> This is why I like the word "hacker" outside of it's more "modern" meaning. A programmer can be nearly anyone with some basic skills, but a hacker is a fundamentally different animal from the rest of the general population. The hacker doesn't even necessarily have to be better than the bulk of his non-hacker, regular programmer, peers (though I imagine you'll often find that to be the case) because it's not about skill, it's about mindset.
Not sure if you realize it, but this ties in perfectly with apl's original point about self-aggrandizement. What better way of congratulating yourself for being a different, superior kind of person than using a term which (by your definition) puts you into an exclusive club without even requiring you to be smarter?
The difference is the explicit mention that neither group is superior. Splitting people up by how "smart" they are (how can you even begin to measure that?) is entirely uninteresting. Think of it more like a division between "Type A" and "Type B" personalities.
It's not about smarts or superiority, it's just a way of classifying motivation.
When did you say that neither group is superior? You said that "hackers" don't have to be more skilled, but every other part of your post implies that you think they're superior as human beings.
I say that hackers don't have to be more skilled (superior - in my personal definition of the term).
I also state that I believe they more often than not are more skilled (which I recognize and appropriately tag as my own opinion, not a fundamental part of the concept)
Not sure if you realize it, but this ties in perfectly with apl's original point about self-aggrandizement. What better way of congratulating yourself for being a different, superior kind of person than using a term which (by your definition) puts you into an exclusive club without even requiring you to be smarter?