JustRead!

He plunges head-on into his argument, stating his position in the opening sentence. I’m not sure I agree with him. Does our society have “only derogatory terms” for the “academically serious”? Isn’t intellectualism valued in our society? If not, why are the people who earn the most generally those with the highest education?

I believe that this paragraph is vital to this arguments structure and foundation. In other terms, this chunk is simply astounding. Great choice Huffinator…

This sentence proves that the author strongly believes in the necessity of “nerds.” (tone)

This sentence may be short but it shows that the author strongly believes in the necessity of “nerds” and how much he dislikes the ridicule they have to undergo.

so INSIGHTFUL!!!!

Fridman shows his sarcasm in his opening paragraph by saying that our intellectual “culture” classifies “someone dedicated to pursuit of knowledge” a “freak biting the head off a live chicken.”

test

Test

When the author states “there is something very wrond with the system of values in a society” he is establishing his position that nerds should not be put down but instead encouraged and uplifted.

When he includes the definition of the word ‘geek’ we all think that he is trying to illustrate to us how intellectually curious and noble a geek really is, but rather explains that a geek is one who bites heads off of chickens. I think he includes this as if an actual nerd were to explain the true meaning of the word ‘geek’. Only a geek would have such an obscure a random piece of knowledge.

wait, im confused, tamra, answer the question…

As a whole, this essay is organized into paragraphs which begins by contridicting the way we define a geek and then moving into the difference between a nerd and supposedly another human being.

The author says that even a “prestigious” school like Harvard, known for their academics and made for someone to pursue “knowledge,” has students that are ashamed of their intellect due to the “idolized” “athletes”

test

Fridman is very obvious about his position about “geeks” and “nerds.” In the first sentence, he openly states, “there is something very wrong” with our society that puts down “the intellectually curious and academically serious.” At the end of his first sentence, he uses two words that rhyme to describe “geeks” and “nerds.” This rhythm creates a playful, relaxed feeling, which sharply contrasts with the common stereotype of “geeks” and “nerds”, who are usually uptight and stressed.

Through strong diction, Fridman catches his readers’ attention. When giving the literal terminology of a “geek,” he informs us that an actual geek is one “who shocks the public by biting off heads of live chickens.” Knowing that most everyone is interested when the see or hear something out of the ordinary, he not only includes this definition to inform his readers, but also to serve as his “attention getter.”

The author establishes irony when he says that even elementary kids must deal with this type of social name calling. Kids that are only supposed to worry about recess and show-and-tell, not being “social outcasts”

Fridman points out that society is cruel. When children are young, they need to “learn” as much as possible. However, society turns its back on the future generation because of their “refusal to conform to society’s anti-intellectual values” defeating the purpose of an intellegent person and taking away any hope of them fitting in socially.

Paragraph 7 uses a lot of imagery whenever it talks about the kid who is labeled as a nerd because they wear “thick glasses” and such. Besides this though, the author uses a whole lot of strong diction.

I do agree that even at young elementary ages kids are already being sterotypically labeled.

I agree with the author’s position in this paragraph about how wrong it is to condemn children for not wanting to pursue their own interests.

The author used a great example of parallel phrases in this sentence.

I disagree that athletes are revered more than intellectual students because they are both “lauded” in even proportions inside of their cliques, it’s just that people are more aware of talented athletes due to media and propaganda.

Fridman’s position is clearly that he thinks that nerds should not be put down in society.

I think that by pointing out this definition, he emphasises the fact that the people targeting the “geeks” are unintelligent enough to use a word that has no real rellevance.

The reason why students are ashamed to admit they study is because of the popular persona of not caring about schools (being a bad a) and still making good grades. These students feel that if others think they do not put forth much effort, then they are not considered a “geek.”

I agree with Tamara when she says that nerds are ‘idolized’ in their cliques because they all are nerds.

This sounds like a motivational speech as it says “for America’s sake” we must fight the “persecutors.” I thought it was a little humorous because it made me think of a scrawny kid with Harry Potter glasses standing in front of a waving American flag. Maybe the author is exposing the stereotypes that we all seem to have by painting this incongruous picture of the nerd as the hero because we never see that.

