I submit that the author is not finely attuned to teen boys' fashion in his area, and so presumes the nerds are dressed just as "well" as the popular guys. The difference can be made by the smallest things: shoe brand, specific hair style, etc. I know by my age, I'm blind to such differences in that age group.
Also, I object to framing the "popular" situation to be so simple. I was definitely a nerd in school but, like the guys in the post, had a group of friends and my own activities. The popular kids were definitely a different group, but they weren't better than us. It's not a linear ordering of groups.
I was definitely a nerd in school but, like the guys in the post, had a group of friends and my own activities. The popular kids were definitely a different group, but they weren't better than us. It's not a linear ordering of groups.
totally agree, i had the same experience in high school. i hope i didn't imply in my article that there is a linear ordering of groups (i haven't read it over in a long time).
in my high school, the nerds were often comfortable in their own skin (and had deep interests that could engage them), but the majority of kids in high school aren't nerds and aren't popular either ... they're somewhere in between. those are the kids who strive to become popular and have all sorts of angst because many fail to achieve that goal.
The kids "somewhere in between" "strive to become popular and have all sorts of angst"?
That's a pretty big claim for ALL the kids who are neither nerds nor popular. I speculate that a great deal of those kids don't obsess about highschool drama, don't "strive to become popular", and don't end up with "all sorts of angst."
Also, one could safely consider that perhaps the author of a lengthy article about middle school and high school popularity has some undealt-with angst issues...
I'm just saying that I'd be careful about making sweeping generalizations, unless you want to come across as harboring that angst yourself.
this is the author here ... ummm i'm pleasantly surprised to find my article on HN. anyways, here are two other articles that are probably better than mine on this subject:
"... this is the author here ... ummm i'm pleasantly surprised to find my article on HN. anyways, here are two other articles that are probably better than mine on this subject ..."
Popularity is now pervading the Internet and persisting on places on social networks like Facebook, where bonds formed in High School can be continued with all the same dynamics. The catch, the playground is now being defined by Nerds. Changing the real world might be hard but what about social networks modeled in software? The same "social-ineptness" that makes Nerds good at programming has so far meant replicating ineptness in software. This is a hard problem and a hint to creating tools to manage or navigate such networks might be found in the science behind "Small World Networks" ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small-world_network
> I started the year sitting alone in a secluded corner of the cafeteria but eventually found a group of 3 other complete social outcasts to sit with.
We're thinking about whether to stay in Italy or go to the US, and this is definitely a big plus for Italy: sure, people have groups and cliques and things, but nowhere near like they do in the states. Or at least that's been my experience, and is somewhat confirmed by most of my friends here. I don't know any 'geeks' here who are as socially out of place as many in the US - everyone has friends, most all of them have girlfriends, social lives, and hobbies and activities outside of computers.
I've heard this about European countries, such as Italy and Spain, many times over the years.
If it is indeed true in general, I wonder why. Better family structure leading to less insecurity among kids, so they don't take out as many of their issues on classmates later in life? Different kinds of TV shows molding their impressionable minds when young? There are likely a variety of factors, but I haven't come across an explanation.
I honestly don't know... it's sort of weird, because Italy is a place where people are generally attuned to fashion and looks and 'superficial' things. Maybe it's different for men and women here (indeed, I'm sure it is), and my observations mostly regard my male friends and are fairly subjective anyway. Still, though, people really seem to behave like vicious animals in the US at that age, and I think it's something people ought to be ashamed of.
Err... 'duh' - out of 60 some odd million, there are bound to be some, and of course there are plenty of happy people in the states... My point was that it's much more difficult to be an outcast in Italy.
these dorks I saw were wearing the latest trendy Southern California clothes like baggy jeans, surfer shirts, cargo shorts, skater shoes, etc.
Ummm, why does the author of this article feel that he knows what's in style? That stuff hardly sounds like anything I see considered in style at the time (the article was written in 2006), but I can't speak to what's popular at Irvine high schools. My guess is the only way to really know would require some real research. Often times clothes can look similar to an outsider, but to someone in the know small differences make all the difference.
Can you tell the difference between a $1000 Marc Jacobs bag and a $30000 Hermes Bag? I sure can't, but my ex-girlfriend could spot the difference from a mile away.
Here the question is more like - what makes a teenage boy fall into the top 50% or bottom 50% of popularity? The guys in the top 50% most likely did not get there by extreme attention to detail or by wearing expensive accessories.
