4 ms·
Obligatory.... http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html "And that, I think, is the root of the problem. Nerds serve two maste
by brc 11y ago
Obligatory....
http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html
"And that, I think, is the root of the problem. Nerds serve two masters. They want to be popular, certainly, but they want even more to be smart. And popularity is not something you can do in your spare time, not in the fiercely competitive environment of an American secondary school.
Alberti, arguably the archetype of the Renaissance Man, writes that "no art, however minor, demands less than total dedication if you want to excel in it." I wonder if anyone in the world works harder at anything than American school kids work at popularity. Navy SEALs and neurosurgery residents seem slackers by comparison. They occasionally take vacations; some even have hobbies. An American teenager may work at being popular every waking hour, 365 days a year."
And...
"Public school teachers are in much the same position as prison wardens. Wardens' main concern is to keep the prisoners on the premises. They also need to keep them fed, and as far as possible prevent them from killing one another. Beyond that, they want to have as little to do with the prisoners as possible, so they leave them to create whatever social organization they want. From what I've read, the society that the prisoners create is warped, savage, and pervasive, and it is no fun to be at the bottom of it.
In outline, it was the same at the schools I went to. The most important thing was to stay on the premises. While there, the authorities fed you, prevented overt violence, and made some effort to teach you something. But beyond that they didn't want to have too much to do with the kids. Like prison wardens, the teachers mostly left us to ourselves. And, like prisoners, the culture we created was barbaric."
A lot of parents get their kids involved in activities which aren't necessarily for the good of the child except to minimise e chances of falling to the bottom of the popularity ladder. A ton of effort and money is spent trying to fit in at school - and as most of us recall - it all simply vanished the minute you walk out the high school gates, in the same way a prisoners society is irrelevant the moment they are released back into the real world.
It really is madness.
- spiritplumber 11y agoA nice collection of similar essays, including this one, here: http://amasci.com/we-nerds.html http://amasci.com/we-nerds.html Some interesting experimental science stuff, too (Mechanical superconductor-less maglev? Pretty nifty, although it doesn't scale up, and there's video to show that it works)
- pikachu_is_cool 11y agoI'm sorry but I gotta call bullshit on this. I see this opinion so much, on here and throughout pop culture, but I don't think it's true. From my high school experience, popularity boils down to social awareness, and inversely, social ineptitude. It really has nothing to do with book smarts. It's not a zero sum game. You can be smart and popular. In fact most popular people are smart from my experience. Most of the popular kids from my high school, 4 years later, are still popular, have really hot girlfriends/boyfriends, and are doing great things with their lives. The vast majority of the unpopular kids from my high school are still pretty weird and aren't doing so hot (although not nearly as weird as they were in high school). I know it's not a popular thing to say but some people just get dealt a better hand than others.
- brc 11y agoYou didn't read the article. The central point is that nerds don't become popular because they don't put the time in to be popular. They'd rather spend it on other things. None of that is different to your comment. In fact you're agreeing by saying that it comes down to social awareness, which is essentially putting in the time to be popular.
- pikachu_is_cool 11y ago> You didn't read the article. I did. > The central point is that nerds don't become popular because they don't put the time in to be popular. They'd rather spend it on other things. I read the article. I disagree with his argument. Graham even admits his fallacy near the middle of the article, when he admits to desperately wanting to be popular. The "wanting to be smart more" deal is nothing more than pride, I'd say. > In fact you're agreeing by saying that it comes down to social awareness, which is essentially putting in the time to be popular. Nope. You don't get more social awareness from something like "putting in the time to be popular". It might work for something like programming but this is nothing like that. You get it from having a healthy, normal-ish mind and from constantly surrounding yourself with people who have social awareness. Some people simply don't have access to that.
- learc83 11y ago