[motters]

I thought this article was a rather silly cliche. Nerd cave?

Often so-called "nerds" are just smart people working on projects which are too advanced or too abstract for most people to grok. And no, it's not always about computers either. You can find the same intellectual focus amongst many people - architects, surgeons, lawyers, artists, and so on.

[RiderOfGiraffes]

It sounds to me like you are not, and do not know, any true "nerds." This article rang so many bells with me, my wife, my colleagues at work, and others here on HN, that it seems you have not experienced "nerd-dom".

The "nerd cave" takes many forms, but for those of us who know many nerds it is instantly recognisable. Yes, there are non-computer nerds, but they have equivalent forms. Yes, I know a surgeon and several artists who don't (significantly) use computers, and some of them exhibit most of the characteristics described. The description is close enough that already I've been thanked by a husband who now better understands his artist-nerd wife.

Perhaps you are unable to match the description given against a superficially different instance, or perhaps you really just don't know any nerds, but I believe you are mistaken.

If you believe the article to be silly, then perhaps you should just be relieved that you aren't a nerd.

[pushingbits]

Of course all true Scotsmen... errr... I mean all true nerds are exactly like the article describes.

This is really just semantics. Your definition of "nerd" apparently includes a dorkiness clause and a set of very specific idiosyncrasies. For me, a nerd is just someone who's extremely competent (or trying hard to become extremely competent) at some brainy craft.

[RiderOfGiraffes]

Hmm. My usage, and that of my colleagues, certainly conforms to the description given. As does the version on WikiPedia (fount of all knowledge (remove tongue from cheek)) and other on-line dictionaries.

Perhaps it doesn't match your meaning, but it doesn't mean either of us is right. Or wrong. The article is describing a stereotype, giving it a label, and it happens to match very closely with people I know. And me.

Call it what you will. Perhaps "Geek" more closely fits with your model:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerd

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geek

[pushingbits]

Here's a thought experiment. Take Donald Knuth, assume that he doesn't have a cave, has great social skills and no control issues. Would you consider him a nerd?

Instinctively, I would say yes.

The essence is being competent. All those other things are just side effects. Very common side effects, which is why they became part of the stereotype, but still optional.

[RiderOfGiraffes]

I know people who are as brilliant, productive and esoteric as Don, and who don't have a cave, and do have great social skills, and don't have control issues, and no, I wouldn't call them nerds.

In fact, I know Don Knuth peripherally, and I don't think he is a nerd.

<shrug>

The baggage you have for the word "nerd" is different from mine. The article is definitely describing mine. In essence you said it earlier: your semantics don't match mine. They obviously don't match the author's either. Or my wife's. Or my colleagues'.