Why is it that nerdy kids often fall into the bottom 50% despite their clothes not being substantially different from others is an interesting question that has not been conclusively answered. If it is because they are short, weak and have unattractive faces, then what in the world causes the correlation with IQ?
I agree that clothes aren't everything, they're really only a part of what makes someone popular in high school, but in a way what you're saying proves my point.
You say that nerds don't dress substantially differently, that's not true at all. I'm the son of a fashion designer, so I pay a lot more attention to what I and others wear than the average nerd, so perhaps I can help. Fact is, most programmers dress in clothes that could be at best be described as boring and conventional.
The fact is, if you don't really pay close attention to what people are wearing, stuff starts to look similar, if you do pay attention, you see lots of differences. Programmers generally look at clothes as functional items, they don't get excited at the prospect of owning some awesome piece of clothing.
I tend to buy my best clothes at sales at a 50 - 75% markdown, when they're usually a season or more out of style (so those $230 jeans get knocked down to $80), which is fine by me. Most programmers I've met would consider spending even $80 on a pair of jeans ridiculous. Now, money won't buy you style, I think lots of programmers who try and dress well just end up buying expensive crap, but it can help.
Plenty of stylish people dress cheaply, but doing so takes a lot of time, combing thrift stores and lower priced stores putting together clothes that look stylish buried amidst mediocre clothes. That takes talent and real time and energy.
Point is, style isn't something most programmers do well, because they aren't excited about clothes. If you can't be passionate about something, how can you hope to do it well?
True, it seems half the California male highschoolers go for the homosexual look of wearing girls' pants these days. Some influence of "emo" music bands, perhaps. Not sure how trendy baggy pants are any more.
Of course, my claimed observation of "half" could be way off the mark.
The thinking in this article is heading in the right direction; it's not what you wear but how you look early on that determines your popularity.
This is already known to some extent. For example, PUAs deliberately wear uncool clothing as a kind of peacock's tail. ("I'm so popular I can dress weird and still be loved by everyone.")
However, it's not quite all the way there. It's who you are that determines how popular you are. Your character. Note that this will also affect your appearance -- not just your choice of clothes, but your physical appearance. People who are angry or upset all the time will show that on their faces. It is a drain on their health. Over time this has an uglifying effect, especially over the growth years.
Appearance, intellect, riches, gifts, favours you perform, even glamour -- who you are trumps all these when it comes to how likeable you are.
People bully other people by trying to get a 'rise' out of them. They try to provoke a negative emotional response. This is only possible if the target feels ashamed of himself in some way. Nerds do feel ashamed of themselves.
This is why Sheldon Cooper might just be a role model for nerds. He is not ashamed of himself. He values intellectual accomplishment over popularity and sex.
Sheldon aside, however: character is not fixed, so popularity can never be fixed.
I honestly don't remember much about high school popularity. I remember being constantly stressed by the long days and the academic workload and how everyone - EVERYONE, teachers, parents, students - was expressing a uniform goal of "GET GOOD GRADES TO GET INTO A GOOD COLLEGE." I probably could have hung out with different groups than I did, I probably could have dated plenty of girls, but I just wasn't paying attention. High school was about hoping that the world would just leave me alone for a while.
In the end, I got politely acceptable grades and got into a good enough college, where I proceeded to wish that college would just leave me alone for a while, but at least it was better than high school. But then I finished college, and entered the real world, and everything was simple again. Even the stressful parts.
just out of curiosity, did you attend an academically-intense high school? if so, then perhaps people weren't as obsessed with popularity because there was so much competition to get the highest grades and into the best colleges. but i would imagine that even in an intense school, there would still be athletes, cheerleaders, etc. (maybe the effect of popularity isn't as pronounced, though)
People need to rank others; they need a contest of some sort. A popularity contest is simply the broken positive feedback loop that's left when no valid comparison function can be found. In a school where everyone takes academics seriously, there's no need for popularity, because there's a working well-ordering already established (i.e. Through grades.)
Note that, unlike having a low ranking in a popularity contest, having a low meritocratic ranking isn't that bad for you, socially; although people like to rank others, they don't particularly care about the ranks once they're established. This is why popularity contests make people behave badly: since there's positive feedback, your ranking can change severely without any effort on your part—and you then start caring again, to get it stabilized.
I am not quite buying it, especially the part about popular activities being barred for ugly people. So you can't get elected for school government? Fine, you can start zillions of other clubs or activities. Write for the newspaper, show or make movies, start a band (if you are ugly, start a death metal hate band maybe), whatever.
