This line of thinking is literally elementary. However, until the other night, I had not fully made the connection to teenage (and pre-teen) social dynamics.
Our friend Louie, an 12 year old boy who has this year entered the dark and scary world of junior high, was recently explaining to me the different "classes" by which students are categorized in junior high and through high school. I find it fascinating that the dynamics are so similar 10, 20 years later. I suppose I shouldn't be quite so shocked that this generation mirrors mine and the ones before it.
Though I have since matured in my value judgments of myself and others, I must admit that I took rejection very personally in high school. I had been pegged a "nerd" at some point in Junior High and the label seemed to follow me, preventing me from experiencing the acceptance and "popularity" that at the time, I thought would fill the void in me.
Why, I wondered, do people pick on the higher performing students? Since when is being smart a bad thing? Then it hit me. Majority rules. Look at the top 5% in your typical American high school. They seem so busy with academia and each other, they hardly notice that other people treat them poorly. Most of them in fact seem content with their position. And who are those that attack them? It seems that it's the students on the other end of the scale, the bottom 25% or so, that terrorize those at the top. And because there are more students in the bottom 25% than the top 5%, majority rules, and the rest of the students follow along. All of the sudden the ranks are flipped, and those at the bottom are now the most powerful, socially speaking that is. But aha! The moment of realization. The majority has only ruled on the treatment of these so called "nerds." Their personal worth, societal value, who they are and who they might become one day, is not in question. Didn't everyone still recognize that they would most likely succeed? Our judgment then seems to be attacking the value of success itself. I suppose that would explain why so many of these "popular" kids end up making so little of their lives. Their denial of success as a goal goes beyond high school, just as the brains and work ethic of high performing students tend to afford them opportunities that average and low-performing students will never know.
I recently learned of a Japanese video game that simulates high school - only in this game, the better students are also the most popular. Hmm, maybe American teenagers have some things to learn from the Japanese....
It may also have something to do with the following: What teenagers, and most people of all ages, really care about is social leverage. Life is really just a big popularity contest. If you take a look at chimps or any social species, it's the same game. Chicks want to be hot because they get positive attention for it. Guys want to be rich, cool, and charismatic because they get positive attention for it. Popularity means more sex with better partners and that's something evolution can sink its teeth into. Doing well in academics is hard work; playing sports, goofing off and making wise cracks in class is fun and easy. If you give high school kids, an avenue for social competition other than academics, they'll take it. The "cool kids" then are the funniest ones, the best athletes, the best actors, etc. Academic success is only viewed in a favorable light by kids in Asia because their school system doesn't provide many other avenues for social competition. By contrast, our school system gives kids baseball, football, softball, soccer, basketball, volleyball, tennis, theater, choir, band, cheerleading, color guard, track & field, student government, yearbook, all manner of clubs, and in private schools bible studies and chapel. What school is really for, learning, ends up taking a back seat to all of these other things because the real carrot on a stick (social leverage) is a lot easier and more fun to chase via alternative avenues. I don't mean to suggest that extra-curricular activities are worthless, I think they're essential to developing a well rounded personality. But for the U.S. to remain technologically relevant into the 21st century, sports and entertainment should be conducted at completely separate venues from academics. School facilities should be for learning and that's all. If intellect is the only grounds for peer competition, the cool kids will be the smart ones. And by this I solve all the world's problems.
ReplyDeleteMakes perfect sense. Kevin, if you ran for president, I would totally vote for you. Wait, I guess being president wouldn't fix anything. Ok, if you ran for some other really powerful position I would vote for you. Assuming the really powerful positions are the kind you can vote for. Ah, never mind. Just keep spreading your message and hopefully the next generation will catch on before we blow ourselves up.
ReplyDelete