I was using ignorance not in the pejorative sense of intelligence, but in the sense of lack of knowledge about a subject. Someone who would say that geeks don't

I was using ignorance not in the pejorative sense of intelligence, but in the sense of lack of knowledge about a subject. Someone who would say that geeks don't shower is misinformed (or under-informed). The point is that non-geeks don't want to be geeks because geeks have a lower social status (at least as perceived by non-geeks). It is perfectly reasonable for an in-group to perceive itself as superior to everyone else, and for everyone else to perceive it as inferior. (In fact, that is pretty much what always happens). In admitting that there may be such a thing as a geek (which is actually presupposed by both the study and the author of the article, not me), we are also given license to define what it is to be geeky. Focusing on comic books, energy drinks, and star-trek (or what have you), is focusing on geeky things. Things that geeks are likely to be interested in. This is the wrong thing to focus on, because clearly not every geek likes these things. (I hate energy drinks and comic books). My whole point, therefore, is that this isn't about intelligence or anything else, rather it is about of set a personality traits that tend to make people interested in certain things. From this perspective, being interested in Star Trek or enjoying energy drink is not in any way a different indicator than writing a lot of computer code. What if the article had ended, 'Not only are non geeks missing out on star trek conventions, star trek conventions are missing out on a diversity of ideas and perspectives.' It doesn't make any sense, as there is no obvious causative direction here. Geek ends up being a statistical clustering rather than a definable entity. (If you go to a Star Trek convention, do you become a geek? Or were you already a geek for wanting to go to a Star Trek convention? Can I be a geek without going to a Star Trek convention). I also could just as easily say 'Not only are geeks missing out on people who are not interested in tech careers, the geek group is missing out on a diversity of ideas and perspectives.' The entire conclusion stems from a solipsistic view that every person is going to be equally interested in a career in technology. Hell, if I didn't have bad acne, a stutter, poor eyesight, an audible lisp, an addiction to MONSTERBAWLS energy drink, (as well as horrible BO and halitosis), I might quit my job as a programmer and go into marketing. Or I might just be the most charismatic programmer ever.