The study that this NPR piece reports about is focused on the outcomes of kids who were, as middle schoolers, pseudomature, which I suppose could be described a

The study that this NPR piece reports about is focused on the outcomes of kids who were, as middle schoolers, pseudomature, which I suppose could be described as having mature interests but not mature behavior. (So, interested in drugs but lacking the ability to regulate themselves, or interested in sex but lacking the ability to engage in healthy relationships.) The study found that pseudomaturity was associated with "short-term success with peers." That stands to reason. You know how kids look up to their older siblings? Well, in a way, pseudomature kids are acting the way older siblings act, and I can see how that might lead to peer approval. But what I think bears mentioning is that in addition to kids who are pseudomature, you have kids who are genuinely mature and kids who are immature. The kids who are genuinely mature are those who (unlike pseudomature kids) have mature behavior, and either have interests that are appropriate for their age or, if they have mature interests, are smart enough to know that they shouldn't act on those interests. The kids who are immature are an interesting bunch. There are some (like I was in middle school) who do not have mature interests, but have mature behavior. There are others who neither have mature interests nor mature behavior. The more you think about maturity as having to do with two spectrums -- one for interests and one for behavior -- the more the results of this study make sense, and the less it makes sense to use the "cool kids vs. nerds" narrative. The results make sense because kids who get into adult situations but aren't able to handle them in grown-up ways are likely to end up in various forms of trouble, and it doesn't surprise me that the effects of that early trouble may persist into adulthood. You can also infer that kids who have mature interests are probably more likely to be exposed to mature themes at home, perhaps because of a troubled home life, which probably influences them as adults as well. The reason the "cool kids vs. nerds" narrative doesn't make sense is because, really, what we're talking about is not popularity influencing outcomes but behavior influencing outcomes. Kids (whether they're cool or not) who aren't good at regulating their behavior in middle school are more likely to be bad at regulating their behavior in adulthood; kids (whether they're cool or not) who are good at regulating their behavior in middle school are more likely to be good at regulating their behavior in adulthood.