Popularity contest?

[Simon Curran]

Unfortunately there really is no way to break the "cycle", it's a matter of natural selection, that applies to every living thing on this planet--including us. some will always be faster, stronger, prettier, and come into their own, in terms of confidence than others . Outside of adult control, say in a classroom, kids have their own world. They live by the natural order, pretty ones get the attention, the bigger and stronger get what they want, usually by intimidation, or pounding you. You have to fit in, somehow, even if you make your own group, within the group (don't think so? ask the average nerd or geek about coping to deal with the others outside of chess class or the science fair). You can't take evolution out of the picture, no matter how cruel that sounds, or how many kids get picked on. Besides, with concern to this topic, isn't that how the martial arts developed and evolved--out of need for self defense?

I'm not a scientist, so I couldn't comment on the scientific side of this, but like I said in my initial post, I just don't remember it being that way in my school, it is only what I have seen portrayed in US media

 

[Hand Sword]

I definitely envy you by having that experience, if your being honest, but, as the saying goes, what you see, is what you get. It's always been that way here and probably will stay that way, until we clone everyone to be great. I deal with the kids, seeing the arrogance, as well as the tears, I wish it could end.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Social Darwinism is Bogus? Kids aren't fighting for the right of reproduction of the species? You deep down don't believe that do you? Just look at any situation in schools or outside of school for that matter. Kid's hang out in thier own groups away from adult control, so there is no Adults constructing their social systems. When you were in school as a teen especially, how much contact did you have from adults? No offense to you, but, if you truly beleive that you can control things, than you had to be one of the "COOL " people back then, or at least one who was confident, or tough enough to be left alone, or added to the group, for their own safety. As another point concerning your post-- Who has more sex teens or adults? All the fighting in the schools, amongst those age children, is almost always over another boy or girl. Social groups are strongest amongst teens, see what happens if a "nerd" asks the "pretty cheerleader out on a date-- He'll get pounded after, first laughed at by the girl, and her friends. Hormones rage more as teens, your fearless, invicible, "wont happen to me", looks like nature picked that time period out for species reproduction, no matter how human cultural rules relate. As I said, you can't take nature out of the picture!

lol - Social Darwinism IS bogus.

That being said, I said "we" control social systems - meaning adults, all of society. In part, that means that kids are constructing their own society too. How they do that is, in part, up to how we (adults, teachers, etc) structure society as well.

Just because some people in junior high/ high school are mean or ruthless doesn't mean that that is a "rule of nature", and it doesn't mean that there can be and are other ways.

If teenagers were really into mating to maximize offspring surviving, you could make arguments for girls going after big jocks, OR going after the nerds who will be more likely to make a lot of money after graduating, and thus support a large breeding family.

The arguments using Social Darwinism to explain things are too easy. Of course sex hormones start juicing up at these periods, and kids are going to be getting sexually active - but, again, they don't HAVE to, and if they do, how are these choices being made?

People can always be cruel. It's in adolescence and high school as kids get more "room" from authority (or try to make more room) that they may be expressing their control over relationships and other people more. Social dominance? Quite possibly.

 

[Hand Sword]

lol - Social Darwinism IS bogus.

That being said, I said "we" control social systems - meaning adults, all of society. In part, that means that kids are constructing their own society too. How they do that is, in part, up to how we (adults, teachers, etc) structure society as well.

Just because some people in junior high/ high school are mean or ruthless doesn't mean that that is a "rule of nature", and it doesn't mean that there can be and are other ways.

If teenagers were really into mating to maximize offspring surviving, you could make arguments for girls going after big jocks, OR going after the nerds who will be more likely to make a lot of money after graduating, and thus support a large breeding family.

The arguments using Social Darwinism to explain things are too easy. Of course sex hormones start juicing up at these periods, and kids are going to be getting sexually active - but, again, they don't HAVE to, and if they do, how are these choices being made?

