when did being a nerd become a bad thing because looking back

>because looking back at the past the vast majority of military and political leaders were what we would call nerds

How, exactly? Or are you saying "educated" or "intelligent" is a direct equivalent to "nerdy"?

The term 'nerd' also has associations with a lack of social (and often physical) skills, not just being smart or studious.

>>1874728
Socially awkward people were never liked.

>>1874741
>The term 'nerd' also has associations with a lack of social (and often physical) skills, not just being smart or studious.
That may actually be the case but the term is generally applied, especially in rural America/ the deep south areas, to any person, socially competent or not, that has interest outside of sports, booze, and cunt.

People wonder why so many Americans think the sun revolves around the earth when the nation's cripplingly anti-intellectual.

>>1874728
>looking back at the past the vast majority of military and political leaders were what we would call nerds
No, most of them were in fact not weak, autistic, developmentally stunted faggots like you OP.

>>1874757
tons of great conquerors come off as having autism and many of them were physically puny

see alexander the great, every roman ever and napoleon/ hitler

the only reason autism is a thing these days is that the rules of social conduct are less obvious

>>1874756
It's really just the fucking south. If we hadn't fucked up reconstruction then maybe most of the country would be smarter.

>>1874770

>and many of them were physically puny

Napoleon was quite average in height for his time, Plutarch describes Alexander the Great had a powerful physique and the guy fucking personally lead in battle. The Romans considered the Gauls taller than them according to Caesar's account but even in that case their society was far from fucking 'nerdy.' Hitler was pretty fucking charismatic and not that much of an intellectual anyway, I'd hardly characterize him as a "nerd"

You're really scraping for it here, anon.

>>1874752
This.

They're just more commonplace now because introverted kids have more to satisfy there minds alone at home and aren't naturally forced to socialise with their peers.

The sexual revolution deserves a mention as well. That's why it actually became bad to be a nerd. Before you probably did OK regardless.

>>1874807

Personally leading in battle doesn't require being some hulking great brute. Richard III's skeleton shows he was scrawny and increasingly crippled, but he was still a capable commander in the thick of multiple battles.

>>1874807
>Napoleon was quite average in height for his time
average for a peasant/ soldier, short compared to his peers and also skinny as shit
>Plutarch describes Alexander the Great had a powerful physique and the guy fucking personally lead in battle
he was still puny and short compared to his peers
>The Romans considered the Gauls taller than them according to Caesar's account but even in that case their society was far from fucking 'nerdy.
you admit they were puny then right, like 5'6" was considered average
> Hitler was pretty fucking charismatic and not that much of an intellectual anyway, I'd hardly characterize him as a "nerd"
read the young hitler i knew or anything about hitler's early life

>>1874825

In any case, engaging in battle is what I'd qualify as a very strong equivalent to "athleticism" which is already contrary to the nerd stereotype. It'd be like saying "yeah sure Alexander was a star quarterback who won the championship for his team but what a scrawny fucking geek."

Not to mention the guy was a fratboy-tier hard drinking hedonist with his group of bros.

>>1874836

So let me get this straight, your sole criteria for being a nerd has now changed to "they're smaller than average" which, in each case, was also false because they were average.

I know you desperately want to throw yourself in the same lot as Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar and Adolf Hitler but being a frail little socially awkward shit isn't the qualifier for "great man of history".

>>1874841
he engaged in battle on horseback which doesn't require athleticism

by that logic the mongols and huns were jocks
>>1874850
> was also false because they were average
if you'd read my post you would see that they weren't average compared to the people they fought and even some of the people they fought alongside
> being a frail little socially awkward shit isn't the qualifier for "great man of history".
no but "being socially awkward and relatively puny are common traits of great men" is a reasonable conclusion to draw

>>1874869
>he engaged in battle on horseback which doesn't require athleticism

Are you fucking serious right now?

>if you'd read my post you would see that they weren't average compared to the people they fought and even some of the people they fought alongside

>being socially awkward and relatively puny are common traits of great men

Only scratch the "socially awkward" and I'll concede you you "a tiny bit shorter than an average soldier (I'd still like to see some citations on the height of an average soldier in Alexander's time without you having to bring up "b-but that 7 foot Indian king") but still quite average compared to their contemporaries"

Also there are no actual primary sources for the height of Julius Caesar and the best we have is an account in the gallic wars going "lol gauls are super tall bro", and I wouldn't put it past Caesar to say he fought 50 foot giants if he thought it'd impress somebody in Rome.

>>1874884
>Are you fucking serious right now?
yes, riding a horse is not hard compared to marching in a phalanx
> "a tiny bit shorter than an average soldier (I'd still like to see some citations on the height of an average soldier in Alexander's time without you having to bring up "b-but that 7 foot Indian king") but still quite average compared to their contemporaries"
the thing with the persian queen mother

>average compared to their contemporaries
ok maybe most of their contemporaries were also nerds
>I wouldn't put it past Caesar to say he fought 50 foot giants if he thought it'd impress somebody in Rome.
this is conspiracy theory tier shit

File: 1421469787161.png (386KB, 667x670px) Image search: [Google]

386KB, 667x670px

>>1874927

>ok maybe most of their contemporaries were also nerds

Ok, anon, you win.

