Different Reasons for Studying for Nerds vs. Geeks

This is a share of a previous post on Google+ describing the difference in respective reasons that a nerd and a geek study.  It is based on article on Urban Dictionary entitled "Geek/Nerd Debate."

===== quoted portion follows immediately after this line =====
Just to set the record straight, there is a substantial difference between the respective reasons that a nerd and a geek studies.

A nerd studies because studying _per se_ is fun to that nerd.

A geek studies because the geek has an obsession with making other geeks who don't study look stupid, even if the studying itself may be painful.

The nerd usually winds up studying alone for several hours at a time until falling asleep.

The geek usually winds up studying somewhere where it is possible to communicate with other geeks for 15 minutes at a time, and then writing something to show off the knowledge gained to other geeks who don't know this knowledge for the express purpose of making those other geeks look and feel stupid, even if the studying itself may be painful.

A Haskellite nerd studies Haskell because studying Haskell itself is fun to that nerd.

A Haskellite geek studies Haskell because most other geeks do not know Haskell, and the more that the geek demonstrates knowledge of Haskell to those other ignorant geeks, the more that the geek can show off that knowledge to those other geeks.

The most significant difference occurs when the nerd/geek is alone.

When a nerd is alone, the nerd keeps studying because the studying itself is fun to that nerd.  The nerd usually has no motivation to talk with other nerds _per se_ because it is the studying itself that is fun, not showing off the knowledge gained to those other nerds, who are substantially irrelevant.

When a geek is alone, the geek usually pursues an obsession, which is usually not studying, but some form of recreation, such as watching _anime_ or playing some interactive form of entertainment.  The geek is motivated to talk with other geeks because it is not the studying itself that is fun, but showing off the knowledge gained to those other geeks, who are substantially relevant:  Those geeks must be made to look and feel as stupid as possible, and it is this process _per se_ that it fun.

Incidentally, I happen to be a geek.
===== quoted portion ends immediately before this line =====

Why I Am Cut-out for Computer Science

This is a share of a post on Google+ regarding the reason that Professor Drew V. McDermott's claim, "I don't think that you're cut-out for computer science," was actually false.

===== quoted portion follows immediately after this line =====
After thinking about the issue for approximately 28 years and 2 months, I think that I have finally come up with a valid argument to refute the substance of Professor Drew V. McDermott's claim, "I don't think that you're cut-out for computer science."

McDermott apparently failed to take account of the aspect that computer science includes computer architecture, and that I actually apparently did quite well on an examination in computer architecture in Professor Stanley C. Eisenstat's "Computer Science 323a: Introduction to Systems Programming (in C)" course in fall of 1993.

Since I passed that examination and did not experience any significant difficulties with its subject matter, it follows that it must be the case that I am cut-out for computer architecture. Now, computer architecture is a part of computer science, and it is possible to earn a doctorate-by-thesis-only in computer science by writing 3 research papers on computer architecture. Therefore, I must also be cut-out for computer science as well. Therefore, the substance of McDermott's claim must be false.

What McDermott should have claimed instead was, "I don't think that you're cut-out for either programming or discrete mathematics."

That is most definitely true; I usually catch a cold from prolonged programming, and get a severe migraine headache from prolonged writing of proofs in discrete mathematics (especially in discrete probability theory).

However, computer architecture requires neither programming nor discrete mathematics, and I have never experienced any difficulties in computer architecture (aside from extreme boredom with the subject; however, that does not count as being "not cut-out" for computer architecture).

The next time that I see Professor McDermott, I should correct his claim. I should tell him, "Professor McDermott, you were wrong to think that I was not 'cut-out' for computer science. I actually do quite well in computer architecture, which is a part of computer science, and for which it is possible to earn a doctorate-by-thesis-only in computer science. You should have said that you thought that I was not 'cut-out' for either programming or discrete mathematics, not computer science as a whole. You forgot to notice that computer architecture, which counts as computer science, does not require either programming or discrete mathematics."

Whew.

Now I might finally be able to forget about that most despicable and nasty subject, computer science, and move on to something more pleasant and enjoyable, such as haiku composition, without feeling stupid in front of Professor McDermott anymore. If he still claims that I am stupid because I am "not 'cut-out' for computer science," I'll just earn a doctorate-by-thesis-only in computer architecture, and shove it in his face when I see him the next time.
===== quoted portion ends immediately before this line =====