# Popularity contest?



## Simon Curran (Mar 27, 2005)

Hi all,
I found myself in Chick Flick and Cheesy Soap Opera hell the other day when my girlfriend had a friend visiting for the day, and it kind of got me thinking...

From an outsider's media driven view, it seems as if the US school system is nothing but one big popularity contest from start to finish, what with voting for class presidents, prom kings and queens, valor dictorians etc.
Kinda got me wondering what this would do to those who are unpopular to start with, having all of these events which just go to prove how much more popular everyone else is than they are.
Surely this can't be good for their already wailing self esteem?
Trying to think back to my school days, I don't think it was like that in my school, but I can't be too sure since I kind of fitted into the "Does not play well with others" category.
I do remember there were obvious cliques, but it just seems (once again from what I have seen in films and TV) that in the US that it is pretty much formalised, especially with the whole fraternity/sorority gig in colleges...

Am I way off base here?
What do you think?

Please let's not allow this to de-generate into a "Our school's better than yours" or "What do you know" "What have you ever given the world" type discussion, I would just like to know other people's feelings and experiences.

Thanks
Simon


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 27, 2005)

Well I can relate to the "un-popular" section, because as a former _*NERD*_ (aka geek) the whole being popular at school thingy was just something I didn't fuss with too much. 
Basically those things are designed to help boost confidence and foster a good self-esteem. What is lacking is the proper balance to make sure everyone benefits. Thus is the way of the world today. 
You're going to decide how popular you are not the other way around. Being assertive and forthright enough to get out and meet people and finding ways to click and relate to them is up to you. Too bad I had to learn all of this too late (after high-school) but at least I learned it and now have a good sense of being "well-liked" in whatever circle/group I find myself in, I also learned that it isn't important to have *everybody* like me. It'd be nice but it's not possible thus not that big of a deal. 
But either way there's always going to be "outsiders". Someone different or odd. Thing is that until someone tells them that it's okay to be this way and that is what helps keep the world a diverse and wonderful place... we're going to get the occasional quirks that come out of the woodwork. Unfortunately this also leads to the occasional Eric and Dylan types. 
But popularity contests... a way of life. You can join in or do without. It's what's important to *you* that matters.  :asian:


----------



## Jaymeister (Mar 27, 2005)

It seems to me like there's a lot more pressure on the kids in American schools compared to here in Europe, I suspect that's why it's so important to be successful/popular, and why students seem much more competetive than in our schools.

But of course movies/tv-series will make it look 1000 times worse than it is, so those sources aren't really that reliable.


----------



## Simon Curran (Mar 28, 2005)

Jaymeister said:
			
		

> But of course movies/tv-series will make it look 1000 times worse than it is, so those sources aren't really that reliable.


Agreed, but that is kind of why I started this thread, to gain an insider's view point.

Macaver, I certainly agree that it is down to the individual to strive towards their own popularity, I just struggle to see a function in helping kids single someone out (which they are always going to do anyway...)


----------



## Adept (Mar 28, 2005)

MACaver said:
			
		

> as a former _*NERD*_ (aka geek)


 Nerds are different to geeks. Nerds are smart. I should know, since I'm a geek. Nerds can be geeks, but not all geeks are nerds.

 You can tell the difference. Geeks know how many Super Star Destroyers were built, and all their names. Nerds know advanced quantum physics and trigonometry.


----------



## Simon Curran (Mar 28, 2005)

Adept said:
			
		

> Nerds are different to geeks. Nerds are smart. I should know, since I'm a geek. Nerds can be geeks, but not all geeks are nerds.
> 
> You can tell the difference. Geeks know how many Super Star Destroyers were built, and all their names. Nerds know advanced quantum physics and trigonometry.


So how many Super Star Destroyers were built then???


----------



## Adept (Mar 28, 2005)

SIMONCURRAN said:
			
		

> So how many Super Star Destroyers were built then???


 Eight.

 Including the missing one hidden on Coruscant.

 *polishes geek badge*


----------



## Simon Curran (Mar 28, 2005)

Adept said:
			
		

> Eight.
> 
> Including the missing one hidden on Coruscant.
> 
> *polishes geek badge*


I need to dig out my star wars tapes...

Back to the subject, does anyone else have any input?


----------



## bignick (Mar 28, 2005)

Adept said:
			
		

> Eight.
> 
> Including the missing one hidden on Coruscant.
> 
> *polishes geek badge*


 Nice...referencing the novels, too...


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 28, 2005)

Adept said:
			
		

> Nerds are different to geeks. Nerds are smart. I should know, since I'm a geek. Nerds can be geeks, but not all geeks are nerds.
> 
> You can tell the difference. Geeks know how many Super Star Destroyers were built, and all their names. Nerds know advanced quantum physics and trigonometry.



Uhh, Trigo-what? 
:lol:


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 28, 2005)

I was NEVER popular at school.  My mother was socially clueless and raised me the same way, so the whole social scene pretty much escaped me and, yeah, it did seem like every single activity was geared toward popularityj.  One Senior class president was a stoner, didn't get the greatest grades, did essentially nothing service-wise for the class or the school, just walked around more popular than ever with a title, bad grades, blood-shot eyes, and a C average.  He was also Homecoming King and Prom King.  Cheerleaders were always popular and always the queens and princesses and whatever.

 I, however, co-founded the computer club (whoopee), took college classes after school and got into acting in Senior year.

 I hated high school.  All the popular kids were crying on graduation day - I was shouting and jumping.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Mar 28, 2005)

I have always been a geek AND a nerd.  Maybe more so a nerd.

I think the "popularity contests" at American schools can become ridiculous.  It also depends on the school (local culture) as to whether the "popular" kids are really the most well-liked, or if they are the most socially feared.  Some of the most "popular" kids in high school weren't the nicest at all - but could be the most verbally cruel, so people feared them.

I think it can be a big problem.  I think sometimes a "popular" kid needs to realize that they are a kid just like any other.


----------



## TigerWoman (Mar 28, 2005)

Our school system in this town,  keeps talking about uniforms ever so often until it is quashed.  But then they encourage the snow queen & king, the president, cheerleaders, prom queen etc.  and the cliques continue.