Everyone before the 20th century were nerds, since humans rarely passed 5'6 on average until very recently.

So you're right. History's greatest men, history's worst villains, history's dirt farmers, history's prostitutes, all of them nerds. Pocket-protector, duct-taped glasses, short, scrawny nerds. Rejoice, for you are in esteemed and extensive company.

>>1874940
>all of them nerds
well that's not true because many leaders, peasants and soldiers were what we would call jocks
>since humans rarely passed 5'6 on average until very recently
>on average
there were still many people taller than 5' 6"

File: Le scholar man.jpg (39KB, 367x501px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 367x501px

>>1874728
None of those people could be called Nerds though. A lot of military and political leaders have good social skills.

Even Imperial China- land of the Scholar-Bureaucrat Gentry where everyone is obsessed with academics- the scholar bureaucrats were a bunch of charismatic assholes who didn't neglect their social lives, or physical fitness. Hell when they were young they walked around with swords and got into duels, and China's military officers are basically scholar-bureaucrats with military training.

>>1874756
I'm sorry you got got bullied in school, anon. Maybe you should have tried being less of a fucking nerd.

>>1874796
The South being fucked up isn't entirely the Reconstruction's fault

OP do you realize that to even exist in the ancient world, even France a couple hundred years ago, would be way more strenuous physically than nowadays?

>>1874990
>would be way more strenuous physically than nowadays?
that's more a question of endurance than strength, an ability to survive on less food, to avoid labour and steal from your peers

i mean maybe if you were a manual labourer you'd need to be strong, but something like 30% of the underclass was unemployed and the army mostly just involved marching

>>1874947
>well that's not true because many leaders, peasants and soldiers were what we would call jocks

You literally said in the OP that "a vast majority of military and political leaders were what we would call nerds"

Can we just OP was a fag again, and let this thread die?

>>1874998
ok "a vast majority of military and political leaders were what we would call nerds but many of them were what we would call jocks"

learn how words work

File: 1425781507462.jpg (61KB, 500x661px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 500x661px

OP, can you please reply to this post with your full criteria for what makes somebody a nerd and what makes somebody a jock?

What is your metric for these terms? You're all over the fucking place with your arguments. Once we understand what you mean by "nerd" your question can be addressed.

>>1875003
agree*

>>1874955
>ah hates 'em booklearning tahps
>t. skeeter

>>1875003
>>1875008
suck my dick this is a historically relevant discussion
>>1875005
nerd: weak manlet with high intelligence
jock: strong lanklet with low intelligence

File: 1427250937578.jpg (138KB, 970x582px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 970x582px

>>1875018

So you assert that a majority of military and political leaders historically were weak lanklets with high intelligence. Substantiate your claim. Namely the weak lanklet part. Keep in mind - relative to their local contemporaries. It's completely irrelevant if they were weak relative to people they never encountered due to geographical or time distance.

Primary sources preferred, but you've been talking straight out your ass all thread so even a relatively valid secondary source wouldn't hurt.

>>1875018

Also this (retardedly simplistic) criteria leaves no accounting for social ability, which is a major element of the nerd stereotype.

Charismatic intelligent people do just fine in any society, modern ones included.

>>1875031
>So you assert that a majority of military and political leaders historically were weak lanklets with high intelligence.
manlets you dip
>Keep in mind - relative to their local contemporaries.
no fuck off we're using the logic from here
>>1874940
>Primary sources preferred, but you've been talking straight out your ass all thread so even a relatively valid secondary source wouldn't hurt.
every contemporary description of napoleon ever
the young hitler i knew
timur the great amir
>>1875035
>social ability
the point is that social ability didn't matter as much in the past because etiquette and social rank restricted what you could and couldn't do; essentially context matters

hitler/ napoleon had poor social skills inj polite company but they were obviously charismatic and intelligent when speaking to their followers

>>1875056
>no fuck off we're using the logic from here
That was a sarcastic post, anon.

>>1875056
>hitler/ napoleon had poor social skills inj polite company

Is there any proof of this?

Hitler is renowned for his charisma and orating ability. His close followers loved him and described him as charming.

Napoleon was socially awkward in school but made an effort to improve his social skills later in life. He was able to remember the name of every person he ever met and important details about them, he could make small talk with people he had only once years ago and remember what they had discussed.

>"That's right, little nerds, we used to be kings and shit. We ruled countries and led armies and went all around the world spreading our technology. We used the power of our minds to move nations into action and we even invented space travel. I am not jesting with you!"
>"Well what in tarnation happened, daddy? Why are we living in some low middle class bungalow while the guy who was lowest in your batch is now a senator and mamma's new special friend, Chad, now a CEO?"
"Because those motherloving Jocks came and oppressed us and demeaned our intellect over social skills and charisma. Now get your High IQ posteriors to bed."

>>1875106
I'd have to say Hitler was really a fucking loser and a nerd
By 30 he was:
>Still Virgin.
>No income and mooched from his friend.
>Angry white boy.

