What do you think?
Rate this book
Nerds: Who They Are and Why We Need More of Them
"Anderegg's clear-eyed look at a damaging cultural truism does nerds and jocks-all Americans, really-a service." (The Washington Post).
Thick glasses, socially awkward, a math whiz with a pocket protector- everyone knows what a nerd is. But where did this stereotype come from? Children aren't born knowing what a "nerd" or "geek" is, so why do they know by the age of five or six that they don't want to be one? In this revised and updated paperback edition of his thought-provoking book, family psychotherapist and psychology professor David Anderegg reveals how the systematic disparagement of "nerds" in our culture is bad for our children and even worse for America. In Nerds, Anderegg examines why science and engineering have become socially poisonous disciplines, why adults wink at the derision of "nerdy" kids, and what the cost of this rising tide of anti- intellectualism is to both our children and our nation. Drawing upon education research, psychological theory, and his own interviews with nerdy and non-nerdy kids alike, Anderegg argues that in order to prepare rising generations to compete in the global marketplace, we need to revisit how we think about "nerds."
Thick glasses, socially awkward, a math whiz with a pocket protector- everyone knows what a nerd is. But where did this stereotype come from? Children aren't born knowing what a "nerd" or "geek" is, so why do they know by the age of five or six that they don't want to be one? In this revised and updated paperback edition of his thought-provoking book, family psychotherapist and psychology professor David Anderegg reveals how the systematic disparagement of "nerds" in our culture is bad for our children and even worse for America. In Nerds, Anderegg examines why science and engineering have become socially poisonous disciplines, why adults wink at the derision of "nerdy" kids, and what the cost of this rising tide of anti- intellectualism is to both our children and our nation. Drawing upon education research, psychological theory, and his own interviews with nerdy and non-nerdy kids alike, Anderegg argues that in order to prepare rising generations to compete in the global marketplace, we need to revisit how we think about "nerds."
299 pages, Kindle Edition
First published December 27, 2007
28 people are currently reading
567 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 73 reviews
August 24, 2019
A very nerdy book indeed. Well-intentioned & super fun! The information (for my age) is a little "old news," but really, who cares? This is a fantastic book for blooming nerds looking for a way into their own! There is much to be learned in this. :)
October 20, 2011
This book was a little disappointing to me. Anderegg makes the argument that nerd/geek stereotypes are harmful to kids and society. He suggests that kids, fearful of being labeled a nerd, avoid success in math and science. This leads to fewer people going into math and science careers, leaving our country far behind others in these important areas. It's a good argument and I like the historical perspective he gives on the history of nerd stereotypes (going back to Ichabod Crane and "American" ideals). That part was pretty fascinating, as were excerpts from interviews with kids about what makes someone a nerd. Turns out that usually they don't really know what makes a nerd, but will use the term all the time anyway.
There were other things that annoyed me about the book though. First, the author writes pretty subjectively and comes across as a nerd with a chip on his shoulder. Second, he talks about how the nerd stereotypes are detrimental to younger kids, but when kids get to later high school and college, the stereotype loses it's power a bit. Older teens and young adults are just not as bothered by being called a nerd, and may even embrace it. And I do see this in the real world. I know a lot of self-proclaimed nerds who are actually pretty cool (or maybe I just and a nerd who hangs out with a lot of nerd and we're deluding ourselves??). But he also talks about how much adults perpetuate the nerd stereotype, mostly with the example of the Bush/Gore election, arguing that Gore wasn't elected b/c he's a nerd and Bush is a jock. But aren't those two ideas kind of contradictory??
The two other things I would have like to have seen were more research. The authors mentions many times how little research there is on this subject, but why not do some? Or work with a researcher to do some before writing a whole book with no data to back it up? Also, I'd be curious to see what sort of racial/cultural/economical differences there are (besides Asian vs. American). It seems like he's talking about mostly white, middle class kids here.
There were other things that annoyed me about the book though. First, the author writes pretty subjectively and comes across as a nerd with a chip on his shoulder. Second, he talks about how the nerd stereotypes are detrimental to younger kids, but when kids get to later high school and college, the stereotype loses it's power a bit. Older teens and young adults are just not as bothered by being called a nerd, and may even embrace it. And I do see this in the real world. I know a lot of self-proclaimed nerds who are actually pretty cool (or maybe I just and a nerd who hangs out with a lot of nerd and we're deluding ourselves??). But he also talks about how much adults perpetuate the nerd stereotype, mostly with the example of the Bush/Gore election, arguing that Gore wasn't elected b/c he's a nerd and Bush is a jock. But aren't those two ideas kind of contradictory??
The two other things I would have like to have seen were more research. The authors mentions many times how little research there is on this subject, but why not do some? Or work with a researcher to do some before writing a whole book with no data to back it up? Also, I'd be curious to see what sort of racial/cultural/economical differences there are (besides Asian vs. American). It seems like he's talking about mostly white, middle class kids here.
June 17, 2008
Anderegg aims to show the harmful effects of the nerd stereotype not only on the kids who are targeted, but also to American society as a whole. When we vilify the smart kids, who would want to be good at school, or pursue math and science, if it means they would never get laid? And then we lament the fact that our engineering jobs are being outsourced to India; in 1994, 42% of science and engineering Ph.D.s awarded in the U.S. went to foreign citizens.
Anderegg explores the historical, cultural and psychological background of the nerd/geek stereotype, and examines how it has been equated with mental illness in the form of Asberger's Syndrome. According to Anderegg, this stereotype is the only one that is still socially acceptable, unlike racism or sexism. He concludes with an analysis of the 2000 presidential election, which he posits was covered in the media as a classic "nerd v. jock" struggle. His arguments culminate in a call for broad cultural change, in the form of national competitive spirit, such as the race for space. To Anderegg, the results of nerd-bashing in the form of an uneducated and anti-intellectual populace is a major looming catastrophe for the United States. Most of the time he's convincing, except when he seems to get a bit whiny and pleading.
Here's my favorite quote from the book, which is a quote from Mirka Prazak, an anthropology professor:
"The nerd/geek stereotype is a luxury. Some cultures have their versions; others do not. But it seems to me that the likelihood of having such a stereotype is inversely related to how long a culture has been literate. In places where many adults are still struggling to become literate or when near-universal literacy has been achieved within living memory, 'wise ones' are always venerated, not punished. It's only in cultures where everyone can read and go to school that such stereotypes can even begin to take root. Otherwise, the costs are too high."
Anderegg explores the historical, cultural and psychological background of the nerd/geek stereotype, and examines how it has been equated with mental illness in the form of Asberger's Syndrome. According to Anderegg, this stereotype is the only one that is still socially acceptable, unlike racism or sexism. He concludes with an analysis of the 2000 presidential election, which he posits was covered in the media as a classic "nerd v. jock" struggle. His arguments culminate in a call for broad cultural change, in the form of national competitive spirit, such as the race for space. To Anderegg, the results of nerd-bashing in the form of an uneducated and anti-intellectual populace is a major looming catastrophe for the United States. Most of the time he's convincing, except when he seems to get a bit whiny and pleading.
Here's my favorite quote from the book, which is a quote from Mirka Prazak, an anthropology professor:
"The nerd/geek stereotype is a luxury. Some cultures have their versions; others do not. But it seems to me that the likelihood of having such a stereotype is inversely related to how long a culture has been literate. In places where many adults are still struggling to become literate or when near-universal literacy has been achieved within living memory, 'wise ones' are always venerated, not punished. It's only in cultures where everyone can read and go to school that such stereotypes can even begin to take root. Otherwise, the costs are too high."
November 7, 2025
Smart people are marginalized to the point of suicide. Myself and two other friends of mine dealt with anti-intellectualism. Autism is an abused term used to describe smart people. Goths and nerds were blamed for the Columbine school shooting. We need to embrace nerds/geeks instead of shunning them.
Read
April 16, 2012Really good and informative book.It's a quick read too. PH.D David Andregg has a sense of humor and I was happy to see so! It adds to the ease of the book while still getting the information. Apparently I'm not the only one in the country who has concerns of this nature. It not only affect us individually but also as a nation and I can't help but picture somewhere on down the road (This is exaggerated mind you. I hope.) that other countries will wake up and realize that we've been defending ourselves with a foam bat(Let's paint it black and they would be none the wiser) hoping that our past will keep everyone in line. I was a bit surprised about how long this anti-intellectual nonsense has been going on. And it comes from places that I didn't even think about. I say worth a read especially if you're pro-intelligence or if you have or plan on having kids. I'm relieved people are trying to do something about this. The book talks about this (or a version of this. It said 2005): http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ocg...
And now for my barrage of quotes. ;^)
"This is a fun toy that insults you for being interested in it."