In California, some 10-15 yrs. ago, self-esteem was force fed into the kids.  So they grew up and wondered why they weren't popular if they were so great. They were great even though they didn't work at anything including friendship.   I always told my kids to be individuals first and to be a friend to those who need friends.  Also, that the kids who were popular were just like a fad--importance passing when they get out of high school.  I went back to my 20 yr. high school reunion and the popular kids still had the same catty pack traits. They never learned to become stronger, unselfish individuals. TW


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 28, 2005)

Adept said:
			
		

> Nerds are different to geeks. Nerds are smart. I should know, since I'm a geek. Nerds can be geeks, but not all geeks are nerds.
> 
> You can tell the difference. Geeks know how many Super Star Destroyers were built, and all their names. Nerds know advanced quantum physics and trigonometry.




Nerds also tell you the science used and stretch into making the Geeks get all in a buzz about the newest weapon or form of travel.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Mar 28, 2005)

If we emphasized social organizations for nerds and geeks...we'd be a lot better off.  We need to promote chess club, computer club, debate club, science club...all that good stuff.  

WITH AN ADDED FOCUS on recruitment, fundraising for scholarships, an emphasis on taking the children's knowledge of the topic above and beyond the standard...and getting cute girls to join.

Or something.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 28, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> If we emphasized social organizations for nerds and geeks...we'd be a lot better off.  We need to promote chess club, computer club, debate club, science club...all that good stuff.
> 
> WITH AN ADDED FOCUS on recruitment, fundraising for scholarships, an emphasis on taking the children's knowledge of the topic above and beyond the standard...and getting cute girls to join.
> 
> ...




Hmmm,

Chess Club in High School and College, and held various officer rolls in both.

Computer Club in High School when it was main frames. 

ACM in College, I joined the problem solving team for competition but was not able to compete do to too much time requirements for studying 

Science Club in High school was the BOMB. I was President for three years, we went to Toronto and Chicago, both have great science museums and other cultureal events to attend for a weekend for high school kids.

Oh yea we had cute girls as well, well it was Toronto and Chicago, people wanted to go.

I bring this up for many a HS has a desire but no sponser, so a Teacher could be the faculty sponser but they really need a parent to take charge and run lots of the logistics, and to train the students to do it for themselves. The cool part for the parent is that they get to go do these events with their children and also have fun separately 


PS: Math, Chem Clubs and Gaming Society in college we lots of fun as well. Chem club had lots of home brewers, and the Gaming society is well for also people who like Minatures, historic warfare and RPG's. Also getting involved in political actions clubs is also a way to show eladership and or to meet people and support what you think is good.


----------



## Simon Curran (Mar 31, 2005)

So it isn't just a media generated impression then, it is reality?


----------



## Phoenix44 (Mar 31, 2005)

Hollywood...sheesh...


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 31, 2005)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Hmmm,
> 
> Chess Club in High School and College, and held various officer rolls in both.
> 
> ...



Yeah, it's how I got started in caving too. Buddy of mine moved from Indiana (a cave-heavy state) to Tennessee (another cave-heavy state) and started up a club of which I was invited to be charter member and then hence forth I was hooked. I was already beginning my MA-experiences at the time (but no club  ). Got bit by two bugs at once.   One of my teachers became the "sponsor" and thus it got going. Pretty geeky group that was too. Come to think of it, 90% of the folks I go underground are geeks or nerds (or were when they went to their respective schools).


----------



## ghostdog2 (Mar 31, 2005)

I went to an all boys high school that required uniforms, including a tie, and stressed academics as well as athletics. Discipline was strict and consistent (it was a Jesuit school with a required JROTC program. Think about that.) The teachers emphasised moral and ethical correctness and including everyone.
It seemed to work. School spirit and morale were high. There was the usual jock/non-jock divide, but since grades were so important, athletes took part in everything from debate to music. 
I have sent my son to a similar school. It seems to me that single sex schools, proper uniforms and a religous/spiritual atmosphere really cut down on the "who's popular now" state of mind. I helped coach the Young Lawyers program and the kids were varsity athletes and computer geeks all in one place and seemingly all on the same page. Reminded me of my high school.
So, I guess I'm saying that I don't recognize those Hollywood depictions of high school. It was not that way for me and has not been that way for my son.


----------



## bignick (Mar 31, 2005)

I'm definitely a nerd with strong geek influences...who studies how to beat up the jocks.  :uhyeah: I think I tend to cross social groups. In high school, I was the senior class secretary and a member of the National Honor Society. Was a member of the track team and starting defensive tackle for football team(Runner up,MN State 9-man) , but kinda regret the football now(not too great for the body). But was also a 5 year letter winner on the Speech team and longtime member of the theater. Played tenor sax in the band and was a Boy Scout(Eagle Scout) until I turned 18. Graduated 6th in my class.

 All in all, as I look back, I'd say I was a pretty popular guy. But, as I've interacted with people from other areas I've realized my school was a little different. There certainly was cliques and certain groups that hang out with each other more consistently but those bonds were pretty weak. There certainly unpopular people and people that were teased but they never fit into one group. It was never, this is a jock school where we give the nerds wedgies, or that the goth kids were always picked on. It didn't matter what "social group" you primarily associated with, nobody was safe from being the "unpopular kid". I guess you could say we learned to look beyond stereotypes and dislike people for who they really are. 


 Here in college, member of the ACM, heading to a conference and programming competition next weekend. VP of the university's TKD club. And not only could I tell you how many Super Star Destroyers there were, could probably list most of their names


----------



## Chronuss (Mar 31, 2005)

Adept said:
			
		

> Nerds are different to geeks. Nerds are smart. I should know, since I'm a geek. Nerds can be geeks, but not all geeks are nerds.
> 
> You can tell the difference. Geeks know how many Super Star Destroyers were built, and all their names. Nerds know advanced quantum physics and trigonometry.


hrm...don't know quantum physics...know trig. and calc...but don't know how many Super Star Destroyers were destroyed...

in school, I tended to keep to myself, stayed quiet in classes, got my A's, and got the hell outta there.  did my computer classes, but stayed away from all the AP classes cause the teachers sucked.  never liked acting, didn't wanna be a part of SGA, had no musical talent...all I wanted was my Martial Arts, my animé, and my video games, and later on a weight room.  hell, I use to be in a clan on the MSN ZONE in Jedi Knight and BattleNet in Diablo II: LoD...so just how geeky is that...eh?...eh?  :uhyeah:


----------



## Dronak (Mar 31, 2005)

SIMONCURRAN said:
			
		

> From an outsider's media driven view, it seems as if the US school system is nothing but one big popularity contest from start to finish, what with voting for class presidents, prom kings and queens, valor dictorians etc.
> 
> Kinda got me wondering what this would do to those who are unpopular to start with, having all of these events which just go to prove how much more popular everyone else is than they are.
> Surely this can't be good for their already wailing self esteem?
> ...