>>1875106
>Is there any proof of this?
read the sources i cited
>>1875111
but we literally were kings n shiet

>>1875122
He wasn't a virgin. He had Jean-Marie Loret by that time. He was still a loser though.

>>1875122
So he was a NEET.

>>1875136
he literally was

also he had an imaginary relationship with a girl he never talked to

Nerds are looked down upon because they only know how to operate within their certain intellectual domain. Put them out of this domain and they're clueless

This is why people look down upon them, because they notoriously suck at improvisation and dealing with new and unknown situations, and life is full of those, life doesn't come with a manual that you can memorize completely in your head, and that's a pretty big problem when you're only really good at repeating what's been given to you

>>1875143
>Nerds are looked down upon because they only know how to operate within their certain intellectual domain. Put them out of this domain and they're clueless
that's pretty much napoleon explained, and he still did alright

turns out "conquer everything" is a pretty valid strategy until it isn't

>>1874728

The "geek/nerd" identity was created as a marketing tool.

>>1874796

Those statistics for the South are bad because of Black people. Whether it's culture or genetic or both, black people don't score as highly on the kinds of exams or tests we use to quantify these things.

>People think being smart is the only quality needed to be an outstanding leader
>Not only that these same people think you can be physically smaller and weaker than others as long as you're intelligent
>Not only that but you can be socially awkward too as long as you're smart you can be a good leader


A good leader needs charisma. Its probably the most important asset any leader could have.

Intelligence in civil and military matters can be provided by followers.

>>1875158
This isn't true though. White people in the rust belt are also retarded.

ITT: people discussing what makes a nerd while having different perspectives and definitions of a nerd.

I think OP means it in the sense of pursuing intellectual interest. I've read that both Alexander and Napoleon were avid readers, and that Napoleon was considered by his peers an odd-ball.

I personally consider a nerd to be inseparable from a love of objects, especially technology, and having a mechanistic and reductionistic view of things. Someone like Descartes and Tesla I would consider the proto-nerd.

I personally have a negative view of nerds for some of the above reasons. That doesn't apply to Tesla however, but very much Descartes even if he was a brilliant mathematican.

Napoleon and Alexander I would more likely associate with "intellectually gifted" if you read the traits of that. But I have some doubts about the credibility of "intellectual giftedness".

>>1875468
>But I have some doubts about the credibility of "intellectual giftedness".
Let me explain this before any misconceptions. I am skeptical of the traits associated with high IQ what intellectual giftedness really is about.
Since the traits have a high astrology aspect to it, almost anyone can find themselves in these supposed charasteristics.

>>1874728
Nerds really only become a thing after Star Trek, so they've always been terrible.

>>1874807
hitler was a fucking autist

>>1874728

A nerd is someone with zero social skills. Look at the smartest and most popular kids back in high school. They were all smart and they had a good amount of social skills

>>1877173
No, not really.

File: 1446083059788.jpg (12KB, 201x262px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 201x262px

>I subscribe to the idea of the alpha/beta dichotomy

>>1877180

Yeah really. All the people that thought they were smarter than the "jocks" were dumb as fuck in reality

>>1877180
Everyone spot the misunderstood "genius" who failed algebra II

>>1877173

>Look at the smartest and most popular kids back in high school. They were all smart and they had a good amount of social skills

At my high school, the popular kids got very good grades, played sports, and volunteered on their free time. They were objectively good people.

>>1877300

Exactly my point

>>1874728
nerds are actually normies now.

>>1877173
>A nerd is someone with zero social skills.

As I recall, the precise definition isn't universally agreed upon. In a general sense a nerd is someone obsessed with something fairly technical, whereas a geek is someone loosely obsessed with a bunch of different things that are just considered "geeky."

Social skills may or may not be present.

>>1877403

A smart person with social skills is never labeled a nerd

>>1874728
>being socially inept
>good thing
and keep this in mind: if you're aspiring to be a military or political leader, having good social abilities is a must.

>>1877506
But that's not the same as being a nerd. As I said, a nerd is obsessed about something fairly technical. Someone with social skills might have enough awareness to not blather on about programming, or amateur electronics work, or math, or analytic philosophy or something, but they'd probably get labeled a nerd if the full scope and depth of their obsession were known by someone.

>>1877527

>if you're aspiring to do anything at all in life, having good social abilities is a must.

Fixed it.

>>1874728

classes mixing together in the usa. Upper class anglo kids going to school/living with working class irish for example.

>>1877534
This. Most historically influential people were nerds to a degree, and from what I've gathered being a nerd was more acceptable back in the day than it was 10 years ago.

But more recently being obsessed about a certain topic has become more acceptable again

>>1874770

>every roman ever

Nigga what the fuck. The empire and republic were both defined by political leaders who were as good in combat as they were debating in the forum.

Before the other 60 senators jumped on Julius Cesar he caught and deflected a blade that was coming from behind him.

There are some sickly or "nerdy" famous Romans (Augustus being the former and Cicero being the latter), but they were always mocked or berated for their lack of physical prowess or cowardice.