-pg. 26
"We act like it's all in good fun to communicate to our kids that people who are smart and do well in school and like science fiction and computers are also people who smell bad and look ugly and are so repulsive that they are not allowed to have girlfriends. And then we wonder why it's so hard to motivate kids to do well in school."
-pg. 43
"When I asked him about nerds, he gave me the full story: how nerds wear coke-bottle glasses (This from a child who, I would wager, has never seen a glass coke bottle), collared shirts with pocket protectors, and very short shorts with knee high socks and dress shoes. (For some reason these are Oktoberfest nerds.)"
-pg. 48
"And anti-intellectualism, as I will argue, is very bad for children and ever worse for our society as a whole."
-pg. 52
"The RAND study also showed that the probability that a young adult would earn a 4 year degree in science and engineering rose markedly between 1975 and 1999 in other developed countries including England, Canada, France, Italy, Germany, and Japan, while the rise in the United States had been moderate at best. The RAND study concluded that the United States is indeed falling behind our competitor nations in awarding science and engineer degrees."
-pg. 56
"The program for international student assessment is an educational-achievement survey sponsored by the organization for economic co-operation and development that looks at the educational achievements of 15 year olds in 30 countries of the developed world. In the 2003 results, the United States ranked 24th out of the 29 countries surveyed. (Great Britain was left out, for not having tested enough students.)"
-pg. 58
"Finland, for example, has one standard curriculum for both math and science for the entire country, and since there is little or no ability grouping, everyone is required to learn the same amount of math. To Finns, our national patchwork of math standards must seem quaint at best..."
-pg.60
"According to this paradigm, our kids' problems with math are part of a broader lack of discipline encouraged by a degenerate culture - or not, depending on which side of the culture wars you're on."
-pg. 61
"It was not so long ago that this attitude prevailed in America: Using something machine like, whether it was a bicycle, a lawn mower, or a car, implied mastering the ability to repair it as well."
-pg. 157
"Parents who are struggling against the tide of crap washing over their kids should be applauded for giving it the old college try."
-pg. 198
And now for my barrage of quotes. ;^)
"This is a fun toy that insults you for being interested in it."
-pg. 26
"We act like it's all in good fun to communicate to our kids that people who are smart and do well in school and like science fiction and computers are also people who smell bad and look ugly and are so repulsive that they are not allowed to have girlfriends. And then we wonder why it's so hard to motivate kids to do well in school."
-pg. 43
"When I asked him about nerds, he gave me the full story: how nerds wear coke-bottle glasses (This from a child who, I would wager, has never seen a glass coke bottle), collared shirts with pocket protectors, and very short shorts with knee high socks and dress shoes. (For some reason these are Oktoberfest nerds.)"
-pg. 48
"And anti-intellectualism, as I will argue, is very bad for children and ever worse for our society as a whole."
-pg. 52
"The RAND study also showed that the probability that a young adult would earn a 4 year degree in science and engineering rose markedly between 1975 and 1999 in other developed countries including England, Canada, France, Italy, Germany, and Japan, while the rise in the United States had been moderate at best. The RAND study concluded that the United States is indeed falling behind our competitor nations in awarding science and engineer degrees."
-pg. 56
"The program for international student assessment is an educational-achievement survey sponsored by the organization for economic co-operation and development that looks at the educational achievements of 15 year olds in 30 countries of the developed world. In the 2003 results, the United States ranked 24th out of the 29 countries surveyed. (Great Britain was left out, for not having tested enough students.)"
-pg. 58
"Finland, for example, has one standard curriculum for both math and science for the entire country, and since there is little or no ability grouping, everyone is required to learn the same amount of math. To Finns, our national patchwork of math standards must seem quaint at best..."
-pg.60
"According to this paradigm, our kids' problems with math are part of a broader lack of discipline encouraged by a degenerate culture - or not, depending on which side of the culture wars you're on."
-pg. 61
"It was not so long ago that this attitude prevailed in America: Using something machine like, whether it was a bicycle, a lawn mower, or a car, implied mastering the ability to repair it as well."
-pg. 157
"Parents who are struggling against the tide of crap washing over their kids should be applauded for giving it the old college try."
-pg. 198
September 24, 2019
I read this book on a whim, just happening upon it at the library (a lot of my more interesting reads seem to begin like that). It was a short read but very thought provoking. The author, David Anderegg, a child psychologist, puts forth very convincing arguments as to how stereotypes describing "nerds, geeks, etc." are damaging to American culture as a whole, and why such derision continues to exist. As is seen in much of pop culture such as the sitcom "The Big Bang Theory" or those terrible cell phone commercials, nerds are a totally acceptable focus for ridicule and Anderegg explores how this affects both children's and adult's attitudes towards education. I thought the author's descriptions of the inherent contradictions and overlaps of stereotyping of nerds to be especially interesting.
In all, I think Anderegg put together a very informative book that does a very good job going through a lot of the concepts and themes that surround the stereotype from history to pop culture, and how its persistence is harmful to children in particular, but American culture in general. The only problem is that I think that this book really only brushes the surface and a lot more detailed studies could be put together (the author even suggesting various ideas for future researchers).
However, I didn't really understand how controversial the ideas presented, of a "prejudice" against "nerds" could be until I was surprised to have inadvertently got into an argument with a relative about whether "some people" are just better at some subjects and the expense of normal social skill while discussing this book, an argument that is disputed in the book. I guess I may have fallen into the nerd stereotype spoken about in "Nerds" of talking about things that "normal" people aren't interested in. Maybe they should read this book, too.
In all, I think Anderegg put together a very informative book that does a very good job going through a lot of the concepts and themes that surround the stereotype from history to pop culture, and how its persistence is harmful to children in particular, but American culture in general. The only problem is that I think that this book really only brushes the surface and a lot more detailed studies could be put together (the author even suggesting various ideas for future researchers).
However, I didn't really understand how controversial the ideas presented, of a "prejudice" against "nerds" could be until I was surprised to have inadvertently got into an argument with a relative about whether "some people" are just better at some subjects and the expense of normal social skill while discussing this book, an argument that is disputed in the book. I guess I may have fallen into the nerd stereotype spoken about in "Nerds" of talking about things that "normal" people aren't interested in. Maybe they should read this book, too.
January 17, 2024
This was an interesting read, and especially to adults like myself who grew up watching and loving STNG. The author makes many insightful, valid points regarding the stereotypes we teach our children in the home (long before they reach school/outsider influence) but I wasn't as keen on his many agreements with and nods to Sigmund Freud. I also think too much emphasis was put on kids when it should've been shared more equally with the adults who raise those kids (and start and or reinforce all those problems in the first place). Still, it was a good read. I enjoyed all the real-world connections and historical facts and definitely learned a few things I did not know before!
June 18, 2008
I wasn't convinced. I had this book recommended through our elementary school list-serv and started reading with high-hopes. Unfortunately, the book really didn't deliver. For starters, you can definitely feel the chip on the author's shoulder (as a "former" nerd) by his zealous attitude toward cleansing the world of the defamitory and hurtful terms/characterizations of "nerds" and "jocks". He really lost me when he started making the case that the Nerd/Jock relationship is actually one of those endless archetypes that has been playing out since the beginning of time. Also his insistence that there are only two categories: nerd & jock was too general and single-dimensional. It made this assumption that all kids fall into one of the two categories. Of course, many people (myself included) had a horrible middle school experience, but to try and quantify this into one simplistic archetype doesn't begin to cover the complexity of the peer interactions then.
With all this being said, I did find some things in the middle of the book insightful: the whole thing with ADD & Aspergers being fad diagnoses was right on the money. It's something I despair of myself as someone who suffers from a mental illness--how much of who I am is a "sickness" and how much is just a part of what makes me unique. My answer is when it makes me non-functional or self-harming, but others are out to "normalize" everyone and insist that we all meet certain criteria to have good mental health...
I also appreciated some of the criticism on the state of education in America today. There is certainly the need for American's to be competitive and continued emphasis does need to be placed on academic achievement, but I'm not seeing the whole "kids don't achieve because of fear of the nerd stereotype". What I see is kids who are overwhelmed by other demands on time: sports, TV, computers, video games, enrichment activities, etc. Any of these things in proper doses (which can be different from family to family and kid to kid) are acceptable, but too much of any or all of them crowds out the time for a child to learn to love learning.
Okay, enough of the soapbox. As a self-proclaimed nerd who never knew that it was "bad" to be smart or was ridiculed for it, I recognize that I don't know what goes on in every part of the county and could well be unaware of a particular sub-culture. I will say this, though, the heroes I see coming out of Hollywood today are about as brainy, beautiful, and athletic as Odysseus and the other "uber-men" that the author idealizes. Think National Treasure, Disturbia, Indiana Jones, or the Day After Tomorrow... I welcome any feedback on this.
