I find myself with quite a lot to say about this, so forgive me if I ramble or rant too much. First, I find I agree with the point about modern adolescence being a social product; the result of increasing specialization and technological complexity extending the time necessary for the education needed for societal adulthood years beyond the onset of biological adulthood. This is, in fact, a point both I and my mother have made repeatedly over the years, with many of the same examples as Mr. Graham gives.
However, I must disagree with many other elements. As for myself, I don't think I'd fit anywhere on his scale: I wasn't interested in interaction with any of my so-called "peers." I had more conversations with the 20-somes and 30-somes asking me for help on the assignments in the college calculus classes I had to take in order to graduate high school, needing another year and a half of math credit to meet graduation requirements after I exausted the public school system's math courses, than with anyone my own age. In elementary school, I hated recess because it meant wandering, board, around the playground when I could be reading a book or studying or doing somethin interesting instead of avoiding the noisy, obnoxious creatures around me. I loved the environments of my internships at the local Air Force base hospital's microbiology lab and the Fish & Wildlife Service fish genetics lab. Even now, there are times when it seems the only way for me to obtain a confortable space from the bipedal primates would be to get of this wet, bug-infested rock called Earth. (Tactile-defensive type sensory-integrative dysfunction, the paranoid tendencies contained in depressive type schizoaffective disorder, and the alienation that arises from having a 151 IQ with subscores highly imbalanced toward the mathematical skills and away from verbal/communication skills in a city with less than 300,000 people in an area as remote as Alaska all have their part in this).
First, I would disagree that the unpopularity of nerds and of the highly intelligent ends at high school. Many authors and historians have noted that America has always had, and still maintains, a trend to anti-inntelectualism. Remember this is the country where actor Jack Klugman testified before Congress concerning the Orphan Drug Act as an 'expert' on the grounds that he played a doctor on TV; where people have more interest in the latest Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohann, Brittany Spears, etc. scandal than any scientific development you could name. The ability to shmooze, suck up, and manipulate is far more important than any amount of brain power. And I'd also argue that adult society is just as vicious, just as "cruel and boring," just as much a primate-pack pecking order as that of public school, just on a larger scale, and with even greater power disparities.
The only aspect of social intereaction that has appealed to me is that which lies buried behind all personal interaction: POWER. The only interest I have in popularity is that popularity brings influence, which is a form of power. The single greatest and most universal lesson I've learned from studying history is that those who hold power do whatever they want to those who don't, and there is nothing that the powerless can do about it; and further, those with power will use that power to whatever extent necessary to maintain it. Money and influence override anything else. The moral: be one of the people in power.
Further, I dispute his claim that the educational system can be changed if people will just realize that it doesn't have to be the way it is. The system is too large, too entrenched, and will crush all who oppose it. There are only two outcomes of rebellion. The first is that the rebels are brutally crushes and supressed. The second is that they suceed, and in short order become at least as bad as the people they replaced, if not identical in all but the most superficial ways.
Lastly, I'm still surprised that no frustrated nerds have started buying kerosene lantern mantles, smoke detectors, antique lit-face watches, and reading on nitric acid chemistry.
--The Twisted One"Welcome to Fanboy Hell. You will be spending eternity here, in a small room with Jar-Jar Binks and Dobby the house-elf."
"If you
wish to converse with me, define your
terms."
--Voltaire
However, I must disagree with many other elements. As for myself, I don't think I'd fit anywhere on his scale: I wasn't interested in interaction with any of my so-called "peers." I had more conversations with the 20-somes and 30-somes asking me for help on the assignments in the college calculus classes I had to take in order to graduate high school, needing another year and a half of math credit to meet graduation requirements after I exausted the public school system's math courses, than with anyone my own age. In elementary school, I hated recess because it meant wandering, board, around the playground when I could be reading a book or studying or doing somethin interesting instead of avoiding the noisy, obnoxious creatures around me. I loved the environments of my internships at the local Air Force base hospital's microbiology lab and the Fish & Wildlife Service fish genetics lab. Even now, there are times when it seems the only way for me to obtain a confortable space from the bipedal primates would be to get of this wet, bug-infested rock called Earth. (Tactile-defensive type sensory-integrative dysfunction, the paranoid tendencies contained in depressive type schizoaffective disorder, and the alienation that arises from having a 151 IQ with subscores highly imbalanced toward the mathematical skills and away from verbal/communication skills in a city with less than 300,000 people in an area as remote as Alaska all have their part in this).
First, I would disagree that the unpopularity of nerds and of the highly intelligent ends at high school. Many authors and historians have noted that America has always had, and still maintains, a trend to anti-inntelectualism. Remember this is the country where actor Jack Klugman testified before Congress concerning the Orphan Drug Act as an 'expert' on the grounds that he played a doctor on TV; where people have more interest in the latest Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohann, Brittany Spears, etc. scandal than any scientific development you could name. The ability to shmooze, suck up, and manipulate is far more important than any amount of brain power. And I'd also argue that adult society is just as vicious, just as "cruel and boring," just as much a primate-pack pecking order as that of public school, just on a larger scale, and with even greater power disparities.
The only aspect of social intereaction that has appealed to me is that which lies buried behind all personal interaction: POWER. The only interest I have in popularity is that popularity brings influence, which is a form of power. The single greatest and most universal lesson I've learned from studying history is that those who hold power do whatever they want to those who don't, and there is nothing that the powerless can do about it; and further, those with power will use that power to whatever extent necessary to maintain it. Money and influence override anything else. The moral: be one of the people in power.
Further, I dispute his claim that the educational system can be changed if people will just realize that it doesn't have to be the way it is. The system is too large, too entrenched, and will crush all who oppose it. There are only two outcomes of rebellion. The first is that the rebels are brutally crushes and supressed. The second is that they suceed, and in short order become at least as bad as the people they replaced, if not identical in all but the most superficial ways.
Lastly, I'm still surprised that no frustrated nerds have started buying kerosene lantern mantles, smoke detectors, antique lit-face watches, and reading on nitric acid chemistry.
--The Twisted One"Welcome to Fanboy Hell. You will be spending eternity here, in a small room with Jar-Jar Binks and Dobby the house-elf."
"If you
wish to converse with me, define your
terms."
--Voltaire