This paragraph is where the author sets up the age-old comparison between brains and brawn. By specifying the most prestigious academic institution he can, pinpoints and magnifies the “rampant” and not-so-recent mold that has been feeding off our nation for centuries. Fridman even uses parallel structures in his juxtaposition of “nerds” and “athletes” to illustrate the manner in which society contrasts the two as total opposites, one worthy of praise and the other worthy of “[shame.]“

From the first sentence, it seems that Fridman is a geek. He uses big words like “derogatory” and claims geeks are “intellectually curious and academically serious.” I’m wondering if maybe this passage was just written because he feels like an unwanted geek or nerd. “America Needs Its Nerds”…or does Fridman just want America to want him?

test

Fridman not only catches the attention of the reader by stating the diction of the word “geek,” instead of our interpretation of the word, but he also uses it as almost a sarcastic device in comparing the idiocity of a person “biting the head off a live chicken” to “someone dedicated to pursuit of knowledge.” However, when reading this, is this not something that a person poorly educated or ignorant would do instead of a true intel

In the first sentace of this paragraph, it is clear why Fridman is so against geeks being made fun of. When he uses big words and gives us the definition of geek, it makes me think he too is a geek. I wonder if he wrote this to make himself feel better about being unaccepted in the world because writing for The New York Times seems a lot more accepted than being “ostracized.”

intellectual?*

The direction connection of “Webster’s” dictionary definition of “geek” and “[society’s]” definition of “geek” is clearly a purposeful logical fallacy.

The author recognizes the unfairness of social standing awarded to educators (university professors) and mere entertainers (ballplayers). He resents the fact that while teachers are the “most prestigious,” they are not rewarded socially or financially as much as America’s entertainers.

There used to be a poster in the band room that read something like, “Call me ‘NERD’ today, call me ‘BOSS’ tomorrow.”

I disagree with Friman when he says that elementry kids are put into nerd cliques. No one really cares how smart people are in elementry school, in fact most people liked getting the prizes for makeing good grades. An acception might be the geekish apperence of someone.

The short sentence as a separate paragraph shows a transition from what reality is to what it ought to be. Before this point, the author has been describing the persecutions that nerds face in this country, but after this point, he describes how intellectuals should be esteemed in society and how they should be proud of their success if we want to succeed as a nation.

He uses this logical fallacy to show how outrageous the link is between all “intellectually curious and academically serious” and the offensive expression, ”geeks.”

I find this hard to believe. Are those at Harvard who take their studies seriously REALLY “ostracized”? It is Harvard, after all. Don’t you have to be practically super-genius to even get admitted to Harvard?

This statement is both good and bad.

Perhaps it’s just because I love having fun so much, but it makes me a little sick how much children in countries like China spend working.

There is a girl at the junior high that I don’t know personally, but I’ve been told that her parents make her practice her instrument for ATLEAST an hour per day AND she has to do CALCULUS practice. She’s in eighth grade.

That’s a little ridiculous.

At any school, no matter how “prestigious,” students are going to be divided between the geeks and the students that don’t care about their grades. The author points this out in this paragraph, using Harvard as an example. The only difference between the students who study less at Harvard and any other school is that, at Harvard, the slackers probably have equivolent grades to the top performers at any state school.

Any one think Fridman guilty of overgeneralizing here?

Fridman is exaggerating his point that people only call the intellectually curious derogatory words. Some may call intellectual people “geeks” or “nerds,” but not everyone. Fridman is trying to make the point that these “geeks” shouldn’t be looked down upon in society.

SERIOUSLY! Professors get paid like crap.

And b/c of this system, the more intelligent people will be smart enough NOT to teach b/c they know they won’t be able to make any money, so (on average) the people who are teaching SUCK.

Only the truly selfless intelligent people teach.
And truly selfless people are very few and far between.

Fridman is obviously offended by today’s term of “Geek” and “Nerd.” In the opening sentence, he clearly states that society has something “very wrong” with its system of values. Fridman also mentions that our society “only” has derogatory terms for the “intellectually curious.” Words like “only” should not be used because there are usually acceptions. In this case, like Mrs.Huff said in an earlier comment, intellectualism is valued in our society, and therefore people with higher educations have higher paying jobs. . . in most cases.

In paragraph 8 Fridman builds a comparison between the anti-intellectualism in America and in other countries. He shows that in Japan intellectual students and “lauded” rather than put down or chastized for not being a football player.

Nice use of rhetorical questions.

The author uses this paragraph to contrast the U.S. with other intellectually dominated countries. Most Americans are obsessed with social standing and if being smart isn’t “cool,” many are reluctant to persue education. However, compare America to Asia who praise the intellectual, and are one of the most intelligent countries.