With all this being said, I did find some things in the middle of the book insightful: the whole thing with ADD & Aspergers being fad diagnoses was right on the money. It's something I despair of myself as someone who suffers from a mental illness--how much of who I am is a "sickness" and how much is just a part of what makes me unique. My answer is when it makes me non-functional or self-harming, but others are out to "normalize" everyone and insist that we all meet certain criteria to have good mental health...
I also appreciated some of the criticism on the state of education in America today. There is certainly the need for American's to be competitive and continued emphasis does need to be placed on academic achievement, but I'm not seeing the whole "kids don't achieve because of fear of the nerd stereotype". What I see is kids who are overwhelmed by other demands on time: sports, TV, computers, video games, enrichment activities, etc. Any of these things in proper doses (which can be different from family to family and kid to kid) are acceptable, but too much of any or all of them crowds out the time for a child to learn to love learning.
Okay, enough of the soapbox. As a self-proclaimed nerd who never knew that it was "bad" to be smart or was ridiculed for it, I recognize that I don't know what goes on in every part of the county and could well be unaware of a particular sub-culture. I will say this, though, the heroes I see coming out of Hollywood today are about as brainy, beautiful, and athletic as Odysseus and the other "uber-men" that the author idealizes. Think National Treasure, Disturbia, Indiana Jones, or the Day After Tomorrow... I welcome any feedback on this.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 6, 2009
This book was a quick, interesting read. I agree with the author's point that our American culture stigmatizes math and science abilities at a time when it's most important to be developing them - middle and high school.
The author weakened his arguments, though, by trying to apply them to recent politics. His characterizations of the Gore-Bush election completely failed to convince me. He ignored that many voters (intelligent ones, even) voted for Bush for ideological reasons, not because he was the "jock" in opposition to Gore's "nerdiness". In fact, until reading this book, I never had thought that Gore was considered a "nerd" or Bush a "jock". Were it really true that the American public devalued intellectual politicians to such a degree as the author claims, Obama would never have won this last election.
The author weakened his arguments, though, by trying to apply them to recent politics. His characterizations of the Gore-Bush election completely failed to convince me. He ignored that many voters (intelligent ones, even) voted for Bush for ideological reasons, not because he was the "jock" in opposition to Gore's "nerdiness". In fact, until reading this book, I never had thought that Gore was considered a "nerd" or Bush a "jock". Were it really true that the American public devalued intellectual politicians to such a degree as the author claims, Obama would never have won this last election.
March 6, 2009
I really liked this non-fiction title. It was a quick and engaging read. I found his connection between the negativity of the nerd stereotype and the declining math and reading scores to be interesting. Sadly, there's little direct research on the nerd stereotype for the author to work from, so he extrapolates a lot from other research. I also occasionally found myself frustrated with his snappily titled chapters because he didn't always seem to directly answer the questions he raised in them during the course of the chapter. By-and-large, however, I really loved this book and would happily recommend it as a very engaging non-fic read for nerds and non-nerds alike.
June 11, 2008
David Anderegg is a developmental psychologist who has talked to a lot of kids about the nerd stereotype. He claims that kids, who don't fully understand the complex stereotype, are affected by it and change their behavior to avoid aquiring the name. I thought it was very interesting, especially being one of the kids who never thought it was a bad thing to do well in school, and didn't worry about never having a boyfriend or never making friends because I was in band and mock trial.
September 7, 2009
I don't think he grew up in Silicon Valley. Because, if he did, he wouldn't have suffered so much. Somewhere in my messy house is a MIT Nerd Pride pocket protector. And, the response from everyone who has seen it has been, "Cool! Can you get me one?"
Seriously, this book is fatally flawed by it's lack of content about girls and minorities. The cover photograph of a white boy says it all.
Seriously, this book is fatally flawed by it's lack of content about girls and minorities. The cover photograph of a white boy says it all.
June 21, 2013
Dr. David Angeregg is always good for looking at child development issues in new ways.
I’m guessing this book would appeal more to parents who may think their kid is nerdy. But every parent should read it because Anderegg is giving us a window into understanding youth culture in a new and important way.
Plus, he’s always good for giving concrete advice for difficult parenting situations.
I’m guessing this book would appeal more to parents who may think their kid is nerdy. But every parent should read it because Anderegg is giving us a window into understanding youth culture in a new and important way.
Plus, he’s always good for giving concrete advice for difficult parenting situations.
June 7, 2011
Well researched, highly understandable and not just for the "pop-psych" crowd.
February 8, 2018
A very insightful view into the problems in middle school culture.
December 18, 2021
[guessing at the star rating / mining my old FB notes now that they are almost impossible to find]
I found a lot to like in this easy to read book.
In contrast to The Authenticity Hoax, the author has a premise and continually references it as he builds his evidence. his tone becomes a little too casual/hip towards the end (sort of emulating his disliked 'man of conversation') but i learned alot from this psychologist:
* the nerd/geek stereotype is a luxury that is related to how long a culture has been literate
* in 2004, the US graduated more sport-exercise majors than electrical engineers
* a study asked kids what superpowers they'd like and categories appeared: aggressive kids wanting to blow things up, socially isolated (read nerdy) kids wanted to be invisible or fly, and popular kids wanted powers that were more like adolescent projections of themselves: to be the best at cheerleading, to have the power of the coolest car.
* popular kids always have nicknames and it's a quick way to put someone else at ease. in fact this is how george bush got the press on side, he gave them all nicknames and made them feel a part of his inner circle
* with the trend of older boys and men participating in beauty culture (the yoke of women for ages) the same sexism toward smart is NOT sexy is now reaching the males of society
* America was founded on the premise of the rejection of Europe (seen as a 'man of thinking') for the new frontier and the 'man of action'. lately you could say America now values the 'man of conversation' because social skills seem to play such a dominant role in business, politics, entertainment
* every decade has it's mental illness du jour and aspergers seems to be this one's. but the label is applied widely and falsely when someone doesn't meet arbitrary social requirements. look at bill gates who's been labelled aspergy: married with children, wide circle of friends, hugely successful, but unable to look into someone's eyes for long enough... that alone gives him the aspergy label
* until 1973 homosexuality was seen as a mental illness for goodness sake. the decision of what is a disorder and what is normal changes as time goes on. labelling what threatens you as a mental illness is a passive aggressive act
* more than ever, we are a visual society. most college students will identify Freud as an old man with a cigar (because that is the photo in the book) and (get this!) will discount his theories based on his decrepit age. meanwhile, Freud was a young man when he was most productive
and now the main thrust of the book: children.
children are being exposed to this word 'nerd' and nerd bashing and it's happening earlier and earlier every year. it will have consequences
* children do see things are either/or, black or white. this is because categorical distinctions must be simple before they can more to the more complex. so the term nerd must be assigned a position - and it is a negative one
* children give value to everything: think of how a child has positive or negative feelings about each number. very little is considered neutral. the term 'nerd' cannot live in a gray area. and once a child decides being a nerd is bad, they will avoid all nerd-stereotyped behaviors
* children first perceive the 'nerd' insult as akin to being a baby - the biggest insult to budding autonomy. this is why being close to, or listening to your parents (and by extension - your teachers) is nerdy: a baby requires help and guidance from adults
* as the superman/clark kent comics will attest, glasses are nerdy. and those glasses are such a strong indicator, they alone keep his secret identity intact
* the deepest nerd anxiety occurs between the ages of 11 to 14
* middle school kids label math and science as nerdy subjects and let them slide only to discover that doors they closed in middle school stay closed once they hit high school and university. maturity allows older teens to accept people different from themselves, but by then it is too late to catch up on math skills
* nerds are simply less self conscious as individuals
* what about the anger? even adults participate in nerd-bashing (sometimes to make their own children feel better through comparison, sometimes to portray themselves as young and hip). where does this rage come from? the author proposed a brilliant theory: the self aware child/teen is forced to conform and then notices that guy didn't conform and gets to keep wearing track pants / playing with dolls / etc and it drives them batty. they lash out in frustration
I found a lot to like in this easy to read book.
In contrast to The Authenticity Hoax, the author has a premise and continually references it as he builds his evidence. his tone becomes a little too casual/hip towards the end (sort of emulating his disliked 'man of conversation') but i learned alot from this psychologist:
* the nerd/geek stereotype is a luxury that is related to how long a culture has been literate
* in 2004, the US graduated more sport-exercise majors than electrical engineers
* a study asked kids what superpowers they'd like and categories appeared: aggressive kids wanting to blow things up, socially isolated (read nerdy) kids wanted to be invisible or fly, and popular kids wanted powers that were more like adolescent projections of themselves: to be the best at cheerleading, to have the power of the coolest car.
