BBH, Well, maybe the term "emotional intelligence" may be not in place or misleading -- considering what you have been taught!! I was referring to EI the way Goleman in "Emotional Intelligence" sees it. The lack of EI isn't something that would be typical for nerds -- far from that. The word was about Wes, and in that context it struck me that EI is one of the more visible differences between him and, say Tiassa. I remember the "inflammatory topic thread" against Dr. Lou. One could say that the accusations made by T. were those that someone with a "shitty personality" (as someone noted in this thread before) would make. But a "shitty personality" isn't exactly a scientific term, so there has to be a way to describe it more exactly. For EI, Goleman postulates that a person has these abilities well-developed (I'm translating, the original may be a tad different): a) to encourage oneself, b) to defy frustrations, c) to have control over one's instincts, d) to postpone satisfying of needs, e) to control one's moods, f) to release pressures that inhibit the ability of thinking, g) empathy, h) hope. Okay, truth be told, I have learned the most of my new swear words from Wes, so some of the above may not fit when it comes to him ... But just look: Wes has a positive way with people and himself, he encourages, shows appreciation, *kowtows*, puts smilies into his posts -- or openly shows his disappreciation. How many times did you see T. kowtow to someone? How many smilies in his posts? I hate to sound preposterous, but T. strikes me as somehow "cold". Very polite, very elloquent, but somehow lacking emotion. What is more, Wes encorporates the main principle of EI: to have emotions and be aware of them. In his posts, he cleary says "I'm pissed" or "I'm glad". The reader knows what mood the author is in -- which is quite important in this medium of communication. Also, the use of the meta-text: While writing, Wes evaluates his own train of thought. He also gives other circumstantial info, like when he says "it's late, I've got to hit the sack" or something like that. It is all easily understandable -- ... apart from the actual content of some of his posts that are filled with inter-relating juxtaposed concepcts (Wes, if you're watching: this is a pun on me and my mental laziness! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ). But take T.'s posts. He also puts in the meta-text -- but that is so hard to figure out, it is wrought into scholarized wordings of most artificial curvings of what used to be simplicity. T. tends to be quite indirect. With T., I barely ever know when he's just joking or being sarcastic -- or when he's really serious. To "simple" people, this is confusing -- and hence the avoidance, or even reviling. To conclude, take the a-h list, and check people's behaviour by it. I'm not saying that this is *the* tool to see who's a nerd and who isn't; but it does help in covering up differences in emotional responses between people -- and that may lead to a better understanding of what a nerd might be.