By: Jason Tocci

Jason Tocci — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 07:46:55 +0000

Maybe I’ll blog about this at length more later, but my short answer for now is that I do think people find personal and social meaning in alternate status hierarchies, but I don’t think this replaces more commonly understood hierarchies for most people. Your average, run-of-the-mill geek needs to exist in the “real world” for a decent amount of the time. While s/he may recognize niche status systems (e.g., being really good at Halo), that person may still be acutely sensitive toward (and even resentful of) the status system maintained by “the mainstream.” For this reason (and my desire to avoid overuse the way we’ve done with “ADD”), I resist the Asperger’s comparison.
Yes, the “geek hierarchy” seems surprisingly accurate based on my conversations with people, but status systems like this still tend to relate back to more commonly accepted status systems. Even the “geek hierarchy” places the professional (and therefore “mature”) geeks at the top, with the most juvenile stuff closer to the bottom. And while this geek hierarchy doesn’t include computer enthusiasts, “geek” didn’t really start to become “chic” until computer skill implied wealth, and I’ve certainly talked to people who seem to think that’s the only acceptably cool sort of geekiness.
I hope that made sense. Maybe I’ll make it make more sense later in a longer post, but thanks for getting the ball rolling (for me, anyway).

Comments on: alternate status hierarchies

By: Jason Tocci