Yeah, from what I remember, there is a lot of popularity stuff in schools here.  But I would like to point out that typically, valedictorian and salutatorian are not based on popularity, but rather academic achievement.  It's pretty fixed by the numbers for those.

I suppose these popularity based events can be a problem/issue for people who aren't that popular, but I think it will only be so if they don't possess enough self-confidence to be satisfied with who they are.  I was never very popular in school and I got teased sometimes for being one of the geeks/nerds, but it never bothered me that much.  I was generally content with who I was and I wasn't going to let my peers decide who I should be.  Not everyone can/will take that sort of stance though and they could have problems with all the popularity based things.  I suppose they need something to help their self-esteem.  Maybe their school will have "geek/nerd" clubs they could join so that they can continue to do what they're good at.  And by being with others in the same sort of situation, maybe they won't feel as bad about themselves, especially if they end up doing really well in those clubs.

The fraternity/sorority thing never made tons of sense to me.  I never joined, but from what I heard about them, the current members would haze you during the pledge/application period then after they picked on you mercilessly for weeks or months, they became your best buddies in the world.  I don't get it.  I also remember it being referred to as buying your friends.  That's not to say all of them are bad, I don't really know how they work, just that I think this procedure, if it's what they use, doesn't make much sense.


----------



## Simon Curran (Apr 1, 2005)

So it's even more confusing for an outsider looking in...

But it does seem like the so called geeks and nerds are the ones making an effort in their later lives (at least those we have here)


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 1, 2005)

So question now is... in keeping with the Martial Art theme of this entire board...

Does anyone experience the same thing at their Dojo/School? Is there a breaking of groups between ranks (in between classes I mean) or??


----------



## bignick (Apr 1, 2005)

Oh...certainly...

Students of the same rank usually congregrate together because they're the people they work with the most and they know the best.


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 1, 2005)

SIMONCURRAN said:
			
		

> So it isn't just a media generated impression then, it is reality?


 I feel HollyWood bases there stuff off of reality, what you see on the screen, in terms of groupings and the social culture is present in the high schools. There are the "pretty girls", the "jocks", the "wise asses", "thugs", "nerds", "geeks", those that don't fit in with anyone, etc...Depending on what group you were in that's the point of view one would relate to. The captain of the chess team , or science club, were great in their own world, but, in the bigger picture, unless it's a chess match ot scienc topic, there only good enough to copy homework, or tests from by everyone else. No disrespect intended, but that's the truth.


----------



## Simon Curran (Apr 1, 2005)

MACaver said:
			
		

> So question now is... in keeping with the Martial Art theme of this entire board...
> 
> Does anyone experience the same thing at their Dojo/School? Is there a breaking of groups between ranks (in between classes I mean) or??


Fortunately we are a pretty small club, and as such fairly close knit, but I can see where that may happen, as Big Nick says, they are one's longest aquaintences(sp)


----------



## Shaolinwind (Apr 1, 2005)

SIMONCURRAN said:
			
		

> So it isn't just a media generated impression then, it is reality?


I think it is..  And I blame the adults.  They encourage class elections. They stifle independant thoughts and don't allow you to voice differing opinions, showing less independant thinkers that those who don't follow the crowd are bad or stupid.  People like me (the geek in accordance to Adept's definition) don't get told they are good people and can achieve something in the world, and that all this crap doesn't matter in the end.  They seem to take pleasure in humiliating under-achievers.  Bad adults make bad children and our public schools have the lion's share of both.


----------



## Simon Curran (Apr 1, 2005)

Chobaja said:
			
		

> I think it is.. And I blame the adults. They encourage class elections. They stifle independant thoughts and don't allow you to voice differing opinions, showing less independant thinkers that those who don't follow the crowd are bad or stupid. People like me (the geek in accordance to Adept's definition) don't get told they are good people and can achieve something in the world, and that all this crap doesn't matter in the end. They seem to take pleasure in humiliating under-achievers. Bad adults make bad children and our public schools have the lion's share of both.


It sounds almost like a vicious circle then, any ideas on what could be done to break it?


----------



## Shaolinwind (Apr 1, 2005)

SIMONCURRAN said:
			
		

> It sounds almost like a vicious circle then, any ideas on what could be done to break it?


I wish I did. Common sense just isn't common enough.


----------



## Simon Curran (Apr 1, 2005)

Do we have anybody here who would have considered themselves among the popular?

If so what is your take on the issue?
Have you found people resent you because of it?
Or is it vice-versa?


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 1, 2005)

SIMONCURRAN said:
			
		

> > Originally Posted by Chobaja
> > I think it is.. And I blame the adults. They encourage class elections. They stifle independant thoughts and don't allow you to voice differing opinions, showing less independant thinkers that those who don't follow the crowd are bad or stupid. People like me (the geek in accordance to Adept's definition) don't get told they are good people and can achieve something in the world, and that all this crap doesn't matter in the end. They seem to take pleasure in humiliating under-achievers. Bad adults make bad children and our public schools have the lion's share of both.
> 
> 
> It sounds almost like a vicious circle then, any ideas on what could be done to break it?



How about Shakespere?..."First thing we do ... KILL all the lawyers."


----------



## Simon Curran (Apr 1, 2005)

MACaver said:
			
		

> How about Shakespere?..."First thing we do ... KILL all the lawyers."


Yep, old Will did make some sense sometimes...


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 1, 2005)

Unfortunately there really is no way to break the "cycle", it's a matter of natural selection, that applies to every living thing on this planet--including us. some will always be faster, stronger, prettier, and come into their own, in terms of confidence than others . Outside of adult control, say in a classroom, kids have their own world. They live by the natural order, pretty ones get the attention, the bigger and stronger get what they want, usually by intimidation, or pounding you. You have to fit in, somehow, even if you make your own group, within the group (don't think so? ask the average nerd or geek about coping to deal with the others outside of chess class or the science fair). You can't take evolution out of the picture, no matter how cruel that sounds, or how many kids get picked on. Besides, with concern to this topic, isn't that how the martial arts developed and evolved--out of need for self defense?


