Really, I relate "nerdiness" with any kind of deep interest or passion. Although, not every person who is stereo-typically "nerdy" enough to browse /b/ necessarily devotes their time to something productive: be that learning an instrument, training your body, hacking, or whatever. There's a distinction to be made between "stereotypical nerd" (Poor social skills, good with computer, basement dweller) and what I consider "actual nerds" (those with a passion or deep interest in something that they then attribute an ungodly amount of time to).

> There's a distinction to be made between "stereotypical nerd" (Poor social skills, good with computer, basement dweller) and what I consider "actual nerds" (those with a passion or deep interest in something that they then attribute an ungodly amount of time to).

Isn't that what most people consider the difference between "nerd" and "geek" to be?

most here probably want there to be as distinction between the 2(including me) because their personal identity is tied to being a geek. They see it as a badge of honour. Being a geek to them(me) means applying yourself to things that are important/interesting without caring if it's cool or effects your social life. However language doesn't work that way. So our(my) aspergerness gets lump with all. So even though i spent my weekends competing at ski races since i spent weekday excelling at math, programming, watching syndicated Star Trek, and generally making little eye contact and mumbling to myself. I get lumped as a nerd/geek with anyone that watches star trek and lacks social skills.

No, there's no real consistency in what people see the difference between those two being, or even in which, if any, has the more positive (or less negative) connotation.