Today I was going through photos I took last summer when I came across a picture I took of an everyday jerk. This prompted me to look up “jerk” at dictionary.com and, interestingly enough, I encountered a definition that I believe misses the mark. The dictionary defines “jerk” as “a contemptibly naive, fatuous, foolish, or inconsequential person.” On the contrary, I don’t believe that being naïve, fatuous, foolish or inconsequential is sufficient to qualify a person as a “jerk”. Indeed, I don’t believe these qualities are especially relevant at all to being a jerk. Jimmy may believe whatever people tell him, even if they are clearly a disreputable source. He may be what we call a sucker: naïve, fatuous and foolish. But at the same time he could still be the nicest guy you’ll ever meet: kind, generous, and giving. Jimmy may be an easy mark, but nobody would ever call him a jerk. If anything, he’s an easy target for the jerks.
Rarely have I ever seen a dictionary get the lexical accounting of common usage so completely wrong.
So what is a jerk? A jerk is indeed contemptible, but that deserved contempt is generated by the fact that this person is inconsiderate and self-centered: basically like the able-bodied driver of this dually pickup that I saw last summer parked illegally in two — count ’em, two — handicapped spots.
Now that’s a jerk.