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Apr 1, 2005)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> Unfortunately there really is no way to break the "cycle", it's a matter of natural selection, that applies to every living thing on this planet--including us. some will always be faster, stronger, prettier, and come into their own, in terms of confidence than others . Outside of adult control, say in a classroom, kids have their own world. They live by the natural order, pretty ones get the attention, the bigger and stronger get what they want, usually by intimidation, or pounding you. You have to fit in, somehow, even if you make your own group, within the group (don't think so? ask the average nerd or geek about coping to deal with the others outside of chess class or the science fair). You can't take evolution out of the picture, no matter how cruel that sounds, or how many kids get picked on. Besides, with concern to this topic, isn't that how the martial arts developed and evolved--out of need for self defense?


Social Darwinism is bogus, no offense.

Social systems are as we decide to contruct them, actually - kids aren't fighting to mate and reproduce the next generation.


----------



## Nanalo74 (Apr 1, 2005)

SIMONCURRAN said:
			
		

> From an outsider's media driven view, it seems as if the US school system is nothing but one big popularity contest from start to finish, what with voting for class presidents, prom kings and queens, valor dictorians etc.
> Kinda got me wondering what this would do to those who are unpopular to start with, having all of these events which just go to prove how much more popular everyone else is than they are.
> Surely this can't be good for their already wailing self esteem?


What this does is create a huge disparity, an "us vs. them" mentality if you will. In extreme cases it turns into a Columbine situation, wherein the outcasts lash back at the popular kids in an extremely violent manner. 

I work in the public school system in NYC. It absolutely IS a popularity contest. There is now a huge push to reintroduce uniforms in the schools. Many schools have already adopted a uniform policy, but the Chancellor won't go so far as to make them mandatory.

BTW, I was a nerd also. The thing was, I knew how to fight (started JKD at 10) so the bullies who picked on me got their tales kicked. They usually came back with 10 friends, so I got jumped alot. :idunno: 

Vic www.combatartusa.com


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 1, 2005)

Social Darwinism is Bogus? Kids aren't fighting for the right of reproduction of the species? You deep down don't believe that do you? Just look at any situation in schools or outside of school for that matter. Kid's hang out in thier own groups away from adult control, so there is no Adults constructing their social systems. When you were in school as a teen especially, how much contact did you have from adults? No offense to you, but, if you truly beleive that you can control things, than you had to be one of the "COOL " people back then, or at least one who was confident, or tough enough to be left alone, or added to the group, for their own safety. As another point concerning your post-- Who has more sex teens or adults? All the fighting in the schools, amongst those age children, is almost always over another boy or girl. Social groups are strongest amongst teens, see what happens if a "nerd" asks the "pretty cheerleader out on a date-- He'll get pounded after, first laughed at by the girl, and her friends. Hormones rage more as teens, your fearless, invicible, "wont happen to me", looks like nature picked that time period out for species reproduction, no matter how human cultural rules relate. As I said, you can't take nature out of the picture!


----------



## Shaolinwind (Apr 1, 2005)

Nanalo74 said:
			
		

> I work in the public school system in NYC. It absolutely IS a popularity contest. There is now a huge push to reintroduce uniforms in the schools. Many schools have already adopted a uniform policy, but the Chancellor won't go so far as to make them mandatory.


There are a few pittsburgh public schools with a uniform policy in place. Appearantly it works out a lot, I personally think its a fantastic idea esspecially for middle school where one is much more likely to take flack for wearing poorly fitting hand-me-downs or unstylish discount store clothing.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 1, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Social Darwinism is bogus, no offense.
> 
> Social systems are as we decide to contruct them, actually - kids aren't fighting to mate and reproduce the next generation.


Not as competition and natural selection of the fittest to reproduce per se, but to recognize that there is a pecking order/food chain and 'mutations' of social skill that are productive in a given environment while others are not....that perspective on it is fitting IMO.

It may be more metaphorical than in the past, but the successful ability to be socially 'popular' and therefore more likely to reproduce is very relevant to a point of hormonal explosions like middle school/HS years.


----------



## Simon Curran (Apr 2, 2005)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> Unfortunately there really is no way to break the "cycle", it's a matter of natural selection, that applies to every living thing on this planet--including us. some will always be faster, stronger, prettier, and come into their own, in terms of confidence than others . Outside of adult control, say in a classroom, kids have their own world. They live by the natural order, pretty ones get the attention, the bigger and stronger get what they want, usually by intimidation, or pounding you. You have to fit in, somehow, even if you make your own group, within the group (don't think so? ask the average nerd or geek about coping to deal with the others outside of chess class or the science fair). You can't take evolution out of the picture, no matter how cruel that sounds, or how many kids get picked on. Besides, with concern to this topic, isn't that how the martial arts developed and evolved--out of need for self defense?


 I'm not a scientist, so I couldn't comment on the scientific side of this, but like I said in my initial post, I just don't remember it being that way in my school, it is only what I have seen portrayed in US media


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 2, 2005)

I definitely envy you by having that experience, if your being honest, but, as the saying goes, what you see, is what you get. It's always been that way here and probably will stay that way, until we clone everyone to be great. I deal with the kids, seeing the arrogance, as well as the tears, I wish it could end.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Apr 2, 2005)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> Social Darwinism is Bogus? Kids aren't fighting for the right of reproduction of the species? You deep down don't believe that do you? Just look at any situation in schools or outside of school for that matter. Kid's hang out in thier own groups away from adult control, so there is no Adults constructing their social systems. When you were in school as a teen especially, how much contact did you have from adults? No offense to you, but, if you truly beleive that you can control things, than you had to be one of the "COOL " people back then, or at least one who was confident, or tough enough to be left alone, or added to the group, for their own safety. As another point concerning your post-- Who has more sex teens or adults? All the fighting in the schools, amongst those age children, is almost always over another boy or girl. Social groups are strongest amongst teens, see what happens if a "nerd" asks the "pretty cheerleader out on a date-- He'll get pounded after, first laughed at by the girl, and her friends. Hormones rage more as teens, your fearless, invicible, "wont happen to me", looks like nature picked that time period out for species reproduction, no matter how human cultural rules relate. As I said, you can't take nature out of the picture!


lol - Social Darwinism IS bogus.