* popular kids always have nicknames and it's a quick way to put someone else at ease. in fact this is how george bush got the press on side, he gave them all nicknames and made them feel a part of his inner circle
* with the trend of older boys and men participating in beauty culture (the yoke of women for ages) the same sexism toward smart is NOT sexy is now reaching the males of society
* America was founded on the premise of the rejection of Europe (seen as a 'man of thinking') for the new frontier and the 'man of action'. lately you could say America now values the 'man of conversation' because social skills seem to play such a dominant role in business, politics, entertainment
* every decade has it's mental illness du jour and aspergers seems to be this one's. but the label is applied widely and falsely when someone doesn't meet arbitrary social requirements. look at bill gates who's been labelled aspergy: married with children, wide circle of friends, hugely successful, but unable to look into someone's eyes for long enough... that alone gives him the aspergy label
* until 1973 homosexuality was seen as a mental illness for goodness sake. the decision of what is a disorder and what is normal changes as time goes on. labelling what threatens you as a mental illness is a passive aggressive act
* more than ever, we are a visual society. most college students will identify Freud as an old man with a cigar (because that is the photo in the book) and (get this!) will discount his theories based on his decrepit age. meanwhile, Freud was a young man when he was most productive
and now the main thrust of the book: children.
children are being exposed to this word 'nerd' and nerd bashing and it's happening earlier and earlier every year. it will have consequences
* children do see things are either/or, black or white. this is because categorical distinctions must be simple before they can more to the more complex. so the term nerd must be assigned a position - and it is a negative one
* children give value to everything: think of how a child has positive or negative feelings about each number. very little is considered neutral. the term 'nerd' cannot live in a gray area. and once a child decides being a nerd is bad, they will avoid all nerd-stereotyped behaviors
* children first perceive the 'nerd' insult as akin to being a baby - the biggest insult to budding autonomy. this is why being close to, or listening to your parents (and by extension - your teachers) is nerdy: a baby requires help and guidance from adults
* as the superman/clark kent comics will attest, glasses are nerdy. and those glasses are such a strong indicator, they alone keep his secret identity intact
* the deepest nerd anxiety occurs between the ages of 11 to 14
* middle school kids label math and science as nerdy subjects and let them slide only to discover that doors they closed in middle school stay closed once they hit high school and university. maturity allows older teens to accept people different from themselves, but by then it is too late to catch up on math skills
* nerds are simply less self conscious as individuals
* what about the anger? even adults participate in nerd-bashing (sometimes to make their own children feel better through comparison, sometimes to portray themselves as young and hip). where does this rage come from? the author proposed a brilliant theory: the self aware child/teen is forced to conform and then notices that guy didn't conform and gets to keep wearing track pants / playing with dolls / etc and it drives them batty. they lash out in frustration
March 26, 2019
The “nerd” label is a badge of honor for an adult, but for a kid it’s another matter. As a former nerd kid myself (who was picked on for being supposedly both “smart” and “stupid” – at the same time!), I was interested in finding out what a psychologist would say on the matter. I was in for quite a surprise. The middle-school “nerd/geek” stereotype (the unattractive but intelligent person who programs computers, wears pocket protectors and plays fantasy role-playing games) is apparently a uniquely American phenomenon. The author makes the case quite forcefully that it is the reason behind much of the failure of American students in math and science, as well as simply being a hurtful stereotype (as are all stereotypes). Not wanting to be labelled as a nerd and thus picked on by other students, so the argument goes, many students who enjoy either of said topics in school will nevertheless decline to study them until adulthood.
(From my own history: in middle school I more or less withdrew from math, not because I found it “nerdy” but because I found it difficult. Science, however, was another matter: to me, memorizing arcana such as the names of each planet’s moons or the classifications of animal phyla was the “coolest” thing imaginable, and I couldn’t wait to dazzle the other kids in my school with such newfound knowledge. They weren't dazzled. It had never occurred to me that everyone has different interests from everyone else, though of course I figured it out by high school.)
The author traces the origin of the “nerd” myth from its origins (Ichabod Crane was likely the first American nerd, though he was originally meant as a satire on European attitudes about learning) to its contemporary manifestations such as the sudden overabundance of kids with Asperger’s Syndrome , the Bush/Gore debates, the “Beauty and the Geek” TV show, and the unspoken ban on Asian-American pop stars (yes, the author makes a case for that weird and shameful statistic being a part of the same phenomenon.) As seen by those last two examples, the stereotype is not only erroneous and cruel to children, but can be genuinely hurtful to adults as well. The author then makes several suggestions on how to eradicate it.
The book is written with a little irreverence, lots of humor, and some interesting presentations. I’ve written this, my longest review for a library, to recommend it. Oh, and yes, I did read “The Silmarillion” in tenth grade, and I did enjoy it.
--Steven E. Scribner, author of the "Tond" series (fantasy) https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...
(From my own history: in middle school I more or less withdrew from math, not because I found it “nerdy” but because I found it difficult. Science, however, was another matter: to me, memorizing arcana such as the names of each planet’s moons or the classifications of animal phyla was the “coolest” thing imaginable, and I couldn’t wait to dazzle the other kids in my school with such newfound knowledge. They weren't dazzled. It had never occurred to me that everyone has different interests from everyone else, though of course I figured it out by high school.)
The author traces the origin of the “nerd” myth from its origins (Ichabod Crane was likely the first American nerd, though he was originally meant as a satire on European attitudes about learning) to its contemporary manifestations such as the sudden overabundance of kids with Asperger’s Syndrome , the Bush/Gore debates, the “Beauty and the Geek” TV show, and the unspoken ban on Asian-American pop stars (yes, the author makes a case for that weird and shameful statistic being a part of the same phenomenon.) As seen by those last two examples, the stereotype is not only erroneous and cruel to children, but can be genuinely hurtful to adults as well. The author then makes several suggestions on how to eradicate it.
The book is written with a little irreverence, lots of humor, and some interesting presentations. I’ve written this, my longest review for a library, to recommend it. Oh, and yes, I did read “The Silmarillion” in tenth grade, and I did enjoy it.
--Steven E. Scribner, author of the "Tond" series (fantasy) https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...
May 22, 2022
A good read. I chanced upon it in the library and was immediately fascinated by the cover of the hardbound book, which was lawn green (or something very close) in color, featuring a pair of horn-rimmed glasses (which are still being marketed as nerd glasses in 2022 🙄) with tape on the bridge, a supposedly tell-tale sign of nerds in pop culture. In this book, the author tried to deconstruct the collective nerd stereotype in children only to point out how vague or heterogenous it was. The nerd phenotype varies based on the local conditions in the tidal pools of high schools. The author's arguments are logically laid out in many chapters (eg: the hypotheses he proopsed about the postponement of sexual activities by smart kids and discussed them), but here and there, they just seemed like padantic monologues. There are some interesting topics/ideas, for example the origins of 'Man of action vs Man of reflection', both political and cultural; the naivety of the kids who perceive 'nerd' as bad solely based on the tone of someone asking 'You aren't a nerd, are you?'; the marketing of tween products etc. The author pointed out towards the end that the kids who were in the middle of the spectrum of 'nerd-labeling' and 'nerd-labeled' were the ones losing the most in this whole ordeal.
I debated whether to read this 16-year-old book. This book seemed relevent in the light of recent tendrils of anti-intellectualism during the pandemic. I was familiar with the nerd-jock dichotomy before I picked up this book, but that was solely from the consumption of American media. This is very different from where I grew up. I attended high school in India where nerds are idolized by parents, and even peers at times. It isn't uncommon to hear parents telling their children to learn from the class nerd. I would go as far as to say nerds are popular kids and role models in India in yesteryears. But the trend seems to be changing in mainstream media recently, I believe due to the growing influence of American media. So, learning about this issue might be useful in coming years.
Overall, a wonderful book, would recommend this who deal with school-going kids (teachers, parents etc)...
I debated whether to read this 16-year-old book. This book seemed relevent in the light of recent tendrils of anti-intellectualism during the pandemic. I was familiar with the nerd-jock dichotomy before I picked up this book, but that was solely from the consumption of American media. This is very different from where I grew up. I attended high school in India where nerds are idolized by parents, and even peers at times. It isn't uncommon to hear parents telling their children to learn from the class nerd. I would go as far as to say nerds are popular kids and role models in India in yesteryears. But the trend seems to be changing in mainstream media recently, I believe due to the growing influence of American media. So, learning about this issue might be useful in coming years.
Overall, a wonderful book, would recommend this who deal with school-going kids (teachers, parents etc)...