In this paragraph, Fridman uses parallel contradictory phrases. By contradicting nerds and athletes, he shows the role these two sets of people play in our society. The athletes are the famous ones in our world, while the nerds are in the background making everything possible.

Well first of all, the author himself must be a geek. His vocabulary suggests that he was one of those children mocked for his “academic serious[ness]” in his elementary and high school years. His opinion is obviously biased towards the kids who try their hardest in school and doesn’t see the topic from any other point of view. Also, this problem isn’t so rampant as he insists. Not every smart kid is made fun of, just those who choose to flaunt what they know.

Even a genius doesn’t want to be a social outcast, in most cases. If all a person ever does is sit in his room and study, they are living a pretty dule life. You not only learn from textbooks, but a great deal of learning is done outside of the classroom-from actual experiences.

I find it odd that the author pairs elementary school students and high school students in this paragraph…it seems more likely to me that he should pair high school students and college students. By setting up his argument in this manner, he paints a different picture of high school than we are used to seeing, making it out to be LESS of an epicenter for stereotype or breeding ground for outcasts, by even having to claim that “the same thing happens” there. By emphasizing college first, Fridman subtly places higher education above the more socially understood atmosphere of highschool, almost seeming to back up his point by contradicting himself. Where do we as high school students fit into this picture that Fridman paints? With the children or with the (not quite) adults?

Aren’t there many students who fancy both “books” and like to “party?” What about the students that “play football” and “build model airplanes?” Are they “social outcast[s]” or do they fit in?

The author is pretty much disgusted at the way Americans think. If a child’s own parent is the one “ashamed” of their intelligence and lack of athletic or social ability, how can that child value “academic achievement?”

America seems to be more of an entertainment country. This is because that is what we like to do. We get bored studying for long periods of time. So wouldnt it be better to aim for where people get paid more for something more fun then studying?

I agree with Lihn that it seems Fridman is trying to place the blame on “society.”

Fridman makes the point that only a “minority of undergraduates” take “pursuing knowledge” as a “top priority,” but “most students try to keep up their grades.” This can be taken as only few care enough to actually want to learn and better themselves. He makes the point that “most” want to “keep up their grades,” but they all do it for the sake of the grade and not for the sake of the knowledge that it SHOULD take to get the grade.

Also, he parallels and juxtaposes the “ostracized” “nerds” and the “idolized” “athletes” in order to say that they go through school and life together but with very different attitudes, but perhaps not such different motives.

I completely agree with Rachaels point.

The President of the United States is even paid less than Professional Athletes, and going back on the truly selfless teachers there are not many of them left. Some teachers at our school are just here. They teach because it is easy money and dont give a flip about what is important to the student.

Does anyone else see something wrong with this?

Students don’t tell how long they study or their grades not because they don’t want to sound smart, it’s because they are part of lazy America. It’s cool not to do what you’re supposed to just because you look like you don’t care, and for some crazy reason that quality is aspired for in most of America.

Natanya makes a good point about how this sentence is the “shift” in the essay. He is first talking about the trials that these “nerds” face, but then he moves to talking about how these intellectual people should stop being ashamed and fight against all the persecutors.

Just because some is smart doesn’t mean they are a social outcast. Fridman is being very stereotypical.

nice hp reference.

Oh, and perhaps “nerds” don’t want people to know they study because they want it to appear as just a natural occurance that they don’t really have to work that hard for, just as big athletes appear like the cocky and fly-by-the-seat-of-their-pants type with all of their so called natural talent that they are.

Well what about the kids in between? There is a medium between sitting at home on Saturday nights building model airplanes and going to a party, getting shit-faced. Not every person falls into one of the two categories. Plus, every little boy has the dream of becoming a famous football or baseball player one day. You can’t change the ideas of all American boys.

“From kindergarten to the grave.” Wow…Fridman is really making efforts to motivate the reader into championing the underdog. He characterizes the “nerd” complex as being a lifelong struggle, and I’m not sure if it truly is. I’d like to reference that band room sign that Rachael mentioned…nerds are only nerds for so long before they become “boss.”

Fridman is clearly agitated at the way parents are behaving in our society. I don’t agree with his generalization that “typical” parents are ashamed of their child for pursuing work over extracurricular activities. My family has always pushed me to work academically. Typically, parents want their children to be successful in the world. If they don’t get an education, then they will have no hope surviving in this world.