That being said, I said "we" control social systems - meaning adults, all of society.  In part, that means that kids are constructing their own society too.  How they do that is, in part, up to how we (adults, teachers, etc) structure society as well.  

Just because some people in junior high/ high school are mean or ruthless doesn't mean that that is a "rule of nature", and it doesn't mean that there can be and are other ways.  

If teenagers were really into mating to maximize offspring surviving, you could make arguments for girls going after big jocks, OR going after the nerds who will be more likely to make a lot of money after graduating, and thus support a large breeding family.

The arguments using Social Darwinism to explain things are too easy.  Of course sex hormones start juicing up at these periods, and kids are going to be getting sexually active - but, again, they don't HAVE to, and if they do, how are these choices being made?

People can always be cruel.  It's in adolescence and high school as kids get more "room" from authority (or try to make more room) that they may be expressing their control over relationships and other people more.  Social dominance?  Quite possibly.


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 2, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> lol - Social Darwinism IS bogus.
> 
> That being said, I said "we" control social systems - meaning adults, all of society.  In part, that means that kids are constructing their own society too.  How they do that is, in part, up to how we (adults, teachers, etc) structure society as well.
> 
> ...


 You're definitely an idealist---God Bless You! Call it what you will, But, there is a reason that all of that "stuff" goes on during that time period, for you, me, and everyone else. Humans construct our own world, and think we are separate from nature, but, if you look objectively, you'll see that we are not. We act no different, and sometimes worse than our "natural" relatives. I never gave it a name, Darwin did nothing more than state the obvious, at a point in time were our cultural views were changing, away from biblical or supernatural beliefs.

My only point was that it is nature going on in a more purer form than we have in our phony adult world. We can't be with the kids all of the time. Saying people don't have to do things is also an easy argument, But, that debate is left for the philosophists over free will or not. since those debates don't prove anything for either side--your left with nature.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Apr 2, 2005)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> You're definitely an idealist---God Bless You! Call it what you will, But, there is a reason that all of that "stuff" goes on during that time period, for you, me, and everyone else. Humans construct our own world, and think we are separate from nature, but, if you look objectively, you'll see that we are not. We act no different, and sometimes worse than our "natural" relatives. I never gave it a name, Darwin did nothing more than state the obvious, at a point in time were our cultural views were changing, away from biblical or supernatural beliefs.
> 
> My only point was that it is nature going on in a more purer form than we have in our phony adult world. We can't be with the kids all of the time. Saying people don't have to do things is also an easy argument, But, that debate is left for the philosophists over free will or not. since those debates don't prove anything for either side--your left with nature.


Interesting.

I'm not an idealist - I'm a psychologist.  Comparative (cross-cultural) studies of social systems and adolescence are the best way to understand the differences between different social systems, and what may be "nature".  We are highly social animals, and we construct a huge amount of our environments - and we respond to the existing social systems (well or poorly).  Not all social systems have to result in kids acting a certain way - or the "cheerleader" shunning the "math nerd".  Some of these stereotypes are specific to certain cultures, at certain times.  So no, we can't call that specific thing "nature".

And it sounds like you are an idealist, as well - saying that children are more "pure nature" than adults, sounds just like Rousseau.  Also sounds like the Puritains, although they saw "pure" human nature as being flawed, and needing to be stringently corrected, rather than Rousseau, who saw a "noble savage" blossoming if each child was left to his or her own devices. 

Neither perspective would be OK with kids acting out, being needlessly cruel, etc.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 2, 2005)

If some "jock" is "pounding" on some "nerd" in school then it should be up to the adults to take some action. The real problem in schools is when the people running it dont deal with these situations or pretend they arent happening. While falling into social "classes" may be out of administration control, physical violence and public displays of cruelty darn well are......


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Apr 2, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> If some "jock" is "pounding" on some "nerd" in school then it should be up to the adults to take some action. The real problem in schools is when the people running it dont deal with these situations or pretend they arent happening. While falling into social "classes" may be out of administration control, physical violence and public displays of cruelty darn well are......


 Yes.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 2, 2005)

When I first got "on the job" I was suprised by the ammount of HS kids I was arresting for fighting in school. I used to think "gee kids will be kids, boys fight all the time, why doesnt the school just deal with this instead of putting this kid through the system?" and so on. After I thought about it, I think its a good idea. When the kid got the old "slap on the wrist" with detention/suspension it was back to business as usual. When the judge puts conditions on you after an arrest theres signifigantly more leverage.


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 2, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> If some "jock" is "pounding" on some "nerd" in school then it should be up to the adults to take some action. The real problem in schools is when the people running it dont deal with these situations or pretend they arent happening. While falling into social "classes" may be out of administration control, physical violence and public displays of cruelty darn well are......


 True, But, also kids wait, mostly for a time away from adult supervision. The adults always stopped the cruelty when they had the ability to do so.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 2, 2005)

Stopping it can be way different from "dealing" with it though...its about policy.


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 2, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> When I first got "on the job" I was suprised by the ammount of HS kids I was arresting for fighting in school. I used to think "gee kids will be kids, boys fight all the time, why doesnt the school just deal with this instead of putting this kid through the system?" and so on. After I thought about it, I think its a good idea. When the kid got the old "slap on the wrist" with detention/suspension it was back to business as usual. When the judge puts conditions on you after an arrest theres signifigantly more leverage.


 Yeah that could be philosophically true, but realistically, if you "dime" someone out, the after effects were usually worse than the original act itself


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 2, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Stopping it can be way different from "dealing" with it though...its about policy.


 Everyone is aware of the policy or the law, but it still doesn't stop it from happening. We have the policy that all of our children are viewed as equal, but, that's not really true is it? No matter what rules I enforce that less athletic kid will never out do the more athletic kid. The less attractive girl will not aquire the attention that the pretty girl does, no matter what we do.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 2, 2005)

I dont think we should be telling kids to "just take it". I also dont think letting them "deal with it" on their own is a good idea either (can anybody say "school violence"?). We should be teaching kids to deal with violence the same way we should be teaching adults. Avoid, defend, report.....


