Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There's this stereotype of high iq individuals as looking like characters of series like Big Bang Theory.
Lack of fashion when they dress, lack of psysical strenth or coodination, lack of any agressive traits, etc.
Of course there are high iq individuals who look like Sheldon Cooper, or Steve Urkell, but most of them dont. high iq comes in all sorts of shapes and personalities, and dont forget other factors like creativity wich had Little correlation with iq.
But I wonder, could this stereotype harm, maybe at a unconscious level, those who dont look like nerds? The jock type, the hot girl, etc...is their potential undermined since society doesnt expect much of them in the cognitive department?
I think that I was a child bullied by my social superiors of the time, the "beautiful people" aka jocks and cheerleaders. So I came to mistrust and dislike standard "pretty" type people. On first glance I feel hostile to them, even if I fake it and act polite. If we talk and they are nice and we get along, my feelings do change...but I don't immediately seek that rapport the way I do with "nerds." I kind of semi-assume that they are people of no substance, shallow and getting by easy on being "the beautiful people" in a way, until I am convinced otherwise via interaction.
But I figure that most people feel more positively towards beautiful people, carry the opposite bias. So if they are at a disadvantage with me, they're at an advantage with everyone else, so I feel no need to adjust. Besides which I feel that the nerds deserve a chance, as they often feel they never get one. If I am happy and willing to look further than skin deep, well...somebody should.
Honestly I don't think that jock and cheerleader types need any more advantages, or are disadvantaged in the world at large. I mean you mentioned creativity...who gets a record deal, the singer who looks like a nerd, or the singer who looks gorgeous? And these kinds of things can and should shift when one exits high school (maybe college) and gets into the real world. Those who go through adult life thinking they peaked in high school and clinging to a high school identity in the name of their glory days as some state award winning athlete or debate club champ or the star in the big school play or whatever... That's kind of pathetic really. We should all be trying to accomplish things as adults that make our achievements in high school pale in comparison.
And while we might hold onto aspects of our identity and expression, like a comfy old t-shirt with our favorite band's logo on the front, it becomes less divisive when we aren't forced to be around people we don't like (as adults.)
I think a lot more people are actually "nerds" than the stereotype allows for. The most anticipated movies of the summer are generally based on comic books. Everybody loves Star Wars. People are on the edge of their seats for the last series of Game of Thrones. There are enough niche interests on the internet, that no one is really isolated by their interests. And frankly, when you look at it, those jocks who know all the stats of their favorite sports team are actually pretty nerdy.
I think a lot more people are actually "nerds" than the stereotype allows for. The most anticipated movies of the summer are generally based on comic books. Everybody loves Star Wars. People are on the edge of their seats for the last series of Game of Thrones. There are enough niche interests on the internet, that no one is really isolated by their interests. And frankly, when you look at it, those jocks who know all the stats of their favorite sports team are actually pretty nerdy.
I agree with that last part for sure.
I think that in adulthood the lines get pretty blurry. Everybody nerds out about something. Some former nerds become socially gifted later in life, and some who may once upon a time have been popular kids become out of shape dorks who won't shut up about sportsball or something.
I guess I was just speaking to the idea that (as a female person) in childhood, it really seemed like some kids had the privilege of being pretty and loved by everyone, male and female alike, and then there were those of us who were shy, had acne, just wanted to escape and do solitary activities... Back then it wasn't a choice if you dressed fashionably, your parents bought your clothes. So the "pretty" and the fashionable and the socially comfortable...it was all a big ol' bundle of some kids deserve a happy life and some deserve scorn and abuse.
And those kinds of school-age ideas of hierarchy...though indeed as adults there are a million ways to be past it and over it...I think that they implant little seeds of notions that can color how we interact with the world as adults. Especially if we make no effort to examine our minds, ideas, motivations, question their origins, and consciously change them. Those insidious little bits of bias residue.
There's this stereotype of high iq individuals as looking like characters of series like Big Bang Theory.
Lack of fashion when they dress, lack of psysical strenth or coodination, lack of any agressive traits, etc.
Of course there are high iq individuals who look like Sheldon Cooper, or Steve Urkell, but most of them dont. high iq comes in all sorts of shapes and personalities, and dont forget other factors like creativity wich had Little correlation with iq.
But I wonder, could this stereotype harm, maybe at a unconscious level, those who dont look like nerds? The jock type, the hot girl, etc...is their potential undermined since society doesnt expect much of them in the cognitive department?
