I've been curious where the whole nerd archetype comes from. Academically gifted, physically underdeveloped, socially awkward. Is it a cultural thing? Do those traits really correlate? Does one cause the others somehow? Is there something like neurodiversity at the core?
Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — Jocks and Nerds. :marx-goth:
Maybe, but the thing usually emergencies when people are fairly young. Kids are basically forced to spend a fair amount of time socializing. As a nerd school-kid I had a bunch of nerd friends whom I spent a lot of time with...
Effort post that I had to retype twice because my browser auto-refreshes
I think this archetype is completely artificial and primarily a side effect of American nuclear family propaganda and television of the 50s, 60s, and 70s. The counterpart to the archetype of the frail nerd is the dumb jock, and tellingly, these roles aren't traditionally imposed on women. Of course there is the archetype of the "mean girl" or cheerleader, or more modernly the "nice girl" versus the Stacy, but we now live in a modern world that is pushing a bourgeois form of gender equality. Anyways, as a young boy you must either become a strong worker, or a smart thinker, and in typical capitalist fashion there must be animosity betweent the two to protect the people in power.
In my personal experience these archetypes don't hold up so well in real life. In my time in highschool and university the people at the tops of classes were also involved in sports and clubs. Not only were they the "smartest" but they were also active, outgoing, and usually kind. Holding true, the misanthropes and anti-social folks usually hung around the middle and back of the intellectual "pack." Interestingly, this is also where most of the bullying and fighting occurred, but I'll get to that again later.
Your thought of it being an issue of neurodivergence is interesting. It makes sense that people who have trouble relating to others might have trouble learning like others, and there are a few other potential material explanations, but I think the core of the issue is more personal. Similarities can be drawn between the top student I mentioned in the last paragraph and the archetypical organizing communist. It's a bit dated maybe, but the stereotype is the commie who has read a ton of esoteric philosophers, go to party meetings and protests regularly, has a reading group, works charity, and still holds a job.
I think there is something to be said about the internal affirmation of belonging somewhere and having people who you feel that you can rely on that provides a sense of stability and enables you to improve yourself however you would like. Infact, this is modeled by Maslow's hierarchy of needs: self actualization is predicated on self confidence, which first requires security and belonging. The misanthropes and anti-social folks mentioned earlier spent their time worrying about the social position, fighting amongst themselves, and holding to rigid ideas of how they were supposed to be which prevents certain actions and lines of thought, while the people who knew who they were used that time to improve themselves and their friends.
TLDR: It's fake propaganda. A sense of community and stability is needed to achieve personal growth.
I've been curious where the whole nerd archetype comes from. Academically gifted, physically underdeveloped, socially awkward. Is it a cultural thing? Do those traits really correlate? Does one cause the others somehow? Is there something like neurodiversity at the core?
Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — Jocks and Nerds. :marx-goth:
Time spent acquiring intellectual skills, traditionally time spent alone, is time spent not acquiring social skills, maybe?
Maybe, but the thing usually emergencies when people are fairly young. Kids are basically forced to spend a fair amount of time socializing. As a nerd school-kid I had a bunch of nerd friends whom I spent a lot of time with...
deleted by creator
Effort post that I had to retype twice because my browser auto-refreshes
I think this archetype is completely artificial and primarily a side effect of American nuclear family propaganda and television of the 50s, 60s, and 70s. The counterpart to the archetype of the frail nerd is the dumb jock, and tellingly, these roles aren't traditionally imposed on women. Of course there is the archetype of the "mean girl" or cheerleader, or more modernly the "nice girl" versus the Stacy, but we now live in a modern world that is pushing a bourgeois form of gender equality. Anyways, as a young boy you must either become a strong worker, or a smart thinker, and in typical capitalist fashion there must be animosity betweent the two to protect the people in power.
In my personal experience these archetypes don't hold up so well in real life. In my time in highschool and university the people at the tops of classes were also involved in sports and clubs. Not only were they the "smartest" but they were also active, outgoing, and usually kind. Holding true, the misanthropes and anti-social folks usually hung around the middle and back of the intellectual "pack." Interestingly, this is also where most of the bullying and fighting occurred, but I'll get to that again later.
Your thought of it being an issue of neurodivergence is interesting. It makes sense that people who have trouble relating to others might have trouble learning like others, and there are a few other potential material explanations, but I think the core of the issue is more personal. Similarities can be drawn between the top student I mentioned in the last paragraph and the archetypical organizing communist. It's a bit dated maybe, but the stereotype is the commie who has read a ton of esoteric philosophers, go to party meetings and protests regularly, has a reading group, works charity, and still holds a job.
I think there is something to be said about the internal affirmation of belonging somewhere and having people who you feel that you can rely on that provides a sense of stability and enables you to improve yourself however you would like. Infact, this is modeled by Maslow's hierarchy of needs: self actualization is predicated on self confidence, which first requires security and belonging. The misanthropes and anti-social folks mentioned earlier spent their time worrying about the social position, fighting amongst themselves, and holding to rigid ideas of how they were supposed to be which prevents certain actions and lines of thought, while the people who knew who they were used that time to improve themselves and their friends.
TLDR: It's fake propaganda. A sense of community and stability is needed to achieve personal growth.