People can always be cruel. It's in adolescence and high school as kids get more "room" from authority (or try to make more room) that they may be expressing their control over relationships and other people more. Social dominance? Quite possibly.

You're definitely an idealist---God Bless You! Call it what you will, But, there is a reason that all of that "stuff" goes on during that time period, for you, me, and everyone else. Humans construct our own world, and think we are separate from nature, but, if you look objectively, you'll see that we are not. We act no different, and sometimes worse than our "natural" relatives. I never gave it a name, Darwin did nothing more than state the obvious, at a point in time were our cultural views were changing, away from biblical or supernatural beliefs.

My only point was that it is nature going on in a more purer form than we have in our phony adult world. We can't be with the kids all of the time. Saying people don't have to do things is also an easy argument, But, that debate is left for the philosophists over free will or not. since those debates don't prove anything for either side--your left with nature.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

You're definitely an idealist---God Bless You! Call it what you will, But, there is a reason that all of that "stuff" goes on during that time period, for you, me, and everyone else. Humans construct our own world, and think we are separate from nature, but, if you look objectively, you'll see that we are not. We act no different, and sometimes worse than our "natural" relatives. I never gave it a name, Darwin did nothing more than state the obvious, at a point in time were our cultural views were changing, away from biblical or supernatural beliefs.

My only point was that it is nature going on in a more purer form than we have in our phony adult world. We can't be with the kids all of the time. Saying people don't have to do things is also an easy argument, But, that debate is left for the philosophists over free will or not. since those debates don't prove anything for either side--your left with nature.

Interesting.

I'm not an idealist - I'm a psychologist. Comparative (cross-cultural) studies of social systems and adolescence are the best way to understand the differences between different social systems, and what may be "nature". We are highly social animals, and we construct a huge amount of our environments - and we respond to the existing social systems (well or poorly). Not all social systems have to result in kids acting a certain way - or the "cheerleader" shunning the "math nerd". Some of these stereotypes are specific to certain cultures, at certain times. So no, we can't call that specific thing "nature".

And it sounds like you are an idealist, as well - saying that children are more "pure nature" than adults, sounds just like Rousseau. Also sounds like the Puritains, although they saw "pure" human nature as being flawed, and needing to be stringently corrected, rather than Rousseau, who saw a "noble savage" blossoming if each child was left to his or her own devices.

Neither perspective would be OK with kids acting out, being needlessly cruel, etc.

 

[Tgace]

If some "jock" is "pounding" on some "nerd" in school then it should be up to the adults to take some action. The real problem in schools is when the people running it dont deal with these situations or pretend they arent happening. While falling into social "classes" may be out of administration control, physical violence and public displays of cruelty darn well are......

 

[Feisty Mouse]

If some "jock" is "pounding" on some "nerd" in school then it should be up to the adults to take some action. The real problem in schools is when the people running it dont deal with these situations or pretend they arent happening. While falling into social "classes" may be out of administration control, physical violence and public displays of cruelty darn well are......

Yes.

 

[Tgace]

When I first got "on the job" I was suprised by the ammount of HS kids I was arresting for fighting in school. I used to think "gee kids will be kids, boys fight all the time, why doesnt the school just deal with this instead of putting this kid through the system?" and so on. After I thought about it, I think its a good idea. When the kid got the old "slap on the wrist" with detention/suspension it was back to business as usual. When the judge puts conditions on you after an arrest theres signifigantly more leverage.

 

[Hand Sword]

If some "jock" is "pounding" on some "nerd" in school then it should be up to the adults to take some action. The real problem in schools is when the people running it dont deal with these situations or pretend they arent happening. While falling into social "classes" may be out of administration control, physical violence and public displays of cruelty darn well are......

True, But, also kids wait, mostly for a time away from adult supervision. The adults always stopped the cruelty when they had the ability to do so.

 

[Tgace]

Stopping it can be way different from "dealing" with it though...its about policy.