Of course it's a problem. Those of us who are members of underrepresented groups in a particular profession often times have to be 'better than' just to be taken (equally) seriously. It all starts with stereotypes. As an example, look at how the young woman whose who work lead to capturing a black hole was treated online recently. I submit it is was mostly due to her not fitting a stereotype and those biases becoming the basis of people's thinking.
Status:
"81 Years, NOT 91 Felonies"
(set 24 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,595,865 times
Reputation: 5696
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmejor77
There's this stereotype of high iq individuals as looking like characters of series like Big Bang Theory.
Lack of fashion when they dress, lack of psysical strenth or coodination, lack of any agressive traits, etc.
Of course there are high iq individuals who look like Sheldon Cooper, or Steve Urkell, but most of them dont. high iq comes in all sorts of shapes and personalities, and dont forget other factors like creativity wich had Little correlation with iq.
But I wonder, could this stereotype harm, maybe at a unconscious level, those who dont look like nerds? The jock type, the hot girl, etc...is their potential undermined since society doesnt expect much of them in the cognitive department?
For the sake of argument, I'm going to assume that High-IQ individuals do have a "Lack of fashion when they dress, lack of psysical strenth or coodination, lack of any agressive traits, etc." Not that I do agree that most high-IQ individuals are like this, but again - just assuming this for the sake of going to the deeper issue.
In a sentence, that blatantly begs the question as to what is so bad about "poor" fashion snese, lack of physical prowess, lack of aggressiveness, in the first place. People who believe this just don't have a clue about the proper way to size up a person's or trait's intrinsic worth.
- Poor fashion sense*. This is just an aesthetics-based reaction and nothing more, and mindless conformity besides. Put more simply, it's a variant of Style Over Substance. Nothing about this hurts, harms, or demeans the dignity of others at all. Mainstream society (especially educated, polite middle-to-upper-middle class types need to grow up about this one).
- Assumes that physical forcefulness is one of, if not THE, main yardstick for sizing up a person's worth, especially a male's. Lack of physical forcefulness (in body or spirit), by itself, also is not an attempt to hurt, harm, or degrade others. It's also holding the weak responsible for matters beyond their control - and there's a name for that kind of attitude: victim-blaming.
Legitimate scorn is limited to use against people who, with premeditation, set out to degrade the dignity of others, or to hurt or harm them. Anybody who looks down and especially openly scoffs at people with "imperfections" you listed is simply has shallow, petty values and attitudes.
*I'm leaving out plainly inappropriate stuff - like plainly raggedy clothing, clothing with vulgar or violent or plainly suggestive wording. Or wearing highly revealing clothing in settings where it's obviously frowned upon (conservative churches, professional employment settings, other formal or "polite company" type settings). I only bring this exception up, be it so obvious, because there's a lot of would-be lawyers on C-D.
Last edited by Phil75230; 05-04-2019 at 03:20 AM..
Stereotypes are there for a reason. They describe aspects of specific individual styles. stereotypes on their own are just labels. labels are adjectives. Are adjectives bad?
The only thing that may be harmful to people is how they may perceive or use words. The most important thing to do when speaking or listening to someone is to understand if they are using language in a neutral way or not.
For example if I say I am a nerd, you know that I don't mean anything negative cause I am talking about myself. If someone else says I am a nerd, he may either be using it like I would, or he may be using it in a negative sense.
Labels are not bad. Using them in a negative way may be.
From what I've seen, athletic prowess is no guarantee of social acceptance or popularity, though it usually does seem to "guarantee" a certain freedom from being bullied.
By High School, the archetypal "popular cheerleader/Quarterback" was often eclipsed on the athletic field by other kids; it ceased to be the place where Dad being the coach or whatever got you playing time. Coaches were paid to win games and they did it with whoever was the fastest/best executing/whatever.
Also, I have to admit I didn't see too many kids that were truly exceptional athletically that weren't bright as well. Our Valedictorian was a three sport athlete (Basketball, Track, CC.) I played football with a half a dozen guys that went on to play at Ivy League or near-Ivy league schools.
"Nerds" seem to have their own social group from what I've seen. It doesn't equate to being the outcast they once (apparently) were. Maybe that's the case in rural or inner-city or small schools, but from what I've seen coming from bigger, suburban schools with a high percentage of students coming from backgrounds of educated parents that emphasize academic performance, even if they didn't enjoy the social life they'd ideally like, neither were they isolated or shunned.
From what I've seen, athletic prowess is no guarantee of social acceptance or popularity, though it usually does seem to "guarantee" a certain freedom from being bullied..
Pretty much what I've seen too.
I've also seen, time and again, boys that were forced to play musical instruments but didn't play sports, were often bullied.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
