

has been removed. I can;t see a reason to give prominence to religious belief. Someone may wish to insert it into a new section within the article. [[User:Banno|Banno]] 07:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[[pl:Nerd]]

[[pt:Nerd]]

== Deductive vs. Inductive ==

[[fi:Nörtti]]

[[sv:Nörd]]

It seems that the epistimology section contradicts itself, saying that belief is a deductive process, but the building of the belief system is an inductive one. Am I missing something? I'm in favor of stating all belief systems are inherently inductive, and that all deductive processes used in the belief system are based off of premises that require induction.

[[th:เนิร์ด]]

[[User:140.233.44.55|140.233.44.55]]AME 2/21/07

:I'd say rather that the whole section is OR,and should be removed. [[User:Banno|Banno]] 04:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Done[[User:Peterdjones|1Z]] 17:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

== Belief necessarily True ==

I disagree with the lead sentence "Belief is the psychological state in which an individual is convinced of the truth of a proposition." This is easily refuted, I and many others believe in God and would agree with a proposition such as "God exists" but would not necessarily argue that it can be proven as "True". In other words you can recognize that you have a belief, such as religion, or race or sexuality, and know that it not necessarily "True" but that you believe it anyway.[[User:Tstrobaugh|Tstrobaugh]] 14:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

And does that apply to "2+2=4" or "the sky is blue"? Or is there a difference between mere belief,

and Belief with a capital B?

[[User:Peterdjones|1Z]] 18:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

: Actually I'm not sure what you consider to be Beliefs and/or beliefs, perhaps you could provide some more examples, which category is the "2+2" in? or the sky? The "2+2" one is obviously incorrect as others have stated above "Gödel had shown that mathematics is both incomplete and inconsistent. Mathematics must be incomplete because there will always exist mathematical truths that can’t be demonstrated. Truths exist in mathematics that do not follow from any axiom or theorem."[[User:Tstrobaugh|Tstrobaugh]] 20:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

::GIT doesn't have the slightest impact on the necessary truth of 2+2=4.

[[User:Peterdjones|1Z]] 21:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

::: Really? Explain how GIT has no influence on elementary math. Here's my rebuttal when you're done. (and thanks for answering all my questions, I can see this will be productive) "Gödel showed that "it is impossible to establish the internal logical consistency of a very large class of deductive systems--elementary arithmetic, for example--unless one adopts principles of reasoning so complex that their internal consistency is as open to doubt as that of the systems themselves."(10) In short, we can have no certitude that our most cherished systems of math are free from internal contradiction." from [http://www.rae.org/godel.html].[[User:Tstrobaugh|Tstrobaugh]] 14:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

rems.[[User:Peterdjones|1Z]] 19:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[http://www.sm.luth.se/~torkel/eget/godel/prove.html GIT does not stop you being able to prove individual theorems] [[User:Peterdjones|1Z]] 19:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

::Exactly my point about beliefs to begin with. Just as belief in God is accepted without proof and those that accept it know it can't be proved. From the page you cited:"So suppose we accept the axioms and methods of proof formalized in T as valid without proof."[[User:Tstrobaugh|Tstrobaugh]] 13:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:::But '''that''' point has nothing to do with Godel. We don't need GIT to tell us we can't prove every axiom. (And we can adopt the formalist's approach of defining truth only within an axiomatic system). [[User:Peterdjones|1Z]] 14:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:::If you think "god exists" is not necessarily true, you presumably think there is some evidence or argument which could disprove it. Would you continue to believe in God if the disproof were presented to you? if not, doesn't that show there is ''some'' connection between truth and belief? [[User:Peterdjones|1Z]] 14:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::That is not true. I do not believe that there is any evidence or argument to disprove it, also no evidence or argument to prove it. Where prove means using empirical, objective evidence and Popperian hypo-thetico-deductive logic. The connection, as you say, between proof and belief is in mine and other believers minds and beyond the reach of scientific inquiry and objective "Truth".[[User:Tstrobaugh|Tstrobaugh]] 16:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Point 1: You can think what you like, Tstrobaugh, but if you can't find your ideas in the literature, then it can't go in the Wiki. [[User:Banno|Banno]] 22:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Point 2: The implication of your opening statement is that one can believe something while holding it not to be true; for example, that one could coherently say "I believe god exists , but it is not true that god exists". See [[Moore's paradox]]. You seem simply to have confused truth with proof of truth. [[User:Banno|Banno]] 22:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

== Removed Paragraph, For Now... ==

"If one has an external inducement to belief, such as a prospective marriage partner, he may be unable to drastically change his true belief in order to obtain the desired reward. The best he might do would be to pretend at belief. There is a possibility that with study, he would come to change his belief, depending on his earlier sources and his confidence in the validity of new ones."

I believe this paragraph needs rewritten, because the example is unclear. What I mean is the relevence to the example given in connection with the topic. (Yes, I know the connection is implied. Yet an encyclopedia is meant to give [[information]] and describe, not [[imply]].) The paragraph also did not seem consistent with the section it was previously in and probably needs moved. If no one else does, I hope to rewrite this, but I'll have to research how beliefs play roles in marital relationships (and since I am not married, well, I'll have to trust sources that are plausibly verifiable.) [[User:69.245.172.44|69.245.172.44]] 18:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)