3 ms·
I think it's a significant cause; I don't know if it's also a symptom. I know a lot of bright, sensitive, promising people who have been effectively bullied ou
by woodruffw 3y ago
I think it's a significant cause; I don't know if it's also a symptom.
I know a lot of bright, sensitive, promising people who have been effectively bullied out of the academic system because their promise was a threat to a more established person's ego (sometimes the person responsible, on paper, for developing the next generation of academics).
- jvanderbot 3y agoThat has not been my experience, I'm sure it happens all the time though. I'm sorry it does
- Jensson 3y agoThe people who are the best at bullying will win in that system, and that typically aren't the weird nerds. Nerds can bully people, but such systems tend to filter those out in the long run in favor of more socially skilled people who are much better at bullying. Note that the worst bullies tend to be very popular people, popular bullies are harder to deal with since everyone will side with them.
- woodruffw 3y agoMy experience is that nerds are perfectly capable of bullying other nerds. Or, more accurately: nerds are able to convince Nerd Group A that their contributions, merit, etc. are worth whatever deleterious side effects Nerd Group B feels. This is not the case for non-nerds, who aren't liked by either group. (I think this entire framing is misguided: nerdiness is a marginally meaningful social category, and there are plenty of academic departments that are toxic without a single "non-nerd" being present.)
- Jensson 3y agoThat has nothing to do with this discussion, I don't think that non nerds are more toxic, they are just better at it. My point is that when we emphasize social games and popularity contests then nerds tend to lose more than before, so non-nerds bubble up in the hierarchies, changing the makeup of the organizations.