Popularity contest?
- Thread starter Simon Curran
- Start date
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 said:
Tgace
Grandmaster
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.
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.
OP
OP
Simon Curran
2nd Black Belt
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.Hand Sword said:
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,SIMONCURRAN said:
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.
OP
OP
Simon Curran
2nd Black Belt
I was thinking the same, but I've never been hunting...Adept said:Who are you, and what are you doing in my life?
heretic888
Senior Master
Hand Sword 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.
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
Grandmaster
Tgace
Grandmaster
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.heretic888 said:
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.Hand Sword said:
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?Feisty Mouse said:
heretic888
Senior Master
Hand Sword 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.
Listen to Feisty on this one.
Hand Sword said:
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:
Read up on some developmental research before making baseless claims like that.
Hand Sword said:
Apparently, then, your guarantees are worthless. It varies from culture to culture, most notably among pre-industrial ones.
Hand Sword said:
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.
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.heretic888 said:
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
Senior Master
Hand Sword said:
To be more accurate, your ideas of "nature", "evolution", and "science" are misinformed and myopic.
Hand Sword said:
Logical Fallacy: Appeal To Emotion
Logical Fallacy: Appeal To Ridicule
Logical Fallacy: Appeal To Spite
'Nuff said. Laterz.
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?heretic888 said:
Take care!!!!!!!!!!
heretic888
Senior Master
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.
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.