 

[Hand Sword]

When I first got "on the job" I was suprised by the ammount of HS kids I was arresting for fighting in school. I used to think "gee kids will be kids, boys fight all the time, why doesnt the school just deal with this instead of putting this kid through the system?" and so on. After I thought about it, I think its a good idea. When the kid got the old "slap on the wrist" with detention/suspension it was back to business as usual. When the judge puts conditions on you after an arrest theres signifigantly more leverage.

Yeah that could be philosophically true, but realistically, if you "dime" someone out, the after effects were usually worse than the original act itself

 

[Hand Sword]

Stopping it can be way different from "dealing" with it though...its about policy.

Everyone is aware of the policy or the law, but it still doesn't stop it from happening. We have the policy that all of our children are viewed as equal, but, that's not really true is it? No matter what rules I enforce that less athletic kid will never out do the more athletic kid. The less attractive girl will not aquire the attention that the pretty girl does, no matter what we do.

 

[Tgace]

I dont think we should be telling kids to "just take it". I also dont think letting them "deal with it" on their own is a good idea either (can anybody say "school violence"?). We should be teaching kids to deal with violence the same way we should be teaching adults. Avoid, defend, report.....

 

[Tgace]

Everyone is aware of the policy or the law, but it still doesn't stop it from happening. We have the policy that all of our children are viewed as equal, but, that's not really true is it? No matter what rules I enforce that less athletic kid will never out do the more athletic kid. The less attractive girl will not aquire the attention that the pretty girl does, no matter what we do.

Like I said before. That stuff you cant control. That jock punching somebody in the hall though.....there needs to be immediate and signifigant repercussions.

 

[Hand Sword]

Like I said before. That stuff you cant control. That jock punching somebody in the hall though.....there needs to be immediate and signifigant repercussions.

Agreed!!

What we can control we absolutely should. My responses were in contrast to Feisty Mouse's view that everything CAN be controlled, that nature has nothing to do with anything, and kids don't have a separate world from the rest of us.

 

[Tgace]

My philosophy is we should expect kids to treat each other the same way adults do (or at least be trying to teach them too).

Socially we are not all "equal" either. But that doesnt mean that it should be "natural" for the adult version of the "jock" to be able to abuse the adult version of the "geek" without consequence.

I also dont know if I buy the "kids live in a different world from us" viewpoint. They live in the same world we do. We just let them live under a different set of rules. If adults did the same things to each other that kids do, most would be in jail or facing lawsuits. Its not nature as much as it is society....

 

[Hand Sword]

My philosophy is we should expect kids to treat each other the same way adults do (or at least be trying to teach them too).

Socially we are not all "equal" either. But that doesnt mean that it should be "natural" for the adult version of the "jock" to be able to abuse the adult version of the "geek" without consequence.

I also dont know if I buy the "kids live in a different world from us" viewpoint. They live in the same world we do. We just let them live under a different set of rules. If adults did the same things to each other that kids do, most would be in jail or facing lawsuits. Its not nature as much as it is society....

Absolutely, but the posts were dealing with the school age kids, teenies, and if what goes on in the movies does actually go on or not. I think we all got off track a little bit, If you felt disrespected I apologize, that wasn't my intent (the arguing), as I said leave that to the philosophers.

 

[Tgace]

No not at all. I enjoyed it. No anger at all....I tend to just type out my point in a blunt manner sometimes. Sorry if I came off "angry".

 

[Hand Sword]

No not at all. I enjoyed it. No anger at all....I tend to just type out my point in a blunt manner sometimes. Sorry if I came off "angry".

I guess we'll all give a different point of view from the perspective of the groups we came up in. Just look at vh1's "My Coolest Years", the same things are described by some of every group "the geeks", "the mean girls", etc... and the view of "how it was" varies greatly.

 

[Tgace]

I guess I was a "non entity". Not popular, not picked on, not overly smart (did make the honor society though), ran track for a short time but not really a "jock". Sort of "invisible" if ya know what I mean. But the small group of friends I had have lasted a lifetime so far....