again we prove the validity of Joss Whedon's metaphor for high school

[truepenny]

melymbrosia points to this essay about why nerds are unpopular in school

Paul Graham is wrong about some things. First of all, hell, YES, being smart makes you an outcast in elementary school. Secondly, I think he's wrong that nerds don't realize being popular takes work. I knew that. I watched the popular girls (both the ones who looked at me like I was a roach and the ones who were sort of semi-friends) and I saw the work they were putting into it. It wasn't that I didn't know they were working. It was (a.) the work they were doing was so profoundly uncongenial to me that I could never have done it sincerely and (b.) at a very basic level it seemed then, and still kind of does, like magic. I knew that it was work, but i didn't understand how to do it.

I think he's also wrong with the whole parental role model thing; it's true that my parents are intellectuals, but I knew plenty of kids who were smarter than their parents and more invested in books to boot. But somebody else can most likely speak to this better than I can.

And I think he's ignoring the teacher's pet factor, which is one of the things I really wish America would get its head out of its ass about. I was unpopular as a child because I was smart and because I was weird, but also because I aced tests and always knew the answer when the teacher called on me. At least in my school, that was perceived as being a fifth columnist. And so another reason for not being able to play the popularity game: I had to decide relatively early that I valued books and learning (and grades, but that's another and a more dreadful world) over the approval of my peer group. In high school, I was still being teased and harassed by kids I'd been teased and harassed by in elementary school. This isn't true of all K-12 educational experiences, but mine was very much a closed world. There was some coming and going (best day of my life in eighth grade was the day I learned one particular bully had moved out of state and I was never going to have to see her again), but a remarkably stable population with a remarkably long memory over all. There's a culture among children that doing well in school is for sissy suck-ups. I've always thought bitterly that it's promoted by the stupid but popular kids in order to make themselves look and feel better, but it's also promoted by our culture at large, by all those stupid and popular kids grown up and able to disseminate their viewpoint among the masses. Bleah.

On the other hand, I love this line: I wish they had just told us outright that we were savages and our world was stupid. Because, yeah, that would have helped.

Also: So, like prison wardens, the teachers mostly left us to ourselves. And, like prisoners, the culture we created was barbaric.

Everybody I knew, nerd, jock, preppie ... EVERYBODY, thought of school as a prison. None of us were doing what we wanted to do. None of us were happy. And it's no surprise that we turned on each other. (Yes, there were people even lower down in the pecking order than me; no, I did nothing to make their lives easier.) Again, from Mr. Graham: The world seemed cruel and boring, and I'm not sure which was worse.

I like his theory about the correlation of suburbia and insanity. That makes sense to me. And I think he offers valuable pointers toward how to change the situation. No, nothing easy, nothing definite, but most problem-solving starts with saying, Hey! The emperor is buck-naked!

And as he says, the place to stand with Archimedes's lever is by teaching smart children to say it.

Comments

[coffeeandink.livejournal.com]

It wasn't that I didn't know they were working. It was (a.) the work they were doing was so profoundly uncongenial to me that I could never have done it sincerely and (b.) at a very basic level it seemed then, and still kind of does, like magic. I knew that it was work, but i didn't understand how to do it.

Yes, definitely. I still feel this way about many, many social interactions.

I agree with most of your objections to Graham's article. I don't endorse it whole-heartedly, but I do think it's thoughtful and thought-provoking. And obviously it brought up very vivid memories for me.

I knew we were savages. I read Lord of the Flies on my own, a few years before it was assigned in school. It didn't help.

p.s.

[coffeeandink.livejournal.com]

And I am so much more skeptical of "family" as the answer that I can hardly express it.

My parents are well-educated professionals. But they're not intellectuals. And their most common complaint during my childhood was that I read too much.

[truepenny.livejournal.com]

Oh, it wasn't that I didn't KNOW we were savages, it was that it would have helped to have people ADMIT it.

I agree with your reservations about family as the answer; that only works if your family isn't totally fucked up AND if your family supports and understands who you are aside from blood-kin. I think his valuable suggestions are in the arena of acknowledging and articulating the problem and NOT saying it's just 'cause teenagers are hormonally crazed.

My calculus teacher in high school told us we were geeks and told us to be proud of it. She bulldozed straight through the whole uncoolness factor, and I will always be grateful to her for that.

Definitely a thought-provoking article. And he's right about a lot of things.