[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'.