The final sentence of this paragraph uses a parallel structure to contrast nerds and athletes. This shows the commonality between stereotyping these two groups. The author is saying that it is just as bad to automatically elevate the athlete for being an athlete as it is to put down the nerd for being smart.

…”many are DEPRIVED of a chance to learn adequate social skills”…

Is this saying as “nerds” we have no social skills?
Fridman mentioned at one point that nerds stay at home to study instead of partying…so… since you are called a “nerd” you are at home a lot studying.. since you are studying at home then you have no time for friends…so since you are a “nerd” you have inadequate social skills
… that’s a fallacy…

I think this short sentence also helps establish the tone. The author is feed up with the way nerds are treated in society. Plain and simply, something needs to be done.

Where did the author get this information? Is it truly valid?

The author suggests that most people rarely can have both intelligence and social skills. Those who focused on their studies “refus[ed] to conform to society’s anti-intellectual values,” while those who “had the chance to learn adequate social skills” most likely gave into America’s intelligence morals.

When I read this…I think Dan Pink.
For once, I would like to NOT blame America OR society (I know, it’s crazy, right?) and propose that maybe we’re on the right track. Maybe the economy is moving towards a society centralized not on the blood, sweat, and tears of endless study and education. Maybe these East Asia kids need to learn how to have some fun and live their lives.

i don’t know.
maybe.

When he says that many geeks ‘are deprived…tools,’ it is because they remove themselves from society. Every nerd doesn’t start out as a nerd, and you can be extremely smart and do something that doesn’t protain to a book. They have opportunities to make friends and to have social lives and to be part of a clique and to learn outside of their little boxes, but they choose to sit at home in their rooms and read a book that has nothing to with anything, which brings back the reason they are referred to as nerds. It’s not because they’re smart, it’s because they are socially awkward because they read a book instead of playing t-ball.

I agree that some “ostracized” students are “deprived” of a possibility to become skilled at public and private communication, but I also believe that just because a student in not accepted because of his “intelligence,” the student does not have a “chance” to at some point gain “social skills.”

From the first sentence of this paragraph, I feel the author is putting the weight on the nerds and geeks themselves. They are the ones letting everyone step all over them and it’s time to stand up for themselves. They need to “stop being ashamed of who they are,” and realize that one day they will infact be called boss (referencing the sign in the band room mentioned by racheal).

Fridman is contrasting our country to another country in this paragraph. While our society is worried about being famous and popular, people in other places actually value the education that they receive. Sometimes, we take it for granted to have the ability to become a “nerd.”

My parents wish I was more academically aware. Which parents has he been talking to?

@tanner
I agree w/you. Teachers that teach just for easy money are not educating their students and are encouraging the laziness they are displaying. Meanwhile those students are deciding… hey! I don’t want to do work and I just want to make easy money so i’ll become a teacher. Then this creates an cycle of laziness and teachers who don’t educate their students until someone breaks the cycle.

The use of rhetorical questions is to make us think more about what has been said. I agree that it is sad if a parent can not be proud of what a child is good at. That is a parents fault not them.

Perhaps Fridman uses and over generalization in order to make the idea of the total opposite ends of the spectrum of “build[ing] model airplanes” and “get[ting] wasted at parties” seem as ridiculous as it really is. There are very few people in the world that can only fall into one category or the other. He is making the point that people are quick to judge by the typical stereotypes that society presents to the public in its various forms.

True baseball players are paid more than professors. Actually some high profile baseballers are paid more than any other athletes in the professional world. His use of baseball players next to professors is an extreme juxtaposition.

We agree that the comparing of elementary students and high school students seems, like what carisa said, “odd.” But maybe his comparing is meant to be absurd because calling the intelligent “nerds” and making fun of them is also “odd.”

Zach,
Concerning your view on this paragraph. It is the most vital piece in the essay and without understanding its purpose you will make no higher than a 3. Just look at the COMPLEXITY of this and dont OVERSIMPLIFY your argument or you could get raped in a mosquito truck.

I agree that the cycle of name-calling and shunning of the academically dominant needs to end. At this rate, who wants to be at the top of the intelligence pyramid and ignored when they could be at the social tower and worshipped?

I have to disagree with Fridman that young children are becoming “social outcasts.” When I was in elementary school, the “social outcasts” were the kids who picked their nose, got timeouts, and ate worms. Their social standing wasn’t exactly determined by their intelligence.

