Why Nerds Are Unpopular 1535
AccordionGuy writes "Paul Graham, who's known for his writings on Lisp and other Lisp-like languages as well as his essays on combatting spam has taken a bit of a detour from his usual topics. His latest essay is one that's a little more personal and that we can all relate to: Why Nerds Are Unpopular . It's a lengthy but engaging writeup of that chamber of horrors we call high school and why being smarter than the average bear is more of a liability than an asset during that stage in life. It's food for thought for those of us who've already been there, done that and been stuffed into lockers by the football team and it should give some hope to those who are going through it right now."
(iq 130) && (!geek) (Score:2, Informative)
don't talk down to them
don't talk over their head
don't tell them things they do not want to know
do talk/ask about things they want to talk about
avoid being negative
be yourself, and be comfortable with yourself
Re:What ??? Impopular, me ???? No way.... linux ro (Score:1, Informative)
I was bullied pretty badly at school for exactly this sort of thing, but I realised that it's not my fault, it's their fault for not being as smart as me - in a way I felt sorry for them; I may not have been popular with the girls in school, but I've since had a girlfriend from my LUG (yes, they do exist) and although we've broken up now, I think it proves that the bullies at school didn't even have that above me.
The lazy version (Score:3, Informative)
1) There is a correlation between being smart and being unpopular.
2) The reason it's hard to be smart AND popular is that being popular takes up mental bandwidth that most smart people would rather use "making great things" (rockets and computers are used as examples). "Few smart kids can spare the attention that popularity requires."
3) The reason "popular" kids persecute "nerds" is that, in general, pushing others down lifts you up and makes you feel better. Also, persecuting nerds is a kind of bonding process for "popular" kids. "...nothing brings people closer than a common enemy".
4) Things are different when you leave high school. In fact "nerds collect in certain places and form their own societies where intelligence is the most important thing." (e.g., university).
That seems to be mainly it. Interesting reading... it matches up with my experience of high school. Certainly the worst time of my life (so far).
grib.
Re:The lazy version (Score:2, Informative)
5) High school students are not doing anything useful. People like to have something real to work on
YS
Re:What ??? Impopular, me ???? No way.... linux ro (Score:2, Informative)
sorry (Score:2, Informative)
Just because you like japanese cartoons, use esoteric operating systems and watch star trek does not actually make you smart, sorry.
Re:US only phenomenon? (Score:5, Informative)
The distinction between "nerds" and "normal people" definitely exists outside the US -- and is perhaps universal. Most people of basic school age don't spend a large portion of their free time in front of their computers coding. I think this intense focus on one particular area is where "nerds" were different from other people in their age groups.
However, and I think this is an important point, in many countries high school is a kind of trade school. In Sweden, compulsory school stops at age 15 or so. Nearly all students then proceed to a volunteer school, gymnasiet, selecting one out of 20 or so three-year education programs which suits their interests. Programs included, among many others:
The vehicle program: students were tought how to repair cars and other vehicles (and sometimes to drive them, with driving lessons and sometimes a license funded by the school).
The nursing program: students were taught skills needed to work jobs at retirement homes and other institutions that care for people.
The individual program: students that lacked motivation and sufficient grades were given a chance to catch up, aiming to apply for a regular program later on.
The electronics program: students were given basic skills in handing electronics, and got jobs such as being electricians or electronics repairmen.
The social sciences program: students received additional heavy education in history, geography and other social sciences, and got jobs that may include working for their local government carrying out investigations or other matters. People in this program sometimes would continue to college to develop additional additional skills.
The natural sciences program: students were given a very solid ground (complementing that which they had received in earlier years) in mathematics, physics, biology, chemistry, material computational skills, electronics skills and computer skills. This program was largely theoretically oriented and was not meant to lead to a job directly, but provided the foundation for students to continue to college and become engineers and scientists.
This particular specialization relatively early also explains why Sweden (and other European) college degrees are shorter in terms of years than equivalent US degreees -- the basics in the profession or study of choice were already taught in high school, so college was even more specialized.
With that said however, I should point out that this specialized programs all included a relatively broad range of subjects -- but with a certain very heavy focus. The natural sciences program for example would include five maths courses, while most other programs would only have one or two. The social sciences program on the other hand would have more history and related issues than other programs. And many programs had courses shared by no other education program.
This early specialization means that nerds separate from their schoolmates aged 15 or 16 and join other people in the natural sciences program (usually) who have the same inclination for programming, maths or science. They find "equals" and the risk of being rejected is significantly reduced, if not entirely eliminated.
I did not find that my early interest in programming (which ignited around 11 or 12 years of age) caused any significant problems. Many classmates at the time were interested in gaming or the occasional programming on the C64, C128 (and later the Amiga) and joined me in technical discussions or to seek assistance. In gymnasiet, everyone around me were interested in science and technology and frequently engaged in more or less serious discussions on the topic.
As someone already pointed out, the concept of "jocks" also is alien to European school systems. People who engaged in sports did so on their own free time, it was not something the school got involved in (other than providing the normal gym classes).
Maybe it's just me . . . (Score:2, Informative)
Then again, I was a defensive lineman and used to stuff bullies into lockers . . .
Probably the best article I have read (Score:2, Informative)
Truely insightful, but sadly I feel that nothing will come of it other then us hear reading it and praising it. If only all high school, middle school and grade school education boards were forced to read it and actually forced to discuss why things are done the way they are, and not simply say "they are done this way because they have always been done this way".