Read
June 23, 2020This month I read NERDS: How Dorks, Dweebs, Techies, and Trekkies Can Save America* *and Why They Might Be Our Last Hope by David Anderegg, Ph.D.
In addition to his lengthy title (both name of the book and his own name), Anderegg addresses a whole area of profiling and discrimination that I have not spent all that much time considering. Anderegg focuses on the effects of bullying on kids labeled as "nerds" or "geeks" or "dorks", but instead of looking at how individual cases can be detrimental he focuses his attention on the larger issue of what it means, in his terms, to be an "anti-intellectualist society". Throughout the book he chronicles examples of "nerdiness" as portrayed by the media and what he has uncovered as a clinical psychologist in the perceptions of young people. An overwhelming theme is that although there is no clearly definable way to spot a "nerd" it is common knowledge that being one is a bad thing. He evaluates reasons for this, is it a childhood connection to adults that makes one look stiff? A lack of social familiarity? Interest in topics that require a great deal of buy in time and focus? In general his book highlights that the things that cumulatively are categorized as a geek are very similar to activities and characteristics that are not considered geeky at all. So what makes someone who enjoys creating character models for an RPG any geekier than a fly fisherman creating intricate lures? Or how real are the effects of a 17 year old engaging in a World of Warcraft raid with his friends versus the real effects of winning a soccer game?
After much talk of the middle school experience regarding popularity and established norms (not limited to the ways that adults perpetuate these and use excuses such as "he will make loads of money as a computer programmer one day so it's okay if he's made fun of now") Anderegg focuses in on the nerd-jock/popular archetypes. To support this dichotomy he examines the Gore-Bush election, citing reporters and officials alike in their support of Bush's seemingly anti-intelligence, common people based campaign versus Gore's "elitist smarts". (He somewhat controversially adds that though Obama showed similar prowess of factual knowledge to Gore he also is black, and as our stereotypes tell us , nerds are all white.) He explains that these subtle indoctrinations give children no real context for defining a nerd other than it is opposite of what is good. Nerd, Anderegg explains, is such a devalued notion that it does not receive a full definition, only the assumption that if it is applied to you, you are as well a devalued member of the community. (Interestingly enough he does state that the reception to this- whether or not you can maintain your cool in response to inner turmoil is one of the ways that nerds/popular tend to differ in a visible and categorical way).
Near the end of his text Anderegg asserts that though this hierarchy works in a middle school world, albeit to the detriment of some youth, adults have no room to apply this stereotype and yet it happens quite often. Anderegg says, "We see that perfectly smart and experienced presidential candidates are devalued because they do not seem to have the easy self-love that we apparently require from a president. Hostility towards nerds and geeks wastes a lot of human capital and impoverishes everyone in the process". He blames much of this on our society's valorism of youth and being "hip". But this is not the only problem. The tendency for youth to stray away from doing well in school or participating in science classes in order to not be a nerd, the tie between social interactions and mental illness often leave many people categorized as "bad" due to a disability, all of these and more lend themselves to a heightened number of low achieving students, discrimination, and an under qualified workforce.
So how to address this?
Anderegg explains that the kids who are highly involved in so-called nerdy activities and come from homes where this is not an issue are not the ones to focus on, that likely they understand the larger social issues and will not be negatively impacted. It is the kids in the middle, however, the ones who don't do well on a test because they got 4 As and are being made fun of, who change some part of themselves to fit in, that our efforts should be focused on.
He suggests we first employ specificity. When someone uses the term nerd or geek or dork, find out what they really are referring to. Is it too much compliance to adults? Is it too shy? Once you know what they are really referring to it can be addressed in a more targeted manner.
Stop using nerdity as an excuse. "Of course you got beat up because they think you're a nerd." Fairly simple there.
Find appropriate models and examples of successful and non-stereotypical "nerds"
Turn off television, movies, etc that support the nerd stereotype. For instance, Anderegg refers to the Big Bang Theory as less of a success for supporting nerd ideas and more of a "cute" representation of entertaining, adorable geeks that you just want to put in your pocket. Still degrading.
Find a subculture. In many groups what makes you nerdy in one can make you cool in another. Seek that out and find community to build your interests. For example band geeks in high school can go on to be highly revered musicians in college. ("When discouraged: remember Moby")
Ultimately he says parents are the source of how to change this. If parents are supportive of success and embrace their own "nerd tendencies" as opposed to vilifying intellectualism, then children are set up to better succeed.
It is Anderegg's final hypothesis that students who are encouraged to do well and are no longer being labeled socially as a "nerd" or given the excuse that something is "too haaarrd" or allowed to be lazy then we will have a larger domestic population of qualified workers in STEM careers, more focused political discussion targeting effects versus image, and children who through their exploration of learning, imagination, etc are better prepared to think ahead, strategize, and develop plans for both societal and personal success.
Overall a terribly interesting read loaded with information and clever quips.
Definitely worth a browse.
In addition to his lengthy title (both name of the book and his own name), Anderegg addresses a whole area of profiling and discrimination that I have not spent all that much time considering. Anderegg focuses on the effects of bullying on kids labeled as "nerds" or "geeks" or "dorks", but instead of looking at how individual cases can be detrimental he focuses his attention on the larger issue of what it means, in his terms, to be an "anti-intellectualist society". Throughout the book he chronicles examples of "nerdiness" as portrayed by the media and what he has uncovered as a clinical psychologist in the perceptions of young people. An overwhelming theme is that although there is no clearly definable way to spot a "nerd" it is common knowledge that being one is a bad thing. He evaluates reasons for this, is it a childhood connection to adults that makes one look stiff? A lack of social familiarity? Interest in topics that require a great deal of buy in time and focus? In general his book highlights that the things that cumulatively are categorized as a geek are very similar to activities and characteristics that are not considered geeky at all. So what makes someone who enjoys creating character models for an RPG any geekier than a fly fisherman creating intricate lures? Or how real are the effects of a 17 year old engaging in a World of Warcraft raid with his friends versus the real effects of winning a soccer game?
After much talk of the middle school experience regarding popularity and established norms (not limited to the ways that adults perpetuate these and use excuses such as "he will make loads of money as a computer programmer one day so it's okay if he's made fun of now") Anderegg focuses in on the nerd-jock/popular archetypes. To support this dichotomy he examines the Gore-Bush election, citing reporters and officials alike in their support of Bush's seemingly anti-intelligence, common people based campaign versus Gore's "elitist smarts". (He somewhat controversially adds that though Obama showed similar prowess of factual knowledge to Gore he also is black, and as our stereotypes tell us , nerds are all white.) He explains that these subtle indoctrinations give children no real context for defining a nerd other than it is opposite of what is good. Nerd, Anderegg explains, is such a devalued notion that it does not receive a full definition, only the assumption that if it is applied to you, you are as well a devalued member of the community. (Interestingly enough he does state that the reception to this- whether or not you can maintain your cool in response to inner turmoil is one of the ways that nerds/popular tend to differ in a visible and categorical way).
Near the end of his text Anderegg asserts that though this hierarchy works in a middle school world, albeit to the detriment of some youth, adults have no room to apply this stereotype and yet it happens quite often. Anderegg says, "We see that perfectly smart and experienced presidential candidates are devalued because they do not seem to have the easy self-love that we apparently require from a president. Hostility towards nerds and geeks wastes a lot of human capital and impoverishes everyone in the process". He blames much of this on our society's valorism of youth and being "hip". But this is not the only problem. The tendency for youth to stray away from doing well in school or participating in science classes in order to not be a nerd, the tie between social interactions and mental illness often leave many people categorized as "bad" due to a disability, all of these and more lend themselves to a heightened number of low achieving students, discrimination, and an under qualified workforce.
So how to address this?
Anderegg explains that the kids who are highly involved in so-called nerdy activities and come from homes where this is not an issue are not the ones to focus on, that likely they understand the larger social issues and will not be negatively impacted. It is the kids in the middle, however, the ones who don't do well on a test because they got 4 As and are being made fun of, who change some part of themselves to fit in, that our efforts should be focused on.
He suggests we first employ specificity. When someone uses the term nerd or geek or dork, find out what they really are referring to. Is it too much compliance to adults? Is it too shy? Once you know what they are really referring to it can be addressed in a more targeted manner.
Stop using nerdity as an excuse. "Of course you got beat up because they think you're a nerd." Fairly simple there.
Find appropriate models and examples of successful and non-stereotypical "nerds"
Turn off television, movies, etc that support the nerd stereotype. For instance, Anderegg refers to the Big Bang Theory as less of a success for supporting nerd ideas and more of a "cute" representation of entertaining, adorable geeks that you just want to put in your pocket. Still degrading.