----------



## Tgace (Apr 2, 2005)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> Everyone is aware of the policy or the law, but it still doesn't stop it from happening. We have the policy that all of our children are viewed as equal, but, that's not really true is it? No matter what rules I enforce that less athletic kid will never out do the more athletic kid. The less attractive girl will not aquire the attention that the pretty girl does, no matter what we do.


Like I said before. That stuff you cant control. That jock punching somebody in the hall though.....there needs to be immediate and signifigant repercussions.


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 2, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Like I said before. That stuff you cant control. That jock punching somebody in the hall though.....there needs to be immediate and signifigant repercussions.


 Agreed!!

What we can control we absolutely should. My responses were in contrast to Feisty Mouse's view that everything CAN be controlled, that nature has nothing to do with anything, and kids don't have a separate world from the rest of us.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 2, 2005)

My philosophy is we should expect kids to treat each other the same way adults do (or at least be trying to teach them too). 

Socially we are not all "equal" either. But that doesnt mean that it should be "natural" for the adult version of the "jock" to be able to abuse the adult version of the "geek" without consequence.

I also dont know if I buy the "kids live in a different world from us" viewpoint. They live in the same world we do. We just let them live under a different set of rules. If adults did the same things to each other that kids do, most would be in jail or facing lawsuits. Its not nature as much as it is society....


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 2, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> My philosophy is we should expect kids to treat each other the same way adults do (or at least be trying to teach them too).
> 
> Socially we are not all "equal" either. But that doesnt mean that it should be "natural" for the adult version of the "jock" to be able to abuse the adult version of the "geek" without consequence.
> 
> I also dont know if I buy the "kids live in a different world from us" viewpoint. They live in the same world we do. We just let them live under a different set of rules. If adults did the same things to each other that kids do, most would be in jail or facing lawsuits. Its not nature as much as it is society....


 Absolutely, but the posts were dealing with the school age kids, teenies, and if what goes on in the movies does actually go on or not. I think we all got off track a little bit, If you felt disrespected I apologize, that wasn't my intent (the arguing), as I said leave that to the philosophers.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 2, 2005)

No not at all. I enjoyed it. No anger at all....I tend to just type out my point in a blunt manner sometimes. Sorry if I came off "angry".


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 2, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> No not at all. I enjoyed it. No anger at all....I tend to just type out my point in a blunt manner sometimes. Sorry if I came off "angry".


 I guess we'll all give a different point of view from the perspective of the groups we came up in. Just look at vh1's "My Coolest Years", the same things are described by some of every group "the geeks", "the mean girls", etc... and the view of "how it was" varies greatly.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 2, 2005)

I guess I was a "non entity". Not popular, not picked on, not overly smart (did make the honor society though), ran track for a short time but not really a "jock". Sort of "invisible" if ya know what I mean. But the small group of friends I had have lasted a lifetime so far....


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 2, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I guess I was a "non entity". Not popular, not picked on, not overly smart (did make the honor society though), ran track for a short time but not really a "jock". Sort of "invisible" if ya know what I mean. But the small group of friends I had have lasted a lifetime so far....


Sounds almost .... blessed. How do you feel it has all affected you as an adult, your time as a "non entity"?
Life time friends are rare so mebbe you are blessed after all.


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 2, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I guess I was a "non entity". Not popular, not picked on, not overly smart (did make the honor society though), ran track for a short time but not really a "jock". Sort of "invisible" if ya know what I mean. But the small group of friends I had have lasted a lifetime so far....


 I know what you mean. I didn't fit into any exclusive groups either, but knew members of all groups, and could do sports well enough to "hang". We had a gang state on top of the clique state, and I had mine too.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 2, 2005)

Well as an exercise in "self analysis"... I grew up in a small town, 2 sisters, no boys my age within "playing distance". I never got into team sports as a result. That probably resulted in my interest in "solo" activities. Ive hunted, hiked, rock climbed, sky dived, into running, martial arts, etc. etc.

The "non entity" status probably resulted in my wanting to "prove myself as a man". Ive done the whole "macho" military, martial arts, x-games sports all the way up to my current profession...I suppose we all take what live hands us and some try to use it as a "base" or "springboard" into other things while others use it as an excuse for failure.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 2, 2005)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> I know what you mean. I didn't fit into any exclusive groups either, but knew members of all groups, and could do sports well enough to "hang". We had a gang state on top of the clique state, and I had mine too.


Same same.


----------



## Simon Curran (Apr 3, 2005)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> I definitely envy you by having that experience, if your being honest, but, as the saying goes, what you see, is what you get. It's always been that way here and probably will stay that way, until we clone everyone to be great. I deal with the kids, seeing the arrogance, as well as the tears, I wish it could end.


Like I said, it's not that I am sure that it wasn't that way in my school, merely that I don't remember it being like that, but to use Tgace's quote I was also kind of a non entity, in most sport teams but not a jock, in the top classes academically but not a nerd, but I don't have contact with any of those I knew in school, I moved away some time ago.
The point being, maybe it is more a matter of perspective, from my perspective it wasn't that way, but maybe for those on either end of the spectrum it was...


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 3, 2005)

SIMONCURRAN said:
			
		

> Like I said, it's not that I am sure that it wasn't that way in my school, merely that I don't remember it being like that, but to use Tgace's quote I was also kind of a non entity, in most sport teams but not a jock, in the top classes academically but not a nerd, but I don't have contact with any of those I knew in school, I moved away some time ago.
> The point being, maybe it is more a matter of perspective, from my perspective it wasn't that way, but maybe for those on either end of the spectrum it was...


 You're right there,

It was that way for the most part, the grouping thing only appears during social situations when the kids have a freedom from adult control. Say during lunch, see who sits with who, it's definitely clique oriented. Definitely at the hangouts during the weekend, where all the problems, and reminders of where your place in the pecking order would occur, and carried over into school. I remember it that way, and when I see the kids now, and talk to them, it's during those time periods that the awareness exists. In school, for the most part it is status quo.


----------



## Adept (Apr 3, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Well as an exercise in "self analysis"... I grew up in a small town, 2 sisters, no boys my age within "playing distance". I never got into team sports as a result. That probably resulted in my interest in "solo" activities. Ive hunted, hiked, rock climbed, sky dived, into running, martial arts, etc. etc.
> 
> The "non entity" status probably resulted in my wanting to "prove myself as a man". Ive done the whole "macho" military, martial arts, x-games sports all the way up to my current profession...I suppose we all take what live hands us and some try to use it as a "base" or "springboard" into other things while others use it as an excuse for failure.