This is also not just related to public schools, even many private schools are the same. I feel a great followup and possible case study should be made to look at tech and trade schools and compair the social structures with public schools. This might easily show that when students are learning things that are pertinent and useful and not just menial, that they have better lives during their school years and possibly through their life.
Hmmm, much of the discussion is familier (Score:2, Informative)
My basic answer is F*** Em. In a few years they'll be looking back on HS as the "best years of their lives."
Just think about, how sad their lives are, that they will never have a better time in their lives.
Meanwhile we Nerds/Geeks/Whatevers are moving on and changing the world (if just a little bit slower then we were a couple of years ago.)
Another long-winded post with an anecdote (Score:2, Informative)
In most high schools, there is a very distinct pecking order that verges on a caste system. It usually varies between regions, but the basic layout is the same:
- -The Over-Achievers: They take all the advanced classes, participate in student government, sports, and just about everything else on campus. They are (usually) universally admired. Most of the team captains fall into this category.
Teachers, for the most part, do little to change this system, either because they don't care, or they believe that their interference will only make things worse. More often than not, a teacher that steps in to help a student being picked on will be seen as under the teacher's personal protection and will thus be subject to even more cruel treatment once said teacher is gone.-The Elitists: They take enolugh of the advanced classes to make friends with the Over-Achievers, and will usually pick one sport to play, usually on an above-average level. They try desperately to gain the levels of admiration given to the Over-Achievers, but usually fail due to an immature, cruel streak that gets taken out on the less-popular groups. These people are the bullies that the lower groups both despise and envy.
-The Average Kids: The majority of students fall into this category. They don't participate in many sports, clubs, or anything of the sort. Most of their free time is spent hanging out with friends, working, or other typical high-school behaviors. -The Pariahs: The bottom of the rung, this group bears the brunt of attacks by the other groups, either by people trying to get a higher standing, or to simply maintain the one they already have. The Pariahs are subject to discreet discrimination by the Average Kids, brutal teasing & bullying by the Elitists, and a simple denial of their existennce by the Over-Achievers.
So what recourse do the down-trodden, mistreated masses of today's public schools have? Very little. If they speak out on the subject, they are seen as whiners and will be treated even worse than they are now. If they complain to their parents about it, they'll be told that it's a part of life and there is no option but to suck it up and deal.
And now, for the anecdote:
When I was in high school, I did my best to imporve my social standing. I took the advanced classes, I joined clubs, I joined the track team. My social skills were on par with most of the student body, and I had good hygeine(sp?). And I did this with the grace that poseurs lack.
All of it was in vain. The awkward kid from junior high stuck in the minds of those I went to junior high with, and this idea spread among the Elitists. I was isolated in the advanced classes and the clubs until I eventually quit in disgust. I was forced to leave the track team due to an auto accident that screwed up my left knee, and was taunted for being a "wuss" and a "sissy", even though I had to, and still do on occasion, have to walk with a cane because of said injury.
And frankly, it hurt. The utter feeling of loneliness, was sometimes too much to bear. I was seriously depressed throughout high school. I considered suicide, and even attempted it twice. And I had nowhere to turn, except to my other Pariah friends, my books, and my Internet connection. My parents didn't care; it's all a part of growing up. The teachers and administrators could do nothing about something as subtle, and as vicious, and this.
Once I got out of high school and became involced in matters of substance (read: college), I was able to put the pain of the last four years behind me and become a person instead a member of a caste. I changed myself from a disillusioned, depressed wreck into an active college student with an active social life and diverse interests. But just because I've put it past me doesn't mean I've forgotten it.
So what would good schools do? (Score:2, Informative)
If kids are willing to act like adults they should be given the same privledges.
If we are going to build prisons (to use the same analogy), then put good prisoners into open prisons, and make the criteria for "good" some thing real.
I had the fortune to go to a fairly enlighted school. Very middle class, most of the kids had support from their parents and most of the teachers wanted to teach us something rather then just escape back to the staff room.
Nerd were still picked on but nothing like to the extent they were elsewhere. I think to some extent this was because being responsible/smart meant you generally had more freedom. The aditional freedom was envied.
For example:
We played Rugby ( think football without the pads
We had to work out what was required to do this, set a course of the right length, organise ourselfs, pursuade the staff this was a good idea and have the initiative to make it happen.
The reward was being able to do something that we wanted, and it was without doubt "cooler" to be seen leaving school for a couple of hours without supervision.
How many of the commenters... (Score:2, Informative)
(Oh, I guess I'm a nerd, because I just read a 7,000-word article from start to finish. And enjoyed it.)
To everyone who says that not all smart kids are unpopular: the author recognizes that. He says: "Unless they happen to be very good looking, or great natural athletes, or have older siblings who are popular, they'll tend to become nerds." Note all the exceptions.
To everyone who says that truly popular kids don't bother picking on nerds: again, the article says that. "Most of the persecution comes from kids lower down, the nervous middle classes."
To everyone who pointed out that popular kids feel crappy too: guess what. The article says: "Life in this twisted world is stressful for the kids. And not just for the nerds. Like any war, it's damaging even to the winners."
I would agree that the author errs in completely dismissing the effect of hormones, and the fact that high-school kids are in an inherently chaotic transitional phase of life. But before you make stock replies or accusations of stereotyping, please read the article. Or else you're the one who's stereotyping.
Happiness is the best revenge ... (Score:2, Informative)