Do Geeks Make Better Adults? 335
mcgrew writes "What makes people unpopular in the hallways of high school, mainly an unwillingness to conform, tends to translate into success as an adult. Robbins lists several companies—including Yahoo!—that prioritize hiring quirky individuals who shun conventional thinking. She also name-checks historical and current celebrities, including director Steven Spielberg (who was taunted for being Jewish in high school) and Lady Gaga (a self-described former theater 'freak'), whose weirdness led to later fame. (Other now-validated former outsiders she touts: Steve Jobs, Taylor Swift, Bruce Springsteen and Angelina Jolie.)"
Time to bring back a Slashdot classic: (Score:5, Insightful)
ahem.
Correlation != Causation.
ty.
Only with an "Edge" (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're only a class-c geek with an unwillingness to conform but without a layer of pizazz to roll it all together, you end up too unstable for a business to hire you, so you end up at fast food or retail with some gaming at night and weekends and the random day you skipped work to go on a raid/campaign.
That's the life to have ... up to about age 25, then it starts to crash hard.
Unwillingness? (Score:4, Insightful)
I was unpopular in High School, but I question whether that was because I was unwilling to conform, or because I had absolutely no idea how to do so.
Spielberg, I imagine, was in a similar position, unless he discovered a method of magically becoming a goy.
this observation doesn't make causation (Score:4, Insightful)
How many non-geeks are also wildly famous.
How many former geeks are now terrorists or serial killers?
Come to me when you have some numbers.
This is not to say I don't agree with the trend... but don't sell it like someone's done some quantitative research.
sounds like a geek stroking geek ego (Score:5, Insightful)
If you go by that argument, I can also point out that alot of the jocks from high school are now making many, many millions of dollars as professional athletes (NFL, NBA, etc.)
Disclaimer: Didn't RTFA, but still, dumb argument.
"unwillingness to conform" misses the point (Score:2, Insightful)
"What makes people unpopular in the hallways of high school, mainly an unwillingness to conform..."
Unwillingness to conform is NOT what makes people unpopular in highschool. In reality people are unpopular in highschool because they are physically unattractive, bad at sports, and have social anxiety problems of various kinds, in no particular order. "Unwillingness to conform" is a way nerds try to spin and justify their social anxiety. They frame it as if they could have chosen to be popular at any time by "conforming", whatever that means. As if it were totally in their control the whole time and they chose not to be popular because it's "shallow" or something like that. This attitude is delusional and self-destructive.
Re:Other former outsider 'geeks': (Score:5, Insightful)
Throw in Ted Kazinsky, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. And these names all fall much closer to the "geek" category than Lady Gaga, Bruce Springsteen and Angelina Jolie, who were all just weirdos and not at all geeks.
Re:make your own opportunities (Score:4, Insightful)
>Government schools train people to be cogs for the machine
School, like anything in life, is what you make of it. Its not exactly a North Korean indoctrination facility, regardless of how often conservative pundits say they are.
The GP makes a good point. Too many "geeks" become asocial nerds unable to work effectively with others or understand basic social skills. This isn't some kind of free-wheeling "I'm running a startup" mentality, but the often seen smart-guy or smart-gal that is unable to motivate themselves or move up Maslow's pyramid to self-esteem or self-actualization and they become self-loathing WoW addicts or smelly neckbeards.
Re:Time to bring back a Slashdot classic: (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. But, there isn't even a real correlation here.
"Robbins lists several companies—including Yahoo!—that prioritize hiring quirky individuals"
That is NOT a widespread practice. Most companies want - most companies DEMAND that you show up for work, do your job, and mostly go unnoticed. They don't want quirks. Author found a niche market for geeks with quirks, and he thinks that he has discovered something really noteworthy. Phhht.
What is the opposite of geek? (Score:5, Insightful)
The article draws a false dichotomy between geeks and bullies. The most successful adults in today's society combine intellect with emotional intelligence. The successful adult, today, is the one in high school who could make the jocks & cheerleaders and the nerds, alike, feel like a million bucks.
And then there is the question of what constitutes success. Is it money? Is it number of progeny? Is it spiritual tranquility? Is it lack of hostile interactions? Strangely, the article seems to focus on this last one, whereas in centuries and millenia past, hostile interactions would have been seen as "success", assuming they were directed toward competitors for women and scarce resources.
Re:Only with an "Edge" (Score:5, Insightful)
Or you bust your ass with some small business, suffer, and fall into deep debt. That's much more likely than "becoming a millionaire." Its kinda sad how many people live their lives on the assumption that great wealth is just a couple different decisions away.
I have a side-business running, I've worked for myself, but I never, ever went on with a "SCREW THE MAN, I'LL BE RICH SOON" because it so fucking improbable I'm not going to embarrass myself by assuming its going to come true. Its the business equivalent of the kid who goes to art school, acts all snobby because he know that in a year or two he'll be rich and famous. That's a losing attitude both in art and business.
Unfortunately, the "success is around the corner with no hard work or compromise" is used politically to advance the agenda of billioanres who feed you this myth and tell you "when you're rich like us, you'll be glad you have a low tax burden and that social services are underfunded."
Article fail. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Selection bias (Score:5, Insightful)
No, GP is right. Freaks that get famous because they're freaks are no sensible sample. They're not "accepted", they're celebrities. Being famous does not mean that someone would also allow "someone like that" in their living room for real. Or want to deal with them on a professional base.
Could you imagine Lady Gaga being responsible for your bank account? Or how about her as your pilot on your next trip? Let's imagine for a moment that she had the qualifications, do you think people would feel at ease with a "freak" responsible for their money or life?
Don't conflate celebrity status with being accepted. Josephine Baker was a celebrity. But how many who cheered for her on stage would have wanted to live next to her?
Re:Unwillingness? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the typical view, "everyone else is a sheep except for me". Looking back at high school, I wouldn't say that popular people were popular because they conformed. Many were popular because they didn't conform. Others conformed to them. I don't think that these followers were necessarily popular because they conformed to the popular kids. Some were viewed as posers, while others were popular, because, well, they were likable.
That is the trick with popularity - either you have it or you don't. People will like you and want to be around you, or they won't. That will change depending on your setting - middle school, high school, college, work, music industry, actor, etc. When people try to be liked or try to be cool, they typically fail.
The lazy response is to classify all people not like you as sheep.
Re:Selection bias (Score:2, Insightful)
My point is, your bank manager may be taking his earrings, nose piercings, and goth outfit off during the day so that he can stay gainfully employed, but keep his hobbies to himself and after hours.