A New Classification System to Correctly Identify the "Nerd" Sub-Species

Although widely used in modern media, the term "Nerd" is nebulous and lacks definition. In order to use Nerd as a descriptor or as a sub-species classification for the species Homo Sapiens, criteria must be established to determine whether the term is applicable to the individual in question.

Currently, the sole criterion for determining the applicability of the term is that the person in question should have some sort of interest, hobby, or method of dress (Their "exuvia", if you will) that places them at odds with contemporary society. While this criterion reflects a certain inclusivity that would be admirable in realms other than the scientific, by nature classification schema must be exclusive and seek to limit the number of individuals from a significant population in order to clearly identify and address the particulars of that sub-species.

As this is the case, the goal of this paper is to establish better criteria based on empirical data to limit the field of individuals to the Homo Sapiens sub-species which is currently loosely classified as "Nerd". Additionally this paper will discuss potential alternate sub-species classifications which would better suit members of the population which self identify as "Nerds", but to not meet the criteria to be discussed.

The criteria for identifying "Nerds" are as follows:

1.) The individual in question must be either of above average intelligence or have grades superior to the population at any level of education (G.P.A. of 3.5 or above);
2.) The individual in question must consistently reject superstitions;
3.) The individual in question must not hesitate to pursue a scientific or mathematical approach to problem solving;
4.) the individual in question should always willingly accept additional data while formulating an opinion or deriving a solution to a problem;
5.) The individual in question must, when faced with overwhelming evidence, reject their previous understanding of that subject in favor of the understanding based on empirical data.

Note that the individual being observed must meet all five criteria in order for the term "Nerd" to be aptly applied. Self-identification without meeting this criteria is insufficient evidence to support classification. Also note that there are no physical characteristics that must be met, and that there are no mandatory realms of study in order for the term to be correctly applied. The following syllogism underlines the flawed logic of mandatory realms of study for classification in the Sub-Species "Nerd";

A. All Biologists are Nerds
B. Peter is a Biologist
C. Peter believes dinosaurs and humans co-existed, contrary to overwhelming evidence.
D. Peter is a Nerd.

As you can see, Peter cannot possibly be a nerd because Peter has failed to meet the criteria for the term, specifically criteria numbers 4 and 5, and possibly 3 as well depending on whether or not Peter has an underlying belief in the Creationism mythology. Peter may be better described as a "Pseudo-Nerd", a member of a group of persons which display intellectual or scientific leanings, but have failed to mature into a credible professionals in their chosen field because of flawed logic and inconsistently applied scientific principles.

Physical characteristics of the individual, such as height, weight, build, race, sex, method of dress, hair style or lack thereof are insufficient and totally inapplicable in determining whether an individual can correctly be identified as a Nerd. The criteria discussed above stress that the critical factors involved are methods of understanding and viewing the world, and have nothing to do with physical appearances. The author of this paper submits to the reader that while the aforementioned criteria are sufficient for narrowing the population field to a much smaller group of individuals which can be correctly identified as "Nerds", the term "Nerd" is probably best understood hierarchically as a grouping, rather than a sub-species in and of itself, and that further terminology is required to separate this grouping into discrete populations. These classifications may well involve the use of mandatory realms of study, as the population has been sufficiently narrowed to this point to reduce the field to those who can be regarded as credible professionals, scientists, or individuals of respectable opinion. For example, the term "Geek" may be aptly applied to individuals which pursue an interest in all things technological. Note, however, that while the possession of a degree in this field is not requisite, the degrees held by the individual in question should range from 0 to 1, to allow the the classification of non-classically schooled but respectable professionals.

This paper suggests the use of the prefix "Uber" to describe a group of individuals which meet the "Nerd" criteria,the sub-species realm of study criteria, and additionally possess multiple degrees in any realm of intellectual pursuit. Prefixes can be added to the term depending on the realm of study to establish sub-species, such as "Uber-Music-Geek" to describe a degree'd professional studying techno music. In this instance, the author could be identified as "Uber-Geomorphology-Nerd".

Classification systems are prone to overlapping boundaries and ambiguous criteria that can lead to false identification. The author of this paper stresses that these are suggestions for a new classification system and not a wholly formed system. Further study and input is required before the proposed system can be effectively utilized.