 Who are you, and what are you doing in my life?


----------



## Simon Curran (Apr 3, 2005)

Adept said:
			
		

> Who are you, and what are you doing in my life?


 I was thinking the same, but I've never been hunting...


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 6, 2005)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> I never gave it a name, Darwin did nothing more than state the obvious, at a point in time were our cultural views were changing, away from biblical or supernatural beliefs.



Just so you know, Charles Darwin has nothing to do whatsoever with "Social Darwinism". The term "survival of the fittest" came decades later, from the mouth of a sociologist. Not a biologist.

And, Feisty Mouse is right on this one. Social Darwinism is a load of dookey-doo. The research supports this, sorry.

For a comparison as to the "natural-ness" of what happens in our high schools, you might be interested in cross-cultural research concerning the stages of adolescence within non-Western cultures. 

Margaret Meade, for example, would be chuckling at you right now. If she were still alive, that is.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 6, 2005)

http://www.asbj.com/199909/0999coverstory.html

Read the sidebar....


----------



## Tgace (Apr 6, 2005)

and...

http://slashdot.org/articles/99/04/25/1438249.shtml


----------



## Tgace (Apr 6, 2005)

I actually have fond memories of HS......


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 7, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Just so you know, Charles Darwin has nothing to do whatsoever with "Social Darwinism". The term "survival of the fittest" came decades later, from the mouth of a sociologist. Not a biologist.
> 
> And, Feisty Mouse is right on this one. Social Darwinism is a load of dookey-doo. The research supports this, sorry.
> 
> ...


 I'm not a scientist, never claimed to be. I'm just saying that there is a grouping system that people gravitate to, especially in high school, that exists, naturally, in spite of human control attempts to squash it. No adult would subjugate their kids to the punishment of high school social rituals. A mother would love for her "not so pretty" daughter to get the "cute" guy's attention. 
The thread just asked if these groups, as portrayed in movies existed for real---They Do! Whether we beleive they can be controlled, destroyed, or whatever, is irrevelant to the question posed. If we could make kids equal, we would have done so by now, and as far as foreign cultures, I guarantee the pecking order exists there too. Our personality is in our genes, passed on through evolution, no matter how much adults push, or laws, and rules imposed, what is--IS!


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Apr 7, 2005)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> I'm not a scientist, never claimed to be. I'm just saying that there is a grouping system that people gravitate to, especially in high school, that exists, naturally, in spite of human control attempts to squash it. No adult would subjugate their kids to the punishment of high school social rituals. A mother would love for her "not so pretty" daughter to get the "cute" guy's attention.
> The thread just asked if these groups, as portrayed in movies existed for real---They Do! Whether we beleive they can be controlled, destroyed, or whatever, is irrevelant to the question posed. If we could make kids equal, we would have done so by now, and as far as foreign cultures, I guarantee the pecking order exists there too. *Our personality is in our genes, passed on through evolution*, no matter how much adults push, or laws, and rules imposed, what is--IS!


If you don't look at cross-cultural studies, you can't really know what is "natural" and what is a product of a particular social environment.  

The only "personality part" that has been relatively well documented to show up after birth is temperament, which is a general tendency.


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 7, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> If you don't look at cross-cultural studies, you can't really know what is "natural" and what is a product of a particular social environment.
> 
> The only "personality part" that has been relatively well documented to show up after birth is temperament, which is a general tendency.


 True, but, isn't your temperament part of your personality, or another way of describing one's personality?


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 7, 2005)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> I'm not a scientist, never claimed to be.



Yet you seemed to imply, quite clearly I might add, that Charles Darwin somehow posited the claims later made by Social Darwinism. He most assuredly did not. He never even said "survival of the fittest", a term first coined by a notable Social Darwinist (a sociologist whose name eludes me at the moment).

You say you're not a scientist. That's no biggy, most people aren't. But, I may also add, that if you are not at least familiar with the _actual research_ that has gone into the study of such topics as these, then you really don't have much of an edifice to stand on. You're essentially just positing ideas and speculations that you _think_ sound "good" or "reasonable" (in other words, _a priori_ assumptions), devoid of any supporting evidence.

Listen to Feisty on this one.



			
				Hand Sword said:
			
		

> I'm just saying that there is a grouping system that people gravitate to, especially in high school, that exists, naturally, in spite of human control attempts to squash it. No adult would subjugate their kids to the punishment of high school social rituals. A mother would love for her "not so pretty" daughter to get the "cute" guy's attention.



I know this might be a shocker, but just because you believe something occurs "naturally" doesn't actually make it so. Neo-classical economists also think their theories and rules are "natural laws", but cross-cultural research indicates otherwise.

The social clique situation in high school, just like our formal educational system itself, is a social construction that _we_ collectively created (whether consciously or not). Don't believe me, just look up Margaret Meade's well-established research on the Trobriand Islanders. Among the many things she noted was that adolescents among the Trobrianders _do not_ go through the same process of "storm and stress" that Western adolescents do. Their adolescence is typically peaceful and stress-free.



			
				Hand Sword said:
			
		

> If we could make kids equal, we would have done so by now



Read up on some developmental research before making baseless claims like that. 



			
				Hand Sword said:
			
		

> and as far as foreign cultures, I guarantee the pecking order exists there too.



Apparently, then, your guarantees are worthless. It varies from culture to culture, most notably among pre-industrial ones.



			
				Hand Sword said:
			
		

> Our personality is in our genes, passed on through evolution, no matter how much adults push, or laws, and rules imposed, what is--IS!



Actually... no, not really.

Technically speaking, there is nothing _in_ our genetic makeup outside of potentialities and possibilities. Despite the bluff of many biologists, our genes do not "contain" or "encode" any traits and qualities as if in some fancied self-generated, self-perpetuating, and self-containing system.

Our actual traits, qualities, behaviors, and personalities are a result of an _interaction_ between our biological/genetic makeup and our various environments (physical, socioeconomic, and cultural). Our "personality" is no more _in_ our genes than it is _in_ our culture. The result is _always_ a dynamic systematic relationship between self and environment --- perpetually, continuously, unendingly.

That viewpoint, by the way, is referred to as _epigenesis_ and it actually is supported by cross-cultural research. 

Laterz.