Perhaps the main aspect of being unpopular is being too self-conscious to actually go out there and start things, talk to people and so on. So you find yourself at the "unpopular table" - have you even tried sitting down at the popular table, or did you just assume you did not belong from the start?
That said, of course it isn't possible to make everybody like you. But it isn't necessary either.
(this is the author here ... wow i'm amazed somebody actually found my article and posted it to HN ... cool!)
most of the interesting clubs or school activities aren't a road towards high school popularity. (e.g., death metal hate bands aren't exactly for popular kids, nor is film club)
Edit: Re Fine, you can start zillions of other clubs or activities. I think the key point here is that starting a club isn't really a path towards popularity, because the whole point of high school popularity is to conform to an already-existing 'cool' path, like being a football player or cheerleader. Being entrepreneurial and creative will likely lead you in the opposite direction (make no mistake, i think it's more fulfilling and useful ... it just won't get you to be popular)
Being in a death metal band would make you popular among death metal fans. What is the definition of high school popularity anyway? If the definition is "being rich and beautiful", then no, being in a death metal band might not help.
my definition of popularity is the form portrayed in mainstream media and films ... e.g., student council officers, athletes, cheerleaders
you bring up a good point, though. the popular kids are actually in the minority at school; there are far more unpopular kids than popular kids. so there will likely be more people who like death metal, computer games, etc. than the 'popular' activities.
This is a very depressing post because the fatalistic premise rings true. The high school hotbox can be very hard for some people. It's a good thing status starts depending on other things (expertise, success) later.
When it comes helping a kid fake 'coolness' I think there's merit. There ARE real advantages to not being pigeon holed as a nerd and getting a head start on those social skills.
I believe multiple "lives" is what makes me happier.
I loved this monologue statement from "The Breakfast Club".
While a bit cute, I feel it is true and meshes with the other quote below from the author of Fight Club, Chuck Palahniuk's book on his hometown Portland, "Fugitives and Refugees".
> Dear Mr. Vernon, we accept the fact that we had to sacrifice a whole Saturday in detention for whatever it was we did wrong. But we think you're crazy to make us write an essay telling you who we think we are. You see us as you want to see us...In the simplest terms, in the most convenient definitions. But what we found out is that each one of us is a brain...an athlete...a basket case...a princess...and a criminal...Does that answer your question? Sincerely yours, the Breakfast Club.
> "Everyone in Portland is living a minimum of three lives," says Katherine Dunn, the author of Geek Love. She says, "Everyone has at least three identities."
She's sitting in the window of her apartment in Northwest Portland, rolling cigarettes and smoking them, her long blond hair parted in the middle and tied back. She's wearing black-framed glasses. The radiators clank and a siren goes by, four stories below on Glisan Street.
"They're a grocery store checker, an archaeologist, and a biker guy," she says. 'Or they're a poet, a drag queen, and a bookstore clerk."
In my opinion, observing my sibling's children up close this holiday season - especially the older ones - birth order contributing to assertiveness (my 2-yr old niece saying 'Move!' to tell me to move aside so she can sit next to her Mom - what am I going to do? she's still not in the sentence formation phase. should I chastise her?).. has a lot more to do with life success than high school popularity. Of course, I'm biased.
R.I.P. John Hughes
"Life isn't like college. In fact, it's more like high school" -Anonymous
In high school, I was somewhere in the middle. Although closer to the smart kids, I always maintain a cool look, not to try and fit, but just because I liked it. I hung out with both the cool popular kids, and the smart ones.
Parents should teach their kids to be broad and have friends with different interests and background. To this day (11 years later) I am fairly the same. Hang out with both engineers who talk about Java during lunch and we exchange emails weekly about their latest project, next startup, and I also hang out who love to cash a check, go buy Rock Republic and spend the rest at the W on Saturday night.
What sounds most familiar to me in both this article and Paul Graham's, is that, for the most part, nerds ("we") see through the game and decide it's not worth the attention. I spent the last 3 years (out of 6 here in NL) playing a game with my mother. Every day she would ask if I learned something new, I would reply with "no".
Also, I object to framing the "popular" situation to be so simple. I was definitely a nerd in school but, like the guys in the post, had a group of friends and my own activities. The popular kids were definitely a different group, but they weren't better than us. It's not a linear ordering of groups.