maggiekb at June 19th, 2014 14:58 — #1
stefanjones at June 19th, 2014 15:04 — #2
Of course, these studies were set up by FREAKING NERDS who dress like their mommies bought their clothes for them at Sears and don't know how to fucking walk down the hallway without looking like total loser freaks. You know who is going to end up screwed and drunk? Goddamn loser scientist nerds, who get paid so little they can't afford hot cars and go to science conferences instead of VEGASSSSSS!
maggiekb at June 19th, 2014 15:14 — #3
There is, arguably, a certain undeclared conflict of interest involved in this research.
capnmarrrrk at June 19th, 2014 15:14 — #4
In your FACE everyone that ostracized me! How you like them dysfunctional apples, asshole bully who's now actually dating my first Jr High Crush 35 years later....
Runs off and cries.
EDIT: I double checked this fact before I posted and it's TRUE! I'll be over here in my cubicle listening to RUSH. #StillTodaysTomSawyer
groundman at June 19th, 2014 15:20 — #5
This might be true, but man, I sure could have used some pseudomature precocious romantic involvement in junior high and high school.....And college.
lurp at June 19th, 2014 17:17 — #6
I'd like to read the whole study as media reports and the authors' abstract leave a lot of important information out. The abstract mentions that "Early adolescent pseudomature behavior predicted long-term difficulties in close relationships, as well as significant problems with alcohol and substance use, and elevated levels of criminal behavior."
How does being "cool" at a young age relate to adulthood income levels, adult home ownership likelihood, adult education level, income level of parents, etc.? Do any of the problems with alcohol, narcotics, or "criminal behavior" actually affect the kids 10 years out of college? Or is it simply that these kids have more freedom during high-school and college years, which allows them to find "trouble," but they are able to eventually settle back into "normal" upper-middle-class lives afterwards?
Numerous studies show that engagement in deviance does not affect or stigmatize the wealthy the same way it does for the poor. I'm skeptical of the media's announcement that "the cool kids become losers," as I doubt this is true. For example, look at guys who join frats, are they more likely to have alcohol, and substance abuse problems compared to their college peers? Who is more likely to a salary above the median wage post-college frat guys or the average college kid with that holds the same degree as their frat peer?
Alcoholism, substance abuse, and even engagement in some "criminal" activities certainly does not make one an economic "loser."
eksrae at June 19th, 2014 17:37 — #7
In some ways, not being popular kept me out of trouble. I was never invited to the cool parties or hung out with the guys criusing for mayhem during the evenings. I could never skate through my adult life knowing that I was better than everyone else.
Being a short, skinny reader became a long-term advantage.
boundegar at June 19th, 2014 21:08 — #8
jill at June 20th, 2014 03:17 — #9
If you're popular in junior high you have a very small chance to be popular in high school or college. The real issue is parenting and how do parents deal with kids who feel horrible because they aren't popular.
samsam at June 20th, 2014 10:20 — #10
Thank you. Came here to post this, but figured someone else would beat me to it.
boundegar at June 20th, 2014 10:22 — #11
Come to think of it, how does this square with the health benefits of being a bully? Maybe the ideal position is to be an unpopular bully...
lurp at June 20th, 2014 16:26 — #12
Is this a fact? Is there evidence to support the notion that a cool 8th grader is unlikely to be a cool 9th grader?
hmsgoose at June 20th, 2014 16:56 — #13
The pull-quote on the linked article has my new favorite use of the word sequelae. Sorry Glomerulonephritis...
maggiekb at June 24th, 2014 14:58 — #14
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.