Find a subculture. In many groups what makes you nerdy in one can make you cool in another. Seek that out and find community to build your interests. For example band geeks in high school can go on to be highly revered musicians in college. ("When discouraged: remember Moby")
Ultimately he says parents are the source of how to change this. If parents are supportive of success and embrace their own "nerd tendencies" as opposed to vilifying intellectualism, then children are set up to better succeed.
It is Anderegg's final hypothesis that students who are encouraged to do well and are no longer being labeled socially as a "nerd" or given the excuse that something is "too haaarrd" or allowed to be lazy then we will have a larger domestic population of qualified workers in STEM careers, more focused political discussion targeting effects versus image, and children who through their exploration of learning, imagination, etc are better prepared to think ahead, strategize, and develop plans for both societal and personal success.
Overall a terribly interesting read loaded with information and clever quips.
Definitely worth a browse.
January 3, 2024
But really more like a 2. Rounding up because maybe this was more meaningful in its time, which was 2007. I don't think it's the author's fault that the main premise of the book, stereotyping intellectual people as needs or geeks is harmful to individuals and our society, seems outdated. Is bullying still a real problem? Yes. Is bullying nerds/geeks when we are now all online, on tech, gaming, watching superheroes, still a big enough deal that we need a whole book about it? I think no. The jokes and general stereotyping of non-nerd/geek also did not age well. It's very cringe. A lot of 2007 (when I graduated college) is cringe for me, and this book is beyond that.
January 16, 2018
A quick nonfiction look at the nerd/geek stereotype in today’s culture and how more than the worry of individuals being bullied it adversely affects our future due to fewer kids getting interested in science and technology. The book started engaging enough and funny but did hit a lull in the middle when like everything else it boiled down to sex and the author did get hung up a little with it and there were too many pop culture references to not feel dated very soon.
April 1, 2024
It would have been more relevant 15 years ago in regards to all the references made. Otherwise, it has some interesting talking points. Good enough to finish.
September 1, 2012
This was a very good book in many ways. One, it supports what I've said for years: The United States has NEVER taken education very seriously. He goes more into why, and just how pervasive it is. He draws on some interesting anecdotes and arrives at some intriguing solutions. The premise is that America's anti-intellectualism is not only impeding the academic process of individuals, but impeding the country's progress as a whole. No argument from me here on that point. He points out how subversive -- and how accepted-- our ridiculing nerds, geeks and others who don't quite fall on that bell curve of life is, including society's over-pathologizing said individuals. He makes a strong case for why this mindset needs to change if we want to graduate more educated individuals -- which won't be an easy challenge in a country that has always admired the "rugged individual" and, as Anderegg puts it, people of action, as opposed to those who are "merely" scholars who have never gotten their hands dirty. And I agree about the power of words and associations: cold, hard rigid "facts" - what math and science depend on -- can be seen as inflexible and not-fun, not cool. Or, as the author put it (this cracked me up) to "harrrd!"
This book is not perfect, although most of the flaws are minor. One, he tries to make a case in the Bush/Gore 2000 presidential election that Gore lost because he was an intellectual, a "nerd" who espoused his knowledge at any opportunity, while Bush was more the friendly, joking "everyman" who seemed more comfortable in his own skin. This race was razor close, and Gore actually won the popular vote (by a slim margain), so this conclusion seems a stretch, at best. Two, he compares the rankings of the test scores of students in the United States, versus other developed countries, and, predictably, America's results are rather dismal. Now, I'm NOT saying there isn't room for improvement, and there's nothing we can't learn from other countries. Far from it. We really need to implement year-round schooling among many other changes, and give education the attention it really deserves. However, I really hate the comparisons with other countries because it is not comparing apples with apples. One, the United States makes an effort to educate- and test- every student. This does not happen in other countries. Two, education here is free and public (with private options available). That is not the case with all countries; I recall talking with an exchange student from South Africa once, who said tuition to a typical school in her country was about a year's wages for the typical laborer. In short, these other countries are testing their best and most affluent populations. I recall reading some time ago that if you broke down the test and only looked at the top 10-20 percent or so of students in the U.S. compared to the top 10-20 percent of students in other countries, the United States does a lot better in the rankings (not sure this is still true; this was back in the late 90s I believe). Also, I recall Anderegg making a comment about how the "jocks" and the very pretty students don't have trouble with being teased and stereotyped. That's just not true. Dumb Jock? Ditzy Blonde? The "beautiful people" have their advantages, probably more than the more average souls. But they can be discriminated against as well. No one is immune from "labels."
This book is not perfect, although most of the flaws are minor. One, he tries to make a case in the Bush/Gore 2000 presidential election that Gore lost because he was an intellectual, a "nerd" who espoused his knowledge at any opportunity, while Bush was more the friendly, joking "everyman" who seemed more comfortable in his own skin. This race was razor close, and Gore actually won the popular vote (by a slim margain), so this conclusion seems a stretch, at best. Two, he compares the rankings of the test scores of students in the United States, versus other developed countries, and, predictably, America's results are rather dismal. Now, I'm NOT saying there isn't room for improvement, and there's nothing we can't learn from other countries. Far from it. We really need to implement year-round schooling among many other changes, and give education the attention it really deserves. However, I really hate the comparisons with other countries because it is not comparing apples with apples. One, the United States makes an effort to educate- and test- every student. This does not happen in other countries. Two, education here is free and public (with private options available). That is not the case with all countries; I recall talking with an exchange student from South Africa once, who said tuition to a typical school in her country was about a year's wages for the typical laborer. In short, these other countries are testing their best and most affluent populations. I recall reading some time ago that if you broke down the test and only looked at the top 10-20 percent or so of students in the U.S. compared to the top 10-20 percent of students in other countries, the United States does a lot better in the rankings (not sure this is still true; this was back in the late 90s I believe). Also, I recall Anderegg making a comment about how the "jocks" and the very pretty students don't have trouble with being teased and stereotyped. That's just not true. Dumb Jock? Ditzy Blonde? The "beautiful people" have their advantages, probably more than the more average souls. But they can be discriminated against as well. No one is immune from "labels."
May 2, 2012
Well dang. The title is, once again for this sub-genre, misleading, as Anderegg's thesis in the book is *not* how "Nerds" will "save America," but how badly we supposedly treat them.
Item: Anderegg really struggles to define his terms, before finally admitting that it's impossible for him to actually do so, and instead simply relying on the self-reporting of schoolchildren for his categorical statements.
Item: the tautological definition he finally settles on (a nerd is someone who is called a nerd) is superceded in most of his 'research' by the fact that he treats "good at math and science" as equivalent to "nerdy." A moment's reflection should have let him know that it is possible to be good at math and science without that appelation.
Item: even that definition fails him, since it doesn't admit the legions of "nerds," Trekkies, dweebs, geeks, and spazzes who are *not* particularly identified by their love of or skill at mathematics, but by their obsessions with fantasy, literature, gaming, music, or other non-mainstream pursuits. Instead, Anderegg gets fixated on the false equivalency of "nerds=math," because it's the only one he can point to which suggests - and he never actually proves it - that nerdiness, per se, will somehow "save America."
Item: "save America," apparently, means "make money." The concern with a purely material outcome is unfortunate, if understandable since theoretically this would be the one argument Anderegg could use to persuade the non-nerds about the value of nerds. "See," Anderegg seems to say, "save Geeks, because they'll eventually make money for you." It's shortsighted, at best.
Item: although Anderegg is an academic, his research is spotty, even shoddy in places. There is almost no statistical data here, merely self-reported anecdote and supposition. He frequently draws conclusions which are unsupported even by that.
All in all, a dissapointment. The one takeaway is that those who claim that our current culture has crossed some magic threshold, and that geek is cool now are wrong, almost axiomatically. Geekiness is still geeky. What has happened is that thanks to the tribalistic effects of social media, the geeks can now hang out with one another more effectively, and feel better about themselves. That's a wonderful, positive change which, unfortunately Anderegg completely ignores. But he's right that there's been no grand revolution. Shows like Big Bang Theory are still laughing *at* geeks, not laughing *with* them. Unfortunately, a book like this one isn't going to do much to alleviate that.
Item: Anderegg really struggles to define his terms, before finally admitting that it's impossible for him to actually do so, and instead simply relying on the self-reporting of schoolchildren for his categorical statements.
Item: the tautological definition he finally settles on (a nerd is someone who is called a nerd) is superceded in most of his 'research' by the fact that he treats "good at math and science" as equivalent to "nerdy." A moment's reflection should have let him know that it is possible to be good at math and science without that appelation.