In this paragraph Fridman has good use of imagery. The geeks as Americans see them, scrawny runts with bad hygiene, suspenders, and bugs-eye glasses, are being compared to the definition of a geek, a freak who eats live chicken heads. Doesn’t the Dictionary’s definition of a geek make our definition of a geek not so bad?

I agree that some parents pose a problem with informing their children the importance of education. Children learn from their parents and if their parents are not willing to make education a top priority, why should the child? America may not remain a “world-class power” for long if educational standards are decreasing, for intelligence is pretty much the basis for everything else.

“enough is [really] enough.” The author makes a short statement that this bullying of intellectual students is “enough” and that no more of an explanation is needed to describe what shamefullness society has put studious people through.

I agree that is it wrong for a parent to criticize their child for achieving academic excellence; however, it is also wrong for a parent to criticize their child for achieving athletic excellence too. To make my point more clear: Fridman only focuses on how the intellectual are mentally abused, but not the ones that are physically fit. Yes, it is true that some smart kids get the beating in life from their parents and their peers, but isn’t it all the same for the kid that plays “baseball?” Isn’t HE getting the same beating, but in a different way such as having to live up to his parents expectations? America does have its issues, but I think the numbers are almost even when you look at the number of people that have gone high up the ladder due to intellectualness and the ones that have gone up the ladder due to “social and physical skills”

I think that many of us are right, Fridman was probably one of those “geeks” that was pushed around when he was younger. He says that children are “ostracized for their intelligence” but what about the kids that are “ostracized” for their incapabilites to learn as fast as normal kids? He is probably slightly biased toward the unfair treatment of “geeks” but special needs kids go through this same thing because they can’t keep up with society. So maybe Fridman’s being a little selfish here..

I agree with linh. The nerds need to suck it up and deal with it. The only other way to change a situation is to change the way they react to the situation. A person can be intelligent without being labeled as a geek. It just depends on the way an individual person carries himself and the way they show their intellect.

@krystal and tanner
When teachers are lazy and they just teach to make some easy money, it really gives the students a bad idea about life. First off, a class taught by a teacher who doesn’t care learns how to barely do any work and scrape by with passing grades. They might possibly even learn the art of bribary or how doing extra work at the last minute can save them. Next, a lazy teacher is an example to a student that it is okay to be lazy forever. They will never have to grow up, they can simply become a teacher, party all the time, and slack through their job as a teacher making easy money.
Now I know all teachers aren’t like this, but some are. What kind of example are they giving future generations?

I think the author ends the passage with rhetorical questions to make us further think about the topic at hand. Also, i don’t believe America is necessarily in danger of losing its “world-class power” just because some people focus on sports more than academics. Everyone has their own talents, and even in China, certain kids excel greatly in academics while others train for the olympics. It just depends on your strengths and weaknesses as to what career your life is going to bring to you. We shouldn’t necessarily only praise the genius, for I believe exceling in anything is a great achievement-not just academics.

Btw…what does Weber* stand for? Is it the Merriam Webster dictionary maybe?

This paragraph tells us who the author is and why we should care anything about what he has to say. Since this article appeared in The New York Times, we assume the author is fairly creditable.

I don’t think our nerds are totally essential to our country. We have never been ahead in the technology race in my life, but we still seem to be the best country in the world. Its not how smart we are, its how much blood, sweat, and passion we have that will lead us to global victory.

Fridman is the spokesman for the “geeks” and “nerds” in America. When he claims, “enough is enough,” it is easy to see that he has been called a “geek” and/or “nerd” in his lifetime. He tells his fellow “geeks” to “face the persecutors who” tease and torment the “intellectually curious.”

Fridman style seems to be overbearing and extremely stereotypical. He puts everything into groups. Some people cant be put into groups. I think he does this to make everything seem more dramatic.

imagery is used here to make you picture the “nerds” and the “geeks”

there is more than one definition for geek..there are two that he fails to mention..

~a person often of an intellectual bent who is disliked
~an enthusiast or expert especially in a technological field

..so im pretty sure when we refer to a “geek” its one of those definitions…not about someone biting off a chickens head..just sayin

When Fridman makes this statement, it is actually quite inaccurate. Although he even qualifies and says that “many are deprived” of decent “social skills,” what he probably say is that their “social skills” are just different and unique from what is considered to be so called ‘normal.’ Everyone has different ways of thinking, communicating, dealing with feelings, and even as time changes these do too. So bottom line, “adequate” and “good” to one person might not be suitable to another.
…However, this is perhaps coming from a true “nerd.” haha!

