Yeah, but after a while the guy with Kraftwerk T-shirt slugs too many shots and won't shut up about how Africa Bambaataa ripped off "Trans-Europe Express" or how "Computer World" STILL sounds like it came out last week.

So what you're saying is that I should invest heavily in Firefly?

Malcolm Gladwell talks about friendships in The Tipping Point and theorizes that we choose our friends not through evaluation of their qualities, but through convenience. We gravitate towards those nearby, that share hobbies. Of course, if I see someone wearing the same obscure geek shirt that I own, I'll probably start talking to, I may even overlook their geeky values (and pray they overlook mine).

I suppose that's one thing pub culture has over coffee culture, here in Ireland we just get a few pints in us and talk to whoever comes within range.

In his 2001 book Nobrow, John Seabrook talks about the loss of class as in important distinction in American culture, and how taste has replaced it as the chief instigator for making relationships. This isn't new stuff, but still interesting.

Here’s the paradox:
BoingBoing draws people who didn’t or wouldn’t fit into the tribe—-nomadic, lateral, creative, peripheral, skeptical, satirical, irreverent, eclectic.
Variety is the name of the game, here. People who aren’t tribal have become a tribe.
Don't smooth the edges, Cory.

I bother them because communication is the only way to find out if there is a consciousness inside the shell. Not because of the superficial clothing, but because they are there.

If there is nobody home, I twist the emptiness until there is a glimmer behind the screen. If we meet as like entities, we rejoice.

Sometimes on the other hand, physical presence and pheromones play a bigger deal than the mind, and there is a gut reaction when there is no one home in my own shell.

Aha said:

"People who aren’t tribal have become a tribe."

Obscure Comic Strip Reference: we belong to the Other clique.

I am the operator of my pocket calculator.

I don't always want to meet like-minded people. I want to meet wingnuts, loonies, screwballs, harebrains and goth chicks. I get 4 out 5 on bb.

While the study of new social paradigms realized through technology is pertinant, and a topic that relates to anyone reading and writing blogs, I think the whole "we like people like us" is poor science. Although it contains truth, it is not good sociology. I knock around with people I meet in work, in the community, and that are parents. I am very different from them and as others have stated, enjoy the diversity.
Colleges, schools, frats, and various organizations tend to succumb to this superficial form of social behavior. (not that I am so sophisticated.)

Edited by author 06-10-2003 01:55 PM
Related to this subject and some comments below; the fallout in the geek ego due to the introduction of the internet.

I think pre-internet, people who are most commonly discribed as "geeks" were rare enough in local areas that they catagorized themselves by their uniqueness. At least in some areas, geeks didn't define themselves by their interests, but by their outcast/solitary nature. I'm speaking very generally here, and I know there will be exceptions.

But with the advent of the internet, people who would have never previously been able to meet have begun to form their own groups, much like the ones they didn't belong to pre-internet. They are no longer outcasts in the strictest sense-- but many still define themselves as such, oddly enough.

This conflict-- an inherent unwillingness to admit that they're no longer alone, that they are part of a larger "tribe" is one of the greatest barriers to "geeks" as an group organizing within the greater social system. It's almost schizophrenic to me.

Eventually, the idea of geeks/freaks--whatever term you want to use--as outcasts is going to have to die. We're not alone. Our numbers are _strong._ And we don't have to define ourselves so much by the fact that we were ostracized pre-internet.

So I guess my general conclusions are; certain types of people are discovering this whole idea of "taste tribe" for the first time thanks to the internet and widespread communication tools, whereas a good chunk of the population wouldn't find the idea surprising at all. And second-- there's some interesting stratifying/specializing going on in this greater outcast/geek population that might have never occurred if something like the internet hadn't come along. And finally-- geeks coming to terms with the fact that they're not as unique and indie as they thought they were are causing some interesting issues for "taste communities" that have exploded in size.

That's my slightly coherent 2 cents.

aha (/m6) wrote: "Don't smooth the edges, Cory."

If we extend that to "Don't smooth the edges, $BOINGBOINGBLGGERS"
then we have a compelling argument not to end the SARS parade.

JeremyT observes in /m12:
"But with the advent of the internet, people who would have never previously been able to meet have begun to form their own groups, much like the ones they didn't belong to pre-internet."

The flip side of this is that pre-internet people would be
exposed to a larger variety of (eg) sexual practices if they
were at all going to seek non-standard stuff. Look at John
Willie's Bizarre. These days the tattoo people have one group,
the piercing group another (some overlap, true), but little
overlap with the tightlacing group and the fetish constraint
group, or the mackintosh wearers, or the crossdressers. There
it is all rolled up into one "underground sexual practices."

Was anyone but me struck by the implication that if you approach people and strike up a conversation without a t-shirt or book title to go on, "you're a creepy freak who just bothers random strangers"?

What a sad state we have reached, when it's creepy to speak to others with whom you don't share a brand preference!

Was anyone but me struck by the implication that if you approach people and strike up a conversation without a t-shirt or book title to go on, "you're a creepy freak who just bothers random strangers"?

I was. That's probably why "Hello My Name is" Scott Ginsberg (http://hellomynameisscott.com) wears that name tag of his and why I carry an accordion whenever I go out.

"Cities are collections of conformists."

New Yorkers don't feel comfy in Berkeley, Dubliners don't relax in Tokyo, Peking boys don't bop in Boston.

There will always be exceptions, but most people find a city they's comfortable in and put down roots.

I'm more inclined to believe that aesthetics act as external tags for an individual's beliefs, assumptions, problem solving methods, etc... the tags allow us to connect with others we might want to trade information with or work with while giving that process form... heh... culture is XML.

Yes, pete, but it becomes spooky when the tags are able to generate the beliefs, as advertisers, politicians, etc., have discovered. The web (with sites like B^B^) may help the dog wag his tail.

The difference between leaders and followers, those who enjoy social interaction and those who do not are complex. Social pretexts can become highly complex. I will say that I do occassionally feel that twinge of "out of my league" when commenting on some forums, and then enjoy the rigor of "follow me" on others. Strange to experience virtual social constraints.

Call me obstinate but I reject the notion of "taste tribes". While I enjoy a few relationships with those who share my sometimes eclectic tastes, most of those I socialize with do not. Which is exactly what I enjoy about those relationships.

Nat X sez' The Man is trying to control you with his boogie-jive corporate logos.