Question from a noob.

[MisterShadow]

What's the difference in this community between any other community? By that, I mean the people in this community. What's different about you guys? I'm struggling to see the difference between individuals. Yes, there's a difference in the goals of this community than others, just as there are differences in likes and dislikes within every community. My question isn't about that. Earlier today, I was actually attacked by an alleged nerd fighter for the idea that art/creative thought should be a free flowing thing that is not bound by the amount of money people have. Not that an individual equals the whole, but what's different with you and hipsters? What's different between you and book clubs? What's different between you and (dare I say it?!?) jocks? Hank made a video which linked to a Dan Brown video, which was talking about a TED Conference video on tribes. Hank made the assertion that nerd fighters are a level 4 tribe. Why?

[Neiloy Mukerjee]

I'm not the most experienced nerdfighter, but I've tossed around with this question a bit, so I figure I'll throw my ideas up and see what sticks.

One big difference I notice is also one that renders a number of your questions a little obscure, and that is that this community ("Nerdfighteria") is not necessarily exclusive of others. Being a nerdfighter isn't distinct from being a hipster or a member of a book club or a jock - rather, it seems to be a disregard for those labels. I think Hank put it best when he said that a nerdfighter is someone who seeks to understand people as they want to be understood: complexly, and with depth. [I can't cite the exact source of this statement, but I'm relatively certain that I didn't dream it, and on the off-chance that I did, I have a rather eloquent subconscious.]

Falling strictly within some of the communities you've described is allowing oneself to be perceived one-dimensionally, whereas this community centers around the idea that every person is multi-dimensional and that it's that very quality that needs to be realized in order to improve the world in any way possible - via art, technology, philosophy, medicine, or anything else. This is exemplified in the multitude of discussions that take place on this website alone, which cover everything from current events to literature to community service to general entertainment.

As for you being attacked in argument earlier, I'm not in much position to comment too far without knowing all the details, but one notion that comes to mind is the difference between attacking an idea and attacking the person who expresses the idea. I'm not sure if that applies to your situation, but it's a thought, and I'm interested in thinking about what you think of this thought.

[MisterShadow]

Sorry it took so long to get back to you, but I forgot which fake e-mail address I used to sign up to these forums.

"I think Hank put it best when he said that a nerdfighter is someone who seeks to understand people as they want to be understood: complexly, and with depth"

So, about what percentage of people in the community do you feel are what they claim?

"Falling strictly within some of the communities you've described is allowing oneself to be perceived one-dimensionally"

I don't feel that someone calling themselves by a certain label means that they only have that aspect to their personality. I don't think that anyone actually feels that way except for the people who are looking at others and labeling them as such. So, my understanding of this is that there is no real nerdfighter "group". A nerdfighter is just a person who realizes that other people are like yourself and have many facets to their personality. Correct?

It just seems odd to me that you would label yourself a nerdfighter because of your realization that labels don't and shouldn't restrict someone to one set of being. Unless you're not really calling the "nerdfighter" tag a label, but instead calling it a level of enlightenment in a way... but I may be putting too much thought in the name, as I am one to do.

"the difference between attacking an idea and attacking the person who expresses the idea"

If you gave me your opinion on something and I said "Your opinion is stupid" without giving any rational reasoning or at least waiting for you to explain your thought process, how would you take it?

I'm all for debate, but calling someone's opinion "stupid" is an attack on that person, not the opinion.