Do Geeks Make Better Adults?
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.)"
ahem.
Correlation != Causation.
ty.
I just pooped your party.
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.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
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.
Just because you sold your soul to the devil that needn't make you a teetotaler. --The Devil and Daniel Webster
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.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
Not saying the headline's claim is true or untrue, but... these are all examples of very rare individuals - the luckiest or the most skilled of all the geeks, that made it big.
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.
New webcomic updated on Sundays: HERE
"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.
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.
>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.
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.
Quirky non-conformity is NOT the same as social retardation. From the way I see it, most "non-conformists" conform quite well to their smaller, alternative cliques.
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?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
As it happens, you really don't know who is sitting next to you at work or who is flying that plane. I recently read my hometown's EMS service employees were part of a swingers club. I'm not the type of person that condones that behavior, and with the diseases that abound from promiscuity, I'd rather not have my health worker doing those sorts of things. YMMV.
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.