Item: even that definition fails him, since it doesn't admit the legions of "nerds," Trekkies, dweebs, geeks, and spazzes who are *not* particularly identified by their love of or skill at mathematics, but by their obsessions with fantasy, literature, gaming, music, or other non-mainstream pursuits. Instead, Anderegg gets fixated on the false equivalency of "nerds=math," because it's the only one he can point to which suggests - and he never actually proves it - that nerdiness, per se, will somehow "save America."
Item: "save America," apparently, means "make money." The concern with a purely material outcome is unfortunate, if understandable since theoretically this would be the one argument Anderegg could use to persuade the non-nerds about the value of nerds. "See," Anderegg seems to say, "save Geeks, because they'll eventually make money for you." It's shortsighted, at best.
Item: although Anderegg is an academic, his research is spotty, even shoddy in places. There is almost no statistical data here, merely self-reported anecdote and supposition. He frequently draws conclusions which are unsupported even by that.
All in all, a dissapointment. The one takeaway is that those who claim that our current culture has crossed some magic threshold, and that geek is cool now are wrong, almost axiomatically. Geekiness is still geeky. What has happened is that thanks to the tribalistic effects of social media, the geeks can now hang out with one another more effectively, and feel better about themselves. That's a wonderful, positive change which, unfortunately Anderegg completely ignores. But he's right that there's been no grand revolution. Shows like Big Bang Theory are still laughing *at* geeks, not laughing *with* them. Unfortunately, a book like this one isn't going to do much to alleviate that.
January 5, 2010
David Anderegg writes a compelling discussion of the idea of nerds and geeks as they get promulgated from high school down to middle and late elementary school culture. Where high schoolers might recognize the potential for a bit more leeway in one’s personality, middle schoolers see the world in terms of black and white, cool and uncool, “pop” and nerd. Of course, none of this is news.
What makes Anderegg’s book so interesting is the line he draws between various conclusions that immature minds draw when they begin to learn the nerd stereotype:
1. Nerds are losers (ipso facto), so you don’t want to be one. Nerds don’t get laid.
2. Nerds like science and math, and like pleasing grownups by doing well in school.
3. If I want to get laid and don’t want to be a nerd, I’d better not be good at science and math.
He weaves this narrative among discussions of the Man of Action/Man of Reason dichotomy and the American history of anti-intellectualism, but ultimately he’s talking about the three points above. A couple additional interesting bits:
* Anderegg’s concern lies more for the kids in the middle, smart kids who aren’t automatically pegged as nerds by their classmates. He says that nerds themselves are usually unselfconscious enough that they maintain their interest in science and math long enough, but that borderline kids shy away from “nerdy” classes like science and math and, by the time they discover the value those courses hold for future careers, have missed the boat.
* As a society, we reaffirm the nerd stereotype in many ways, but it has a strange shape: he contrasts Star Trek fans with people who play fantasy football or sew fishing flies. Only the first group would automatically be labeled nerds, despite the fact that all three have intense interest in arcane subjects most people find boring.
* Anderegg discusses Autism and its star-of-the-moment cousin, Asperger’s Syndrome, as way over-diagnosed and damaging to popular ideas about smart kids. Whenever someone’s a little different, we often label them whether or not they have any real functional impairment.
* The last section of the book also tackles the question of adults — why do normal adults, people who understand and respect intelligence, still revile nerds? (Jealousy, fear, anxiety, striving for youth)
It’s an interesting read, and worth it if you’re an educator or a parent of a kid who will likely be smart (and who doesn’t believe their kid will likely be smart?). I know this will stay with me for a while.
What makes Anderegg’s book so interesting is the line he draws between various conclusions that immature minds draw when they begin to learn the nerd stereotype:
1. Nerds are losers (ipso facto), so you don’t want to be one. Nerds don’t get laid.
2. Nerds like science and math, and like pleasing grownups by doing well in school.
3. If I want to get laid and don’t want to be a nerd, I’d better not be good at science and math.
He weaves this narrative among discussions of the Man of Action/Man of Reason dichotomy and the American history of anti-intellectualism, but ultimately he’s talking about the three points above. A couple additional interesting bits:
* Anderegg’s concern lies more for the kids in the middle, smart kids who aren’t automatically pegged as nerds by their classmates. He says that nerds themselves are usually unselfconscious enough that they maintain their interest in science and math long enough, but that borderline kids shy away from “nerdy” classes like science and math and, by the time they discover the value those courses hold for future careers, have missed the boat.
* As a society, we reaffirm the nerd stereotype in many ways, but it has a strange shape: he contrasts Star Trek fans with people who play fantasy football or sew fishing flies. Only the first group would automatically be labeled nerds, despite the fact that all three have intense interest in arcane subjects most people find boring.
* Anderegg discusses Autism and its star-of-the-moment cousin, Asperger’s Syndrome, as way over-diagnosed and damaging to popular ideas about smart kids. Whenever someone’s a little different, we often label them whether or not they have any real functional impairment.
* The last section of the book also tackles the question of adults — why do normal adults, people who understand and respect intelligence, still revile nerds? (Jealousy, fear, anxiety, striving for youth)
It’s an interesting read, and worth it if you’re an educator or a parent of a kid who will likely be smart (and who doesn’t believe their kid will likely be smart?). I know this will stay with me for a while.
August 27, 2009
I really enjoyed this book. I read it while I was nursing my newborn son. I was looking down at him, hoping that he would be "nerdy" - as in smart, interested in science and technology, and not too worried about peer acceptance...but also hoping he wouldn't be teased as a nerd. Would his adorable good looks save him? :-)
Anyway, the book really opened my eyes to the nerd stereotype in America. I now think of the words "nerd" or "geek" in a positive light, working in the high-tech/software industry, and enjoying people who are enthusiastic about their hobbies, however eccentric. However, this book reminded me just how negatively our culture views intellectual pursuits and those who pursue them. Then I began to see it in the media myself, as I watched television and movies that week.
I like that the author is a child psychologist. Much of this book is about the effect of the nerd/geek stereotype on our children. It is not only affecting the nerd-labelled kids, but it also keeps other children from pursuing science and technology for fear of being called a nerd. In other words, it's holding back American children from their potential. The author really seems to understand kids, so this book also counts as a parenting book, on how to nurture our nerdy - or non-nerdy - children. In fact, he points out that as adults, we've escaped the "middle school mentality" that perpetuates the teasing and reminds us of what our children may be experiencing. In some cases, he does advise that we let our children conform if they so wish - such as the sixth grader who wanted to wear jeans to school to fit in - he advised the parents to simply buy the kid a pair no matter what their stance on "fashion" and "fitting in" may be.
He also talked about the Asperger's Syndrome diagnosis in a new way, saying that it's wrong for us to be labelling a personality type as a "disease" - that like ADD, people are being overdiagnosed with AS. I completely agree - and as someone that overcame shy and introverted tendencies myself to now being a friendly, outgoing person - I am glad that I was never diagnosed with a disease that I might have resigned myself to having, rather than pushing myself to come out of my shell.
Anyway, the book really opened my eyes to the nerd stereotype in America. I now think of the words "nerd" or "geek" in a positive light, working in the high-tech/software industry, and enjoying people who are enthusiastic about their hobbies, however eccentric. However, this book reminded me just how negatively our culture views intellectual pursuits and those who pursue them. Then I began to see it in the media myself, as I watched television and movies that week.
I like that the author is a child psychologist. Much of this book is about the effect of the nerd/geek stereotype on our children. It is not only affecting the nerd-labelled kids, but it also keeps other children from pursuing science and technology for fear of being called a nerd. In other words, it's holding back American children from their potential. The author really seems to understand kids, so this book also counts as a parenting book, on how to nurture our nerdy - or non-nerdy - children. In fact, he points out that as adults, we've escaped the "middle school mentality" that perpetuates the teasing and reminds us of what our children may be experiencing. In some cases, he does advise that we let our children conform if they so wish - such as the sixth grader who wanted to wear jeans to school to fit in - he advised the parents to simply buy the kid a pair no matter what their stance on "fashion" and "fitting in" may be.
He also talked about the Asperger's Syndrome diagnosis in a new way, saying that it's wrong for us to be labelling a personality type as a "disease" - that like ADD, people are being overdiagnosed with AS. I completely agree - and as someone that overcame shy and introverted tendencies myself to now being a friendly, outgoing person - I am glad that I was never diagnosed with a disease that I might have resigned myself to having, rather than pushing myself to come out of my shell.
May 22, 2015
This book has some very strong points. First, as a proponent of a national curriculum and someone who never took Calculus in high school (even though I now wish I had), I agree with his premise that to compete in a world dominated by science and technology we need a strong, mandatory science and math core in our school system. This core curriculum should not be optional. Every student should be required to take advanced math and science, so they will be accustomed to higher level science and math by the time arrive in college and are able to compete with foreign students who are proficient in both. Second, I really enjoyed his discussion about anti-intellectualism in America and the stigmatization of intelligent, adolescent boys as effete and nerdy. This is something that definitely happens, and he's right to point out that it's cultural. However, I'm not sure that his suggestions for dealing with the label "nerdy" and "geek" will do much to change this problem.