I agree with Keri on the whole fallacy of nerds and no “social skills” thing. However, perhaps Fridman uses the fallacy strategy in order to show how poorly educated society really is about their “geeks” and “nerds.” Maybe he even does so in order for people to see how foolish labeling people as “geeks” and “nerds” is.

It really kind of makes me think of like a revenge of the nerds thing. This sentence represents the turning point in so many nerd’s lives where they realize that who they are is perfectly fine, and they become satisfied with who they are and what everyone else thinks no longer matters. However, maybe that is because they are the jocks and the cheerleaders, and the slackers bosses like Rachael said. This sentence was a very clever move on the authors part. It lets the readers almost reflect on what they have read before this line, and it gives the article a smooth transition into the uplifting second half. So, actually the tone of the article changes from the first half to the second half, and that gives the two opposing tones juxtaposed together with only the short parallel sentence in between.

The imagery in this paragraph is almost as thick as that nerd Harry Potter glasses! haha! I made a funny.

Now on to more serious matters. Aside from the vivid imagery, it is very interesting that he refers to the dumb, the stupid, the lazy, the apathetic, and the ignorant as people with “anti-intellectual values.” In my opinion, this is being very generous to the people who tease, torment, and taunt the “nerds and geeks.” Perhaps the nerd in him told him to give them a name that seemed to be profound, or perhaps the goodness of the nerd in him told him not to sink to their level.

Carisa, I fear we can only dream of that day.
However, it does make me think of Dan Pink as well, and according to Mr. Pink the age of the more right brained is being thrust upon us. So, perhaps we are doing fine keeping up the individualism of the United States, and not competing on the same level as East Asia, whether that level be high or lower. America has always been the leader of individualism and reform in the world, perhaps we are just leading the new age.

Fridman seems to only mention one side of the story. He makes statements like “baseball players are more respected,” and “parents are ashamed of their studying daughter.” He stereotypes everything he mentions to emphasize his point. He says nerds make airplanes, and football players get wasted at parties. However, not all football players get wasted. (If they get caught by Coach King they have to do a “Beer Run” which doesn’t seem much fun.) Also, some people who fit the description “nerd,” have caught getting wasted at parties. So.. Fridman’s observations are completely stereotypical.

I completely agree and understand your point Mer, but is that kind of a little fallacy? Actually maybe it isn’t a fallacy maybe it is just over dramatization. haha. It is very ridiculous that ballplayers are paid more than professors; however, until professors are cherished as much as they should be, I’m afraid the salaries and opinions might not change.

Fridman establishes his tone for the passage in the beginning paragraph. Fridman enhances his position and his argument by providing a definition.

I agree with Natanya. I think my parents are pretty “typical;” I have to be home at a decent hour on the weekends, I’ve always had to be responsible enough to put school first, and I have to clean my messy room before I get chewed out, and at a young age my parents taught me to be organized and to always put the work before the fun. That is the lesson throughout my life that I will never ever forget; I actually think it is like engraved in my brain forever.

OH! OH! A paragraph full of rhetorical questions! Perhaps to reflect on what has been said.

Nathan, did you have a baseball game the day you wrote that comment? You sure seemed pumped. haha.
Hayden, what if it is not the fact that people can’t be put into groups, but rather they can fit in too many different groups?
Keri, nerds who got caught wasted at parties?! haha….

Fridman over generalizes the groups in his article which was actually very helpful to prove his point. He makes the point that the groups are too generalized and it is ridiculous to do so. He makes this point in through his own technique of generalizing the geek, the nerd, and the jock, or the “anti-intellectual.”

Well…
If this said “written by Inbred Fred (appeared on a napkin at one of those fancy restaurants in Montana)…instead of “written by Leonid Fridman (appeared in The New York Times 1990)

The passage as a whole would lose it’s credibility…
By mentioning this was in the New York Times automatically makes the passage believable because it is a well known and very popular source of media.

Fridman spends the entire article defining the tone of it. He spends the first half with one tone that presents his ideas of how ridiculous the term nerd truly is, and in the second half he starts the uplifting-you-can-do-it tone, which is the note that people always love to end on.

