5 ms·

But these labels mean something to teenagers, and it doesn't matter if it's society's fault for creating these labels. Kids know who the "popular," "cool" kids

But these labels mean something to teenagers, and it doesn't matter if it's society's fault for creating these labels. Kids know who the "popular," "cool" kids are, and they know who the "nerds" are. Likewise, they know where they stand. And it matters to them, and it has an impact on them. The result will vary, of course, and there will always be exceptions. So the study is asking "what happened to the kids who their peers considered 'cool' or a 'nerd'?"

mtdewcmu 12y ago
How universal are those categories? Can you generalize the results of this study to other times and places?
- marvin 12y ago
  It's very similar in Northern Europe. Don't know about Africa, Asia or South America, but that's one data point for you.
- Arnor 12y ago
  When I go visit my in-laws who have two daughters in high school, I'm amazed at how the things that were nerdy when I was in high school 10 years ago are cool now. These girls who watch Dr Who and make honor band are extremely popular. What's more, I hear from them that there is very little of the petty popularity war going on. I know that this is a very special school and things aren't happening this way everywhere, but it's encouraging nonetheless.
  - mtdewcmu 12y ago
    I think you may need to intervene and call out the nerds, otherwise they may start missing crucial developmental milestones.
Yunk 12y ago
> So the study is asking "what happened to the kids who their peers considered 'cool' or a 'nerd'?" Our 'coolness' meters collapse metrics, for example: inhibition may make you cooler in one case (not quoting sci-fi) and total nerd in another (not being rebellious.) Therefore the question doesn't necessarily work given that the ability to inhibit behavior is strongly correlated to success.
- mtdewcmu 12y ago
  I think level of inhibition is too reductive to have explanatory power. My guess is that the nerds are the children who listen to adults and follow rules. The cool kids are the kids that rebel very early, probably because the adults in their lives were not trustworthy. Following the rules and doing what you're supposed to is pretty much a recipe for later life success, as defined by a stable job, stable household, etc. So there's really no upside to being the rebellious child. It might be a source of coolness for a year or two as a teenager. The famous experiment, where they promised a child two pieces of candy if he or she didn't take the piece of candy in front of her, and found that not taking the candy predicted success, can be interpreted in different ways. Supposedly it measures inhibition, which is taken to be an independent variable, and it showed that children with higher levels of inhibition experience greater levels of success. I imagine the experiment from the perspective of the child. An adult promises to give you extra candy if you do what they say. Should you trust this adult? I suspect that if dad is an alcoholic and makes a lot of promises, and then passes out and doesn't remember, you will not take the adult seriously and try to have some candy while you still can.
  - shanecleveland 12y ago
    Right. It is generally considered un-cool for a teenager to do things that don't necessarily set you up for real-world success, such as doing homework, getting good grades, staying home on the weekends, etc. And partaking in risky behavior or rebelling may briefly help with popularity but not do much for getting into college or establishing a career.
  - Yunk 12y ago
    That could be, though I certainly have met outliers who thrive from a childhood of rebellion. Many of them seemed uninhibited but really had a sadistic ability to wait for their opportunities to maximally affect their surroundings. But I'm not really saying behavior inhibition has an adequate explanatory power, just that it is confounding. Just one quantitative measure like gratification delay is enough to make a qualitative measure like coolness a worthless subject.

mtdewcmu 12y ago

How universal are those categories? Can you generalize the results of this study to other times and places?

marvin 12y ago
It's very similar in Northern Europe. Don't know about Africa, Asia or South America, but that's one data point for you.
Arnor 12y ago
When I go visit my in-laws who have two daughters in high school, I'm amazed at how the things that were nerdy when I was in high school 10 years ago are cool now. These girls who watch Dr Who and make honor band are extremely popular. What's more, I hear from them that there is very little of the petty popularity war going on. I know that this is a very special school and things aren't happening this way everywhere, but it's encouraging nonetheless.
- mtdewcmu 12y ago
  I think you may need to intervene and call out the nerds, otherwise they may start missing crucial developmental milestones.

Yunk 12y ago

> So the study is asking "what happened to the kids who their peers considered 'cool' or a 'nerd'?" Our 'coolness' meters collapse metrics, for example: inhibition may make you cooler in one case (not quoting sci-fi) and total nerd in another (not being rebellious.) Therefore the question doesn't necessarily work given that the ability to inhibit behavior is strongly correlated to success.

mtdewcmu 12y ago
I think level of inhibition is too reductive to have explanatory power. My guess is that the nerds are the children who listen to adults and follow rules. The cool kids are the kids that rebel very early, probably because the adults in their lives were not trustworthy. Following the rules and doing what you're supposed to is pretty much a recipe for later life success, as defined by a stable job, stable household, etc. So there's really no upside to being the rebellious child. It might be a source of coolness for a year or two as a teenager. The famous experiment, where they promised a child two pieces of candy if he or she didn't take the piece of candy in front of her, and found that not taking the candy predicted success, can be interpreted in different ways. Supposedly it measures inhibition, which is taken to be an independent variable, and it showed that children with higher levels of inhibition experience greater levels of success. I imagine the experiment from the perspective of the child. An adult promises to give you extra candy if you do what they say. Should you trust this adult? I suspect that if dad is an alcoholic and makes a lot of promises, and then passes out and doesn't remember, you will not take the adult seriously and try to have some candy while you still can.
- shanecleveland 12y ago
  Right. It is generally considered un-cool for a teenager to do things that don't necessarily set you up for real-world success, such as doing homework, getting good grades, staying home on the weekends, etc. And partaking in risky behavior or rebelling may briefly help with popularity but not do much for getting into college or establishing a career.
- Yunk 12y ago
  That could be, though I certainly have met outliers who thrive from a childhood of rebellion. Many of them seemed uninhibited but really had a sadistic ability to wait for their opportunities to maximally affect their surroundings. But I'm not really saying behavior inhibition has an adequate explanatory power, just that it is confounding. Just one quantitative measure like gratification delay is enough to make a qualitative measure like coolness a worthless subject.