The book falls short in that it only discusses science and math and fails to really look at students with high verbal-linguistic skills. Though it is true that elevated IQ scores in one area usually means above average skills in the other, he glosses over the contributions of these individuals to the advancement of our society, focusing solely on how science and math will save the human race. Having just finished book two of Margaret Atwood's MadAdam series may have made me somewhat skeptical of his postulations. He is also a bit too didactic in his suggestions for dealing with the labels of "nerd" and "geek," though from other reading I think much of our problems culturally come from transferring the idea to children that if they excel at a task it will be easy. News flash: there are many subjects that are not easy. They simply require more work. Telling children they are "good at" one subject because it's easy teaches them they are not "good at" what is difficult. This is not necessarily true. Of course, this is my own observation, and one I wish he would have mentioned in his anti-nerd-culture diatribe.
Overall, it's an interesting book, and I give it 2.6-3 stars.
The book falls short in that it only discusses science and math and fails to really look at students with high verbal-linguistic skills. Though it is true that elevated IQ scores in one area usually means above average skills in the other, he glosses over the contributions of these individuals to the advancement of our society, focusing solely on how science and math will save the human race. Having just finished book two of Margaret Atwood's MadAdam series may have made me somewhat skeptical of his postulations. He is also a bit too didactic in his suggestions for dealing with the labels of "nerd" and "geek," though from other reading I think much of our problems culturally come from transferring the idea to children that if they excel at a task it will be easy. News flash: there are many subjects that are not easy. They simply require more work. Telling children they are "good at" one subject because it's easy teaches them they are not "good at" what is difficult. This is not necessarily true. Of course, this is my own observation, and one I wish he would have mentioned in his anti-nerd-culture diatribe.
Overall, it's an interesting book, and I give it 2.6-3 stars.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 25, 2013
I loved "Nerds: How Dorks, Dweebs, Techies, and Trekkies Can Save America and Why They Might Be Our Last Hope". The author's purpose of writing this book was to explain to the reader why nerds and geeks shouldn't be shunned in society like they are right now. The theme of the book is about changing popular culture about stereotypes. The style of the book is an argument because it persuaded the reader (me) to act on a belief. The author explains a lot about how nerds and geeks are shunned and that it's bad for america because america isn't besting in intelligence like so many other nations are, and that if these same nerds and geeks keep getting shunned they'll fight what they feel and do what they regret (which in this case is taking less advanced math and science) just because american society won't accept them for their apparent personality quirks and traits. The author of the book isn't very happy of the stereotypes of nerds and geeks and doesn't think that ichabod crane and superman are very good role models, he'd rather introduce children to other fictional properties like harry potter and the odyssey because those have a better representation for nerds and geeks, he also believes that if a nerd is poked fun at regularly at school, the nerd can compromise with the enemy by giving himself or herself a makeover or change of appearance.It kind of reminds me of "Your Medical Mind" only this talks about nerds and geeks instead of patients and medicine.There isn't one thing that I dislike about this book. What I really liked about this book is that it goes really in depth about the history of nerds being shunned and why it's bad for our society, and why nerds are typically shunned in the first place, and the author disproves a lot of these possible reasons as to why american society thinks that nerds and geeks are strange and weird.
Want to read
May 18, 2009Book Jacket:
Are you socially awkward?
Technologically sophisticated or just extremely passionate
about one or more subjects? Well, maybe you're a "nerd."
And what's wrong with being a nerd? In this fascinating
book, child and family psychologist David Anderegg
examines the process by which kids learn what nerds are,
and what happens to their identities as a result of their
developing awareness of this uniquely American stereotype.
In "Nerds," Anderegg surveys the long history of American
anti-intellectualism and its current avatar: anti-nerd
sentiment. Although at first glance it may not seem so bad
to call someone a nerd, this stereotype is wreaking havoc
in the lives of our children, affecting their performance
in school and ultimately jeopardizing American economic
competitiveness. (It may not be an accident that
international math and science testing shows American
fifteen-year-olds in twenty-fourth place among the world's
most developed countries.)
Deftly revealing layers of cultural "knowledge" about
nerds, Anderegg explores such topics as:
* the conformity of adolescence and the endurance of
adolescent stereotypes, long after people should know
better
* the pathologizing of nerds with diagnoses such as
Asperger's syndrome
* the archetypal struggles of nerds and jocks in popular
culture and history
Using educational research, psychological theory, and
interviews with kids themselves, Anderegg urges readers to
start deconstructing this most harmful of social
constructions before any more smart and self-confident
kids stop being so interested in what they're interested
in. In other words, before they stop being kids.
Are you socially awkward?
Technologically sophisticated or just extremely passionate
about one or more subjects? Well, maybe you're a "nerd."
And what's wrong with being a nerd? In this fascinating
book, child and family psychologist David Anderegg
examines the process by which kids learn what nerds are,
and what happens to their identities as a result of their
developing awareness of this uniquely American stereotype.
In "Nerds," Anderegg surveys the long history of American
anti-intellectualism and its current avatar: anti-nerd
sentiment. Although at first glance it may not seem so bad
to call someone a nerd, this stereotype is wreaking havoc
in the lives of our children, affecting their performance
in school and ultimately jeopardizing American economic
competitiveness. (It may not be an accident that
international math and science testing shows American
fifteen-year-olds in twenty-fourth place among the world's
most developed countries.)
Deftly revealing layers of cultural "knowledge" about
nerds, Anderegg explores such topics as:
* the conformity of adolescence and the endurance of
adolescent stereotypes, long after people should know
better
* the pathologizing of nerds with diagnoses such as
Asperger's syndrome
* the archetypal struggles of nerds and jocks in popular
culture and history
Using educational research, psychological theory, and
interviews with kids themselves, Anderegg urges readers to
start deconstructing this most harmful of social
constructions before any more smart and self-confident
kids stop being so interested in what they're interested
in. In other words, before they stop being kids.
July 2, 2009
Loved this book. Very thought-provoking.
I think I was a pretty nerdy kid, and my main thing as I was reading this book was that I kept thinking, "Oh, calm down. I didn't feel that marginalized as a kid. About a week later, I had a chance to revisit my old elementary school." It brought back some old memories and made me give this guy a little more credit.
The main point of this book is the effect the Nerd stereotype has on kids in particular and society in general. One interesting observation is that the word "nerd" doesn't so much descibe a specific type of person so much as it encompasses anyone who departs from a really narrow concept of what we're supposed to be.
Once he's identified the problem, his solution seems to be to eliminate the label. This is probably where I disagree. I think it makes more sense to "decriminalize nerdiness" rather than eliminate the whole concept. There are those of us who take a lot of pride in our nerdy identities.
One of the most interesting parts of this book for me was when he talked about interviewing kids about what super-power thay would like to have. The kids fell into three categories. There were the normal kids, the kids who were marginalized because they were different, and the kids who were marginalized because they were aggressive. The aggressive kids wanted powers to smash things and blow things up. The different kids almost all wanted either to fly or to be invisible. And the "normal" kids wanted really "super powers" that would make them popular. Like the power to have a cool car or the power to be the best cheerleader. To quote a movie, "That's not a power. That's a skill."
I think I was a pretty nerdy kid, and my main thing as I was reading this book was that I kept thinking, "Oh, calm down. I didn't feel that marginalized as a kid. About a week later, I had a chance to revisit my old elementary school." It brought back some old memories and made me give this guy a little more credit.
The main point of this book is the effect the Nerd stereotype has on kids in particular and society in general. One interesting observation is that the word "nerd" doesn't so much descibe a specific type of person so much as it encompasses anyone who departs from a really narrow concept of what we're supposed to be.
Once he's identified the problem, his solution seems to be to eliminate the label. This is probably where I disagree. I think it makes more sense to "decriminalize nerdiness" rather than eliminate the whole concept. There are those of us who take a lot of pride in our nerdy identities.
One of the most interesting parts of this book for me was when he talked about interviewing kids about what super-power thay would like to have. The kids fell into three categories. There were the normal kids, the kids who were marginalized because they were different, and the kids who were marginalized because they were aggressive. The aggressive kids wanted powers to smash things and blow things up. The different kids almost all wanted either to fly or to be invisible. And the "normal" kids wanted really "super powers" that would make them popular. Like the power to have a cool car or the power to be the best cheerleader. To quote a movie, "That's not a power. That's a skill."
Displaying 1 - 30 of 73 reviews