I disagree with Fridman in the fact that all the kids that fit that description are “ostracized for their intelligence and refusal to conform to society.” Some people try to conform because they want to fit the popular, or even just normal profile that society makes them feel they have to achieve. However, other people do not, and it is actually the best thing for them if they do not conform to the ways of others. Be individuals. Be unique. Be yourself.

I completely agree with Keri about the Inbred Fred thing.

Who said we (nerds) aren’t lauded, looked up to and used as examples to other students when we study hard?

[Mister Leonid Fridman needs to spend some time in my house so he can hear all what my parents say... "[insert name here] studies all the time and her grades show it, why can’t you be more like her”] I think alot of parents, and teachers, extol those who do better…. this paragraph is just another example of the way Fridman puts is observations in groups and stereotypes.

I agree with all of the above. Stating that the article appeared in The New York Times establishes the validity of the passage. Knowing that the author is worth listening to fills out the rhetorical triangle.

In this paragraph, Fridman uses Harvard to point out that even in a place where these ‘nerds’ should feel comfortable, they still feel the need to hide their study sessions in order to keep from being humiliated in the one place that makes them shine.

Like what hayden said, Fridman only uses one definition of “geek.” Most words in webster’s dictionary have different meaning. The word “geek” has become a slang word, calling someone it does not mean we are calling them a freak with a headless chicken … we are using one of the many other definitions of geek that Fridman never mentions…

I think it’s important that he mentions “freak” in the definition of “geek.” He’s got to be implying something there… or insinuating … or something

This choppy sentence goes straight to the heart of the author’s argument that geeks are being mistreated. He makes it very clear with this sentence that he feels the problem should be dealt with and left behind.

I agree with Linh here.
There’s a balance between accepting a “nerd” and casting one out.

I completely agree with Danielle on this one….
Oftentimes, being a “nerd” is the choice of the socially awkward and shy individual. They may not even necessarily have to be intelligent for this to apply.

Straightforward sentence=straightforward approach.
This sentence is the turning point in this article from the background to the solution.

“Enough IS enough.”

This ’short’ sentence represents the author’s ’short’ attitude towards the discrimination of nerds in society.

These rhetorical questions put this American problem in retrospect with the advancing intelligence of other nations. These expanding questions also leave the reader wanting to find the answers to the problem.

The second sentence of this paragraph starts out with a fact that the author uses to support his claim about how the world views geeks.
I also notice that he uses “according to…” to site his score at the beginning of his information (just like we were taught :] haha).

Again, I like the doom and gloom dead people imagery here. I just now noticed his use of the word “haunt,” as though the persecutors were grim reapers.

I think the way the first sentence cumulates into a massive structure kind of parallels the ever long list of options that the “typical” American citizen or parent may have.

This juxtaposition of an accomplished intellectual thinker and an accomplished athletic performer shows the broader picture of the geek problem. It follows the kids who choose to do well all throughout their lives.

I’m curious…the nerds Fridman seems to describe are super social outcast, but not many people at our school are really like that. How many intelligent students are really the type that only sit at home and read books instead of socializing? Have we just not experienced these kind of people because our town is so small, or is it that these true geeks are only this geeky in the movies?

Where did he get the information that “professional ballplayers are much more respected” than faculty members???
. . .
I know many ballplayers that are on drugs and molest women… I don’t “respect them more” than I would respect a teacher of the best university… (unless he molests his students and is on drugs too :S)

I can’t seem to get past the word “NEED” and how connotative that word is…or how he never really proves that point or backs it up, that nerds are just all that necessary.

Sure, smart people are, but nerd and smart are not equivalent, as many people on these comment threads have pointed out. I can’t decide if he wants to remove the term “nerd” from our vocabulary or make it even more noticeable.

The parallelism between nerds and athletes emphasizes the unique contrast between the social standing of each group. And even though Harvard is a very prestigious school, it is no different than any other college in the problems its students will face as they choose their way to live.

@Nathan i completely agree. There is more to an American than just their IQ or GPA. Each person chooses a different path and should be treated the same no matter how they choose to spend their time in school.

Does anyone else notice the similarity between this and Source F of our “Are Americans Ever Satisfied” essay? Once again, it is noticed that America is a country more concerned about entertainment and fufillment of desire more than education and more important things.

His position is that the classical “geek” should be revered for his interests/talents rather than persecuted.

This paragraph seems like a pep talk for nerds. I think the author is trying to really get the