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 7, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Yet you seemed to imply, quite clearly I might add, that Charles Darwin somehow posited the claims later made by Social Darwinism. He most assuredly did not. He never even said "survival of the fittest", a term first coined by a notable Social Darwinist (a sociologist whose name eludes me at the moment).
> 
> You say you're not a scientist. That's no biggy, most people aren't. But, I may also add, that if you are not at least familiar with the _actual research_ that has gone into the study of such topics as these, then you really don't have much of an edifice to stand on. You're essentially just positing ideas and speculations that you _think_ sound "good" or "reasonable" (in other words, _a priori_ assumptions), devoid of any supporting evidence.
> 
> ...


You're all correct! I give up! You're right the whole idea of nature and evolution and science is ridiculous. We live in a Utopia, silly me, I didn't see it, or experience it. Now, I have all the information needed when I'm working with the kids, among the blood, and the tears. I can now tell the unathletic that it's just a matter of interraction, no problem, hang with the athletes and you'll be able to keep up, don't blame genetics, they have nothing to do with evolution.
Keep quoting the left wing research, the absolute answers keep changing, Nature vs. Nurture, this years answer will be a past assumption, However, as much as this hurts, Humans can't control everything, we are products of nature.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 7, 2005)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> You're right the whole idea of nature and evolution and science is ridiculous.



To be more accurate, _your ideas_ of "nature", "evolution", and "science" are misinformed and myopic. 



			
				Hand Sword said:
			
		

> We live in a Utopia, silly me, I didn't see it, or experience it. Now, I have all the information needed when I'm working with the kids, among the blood, and the tears. I can now tell the unathletic that it's just a matter of interraction, no problem, hang with the athletes and you'll be able to keep up, don't blame genetics, they have nothing to do with evolution.



Logical Fallacy: Appeal To Emotion
Logical Fallacy: Appeal To Ridicule
Logical Fallacy: Appeal To Spite

'Nuff said. Laterz.


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 7, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> To be more accurate, _your ideas_ of "nature", "evolution", and "science" are misinformed and myopic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Like I said, You're right about everything, can't debate the left wing, intellectual. I just hope one day someone doesn't one day shatter those rose colored glasses that view things with, or one of your loved ones with a serious reality check. But, remember it is us that failed that poor criminal! The martial arts are for fitness, what's with all the brutality?
Take care!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 7, 2005)

Left Wing research?? Me??

HAH! I love it!! And, to think, I'm usually the guy debunking the _tabula rasa_...   

Y'know --- and this just may be me here --- before you go off on a Holy Crusade against the Flesh-Eating Leftists as to how best it is to intereract with children, perhaps you should stop acting like a child yourself?? Like, oh say, _not_ hurling spites and accusations at people that disagree with you for no other reason than your apparent ignorance of the subject being discussed???

Good grief.  :shrug: 

P.S.: I'd hardly describe the Logical Fallacies as 'Left Wing research'. Tch.


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 7, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Left Wing research?? Me??
> 
> HAH! I love it!! And, to think, I'm usually the guy debunking the _tabula rasa_...
> 
> ...


With all do respect you called me out, saying I was uneducated, etc.. I even said that I give up and you still pushed the argument, and now that I commented about you or your loved ones, the true reality of this world hit home enough that you stopped quoting and showing and showed some genuine anger, Why? Because there is truth to what I said and deep down, as much as you might hate it, you know it's out there, and it isn't going away!The topics of this post weren't even addressing that argument anymore, you reached back and pulled it out. I'm not a righty evangelist, and I'm not a lefty. I see things for what is, not what a researcher says--that always changes, along with cultural views. However, kids, definitely in high schools stay the same, no matter what is taught. I didn't hurl any spites at you, you opened up or continued the discussion the way that you did. I just said, that I hope you and your loved ones stay safe., and also, having gone through high school myself and dealing with the "groups", (Which by the way is what was asked in the thread, if they exist or not, not how, or why) as well as gang politics, I would say that I have a grip on the reality discussed. Kids are killing and dying over what you are arguing as bunk. Disagree, fine! I have no problem withyou or anyone, my other threads have tried to bring us all together. Rather than quote what might be why not tell us your high school experience, what group did you fit in with? What was your point of view then?
With respect!


----------



## Flatlander (Apr 7, 2005)

======================================
*Mod Note*:

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-Dan Bowman-
-MT Moderator-
======================================


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 7, 2005)

Once again: oh, good grief.  

As much as I'd like to continue this little train of thought, _ad hominems_ are not my particular cup of tea. Not to mention, its pretty pointless.

Have good 'un. Laterz.


----------



## Simon Curran (Apr 8, 2005)

Whoa!!!
 Apologies everyone, I wasn't looking to start a mud slinging match, just to hear other people's thoughts and experiences.
 However it does seem to me that the vast majority here believe that my outsider's impression was correct...
 Any contradictions? Anybody experience it from another angle?


----------



## Zoran (Apr 10, 2005)

I just wonder where do the parents fit into to this. I am a little suprised it hasn't been mentioned in this thread. From my recollection of HS, all the kids that made life miserable for others where either spoiled or came from abusive households. 

 P.S.
 I was neither the geek or the popular kid. I had my own group of friends and we all were a bit different and didn't fit with any other group. I was also a bit of a trouble maker and tended to break rules for fun. Odd thing was that most of the teachers liked me including both the Deans. The principle didn't like me but he was pretty much a shmuck anyways.

 I also got into a lot of fights, mostly with bullies when I saw them pick on geeks.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 12, 2005)

SIMONCURRAN said:
			
		

> Whoa!!!
> Apologies everyone, I wasn't looking to start a mud slinging match, just to hear other people's thoughts and experiences.
> However it does seem to me that the vast majority here believe that my outsider's impression was correct...
> Any contradictions? Anybody experience it from another angle?



Well, _I_ certainly didn't intend for this discussion to devolve into a "mud slinging match" --- but some people just feel the need to hurl _ad hominems_ when their belief structures are challenged, I suppose. Including follow-up attacks in private messages. Go figure.

In any event, apologies all around.

As to your impressions, all I can say is that they're fairly accurate as far as my experiences go. I attended three different high schools --- one in Georgia and two in Florida --- and the whole "clique" system was present in all three.

Still, I don't think this is a distinctively "American" problem. You're likely to find similar systems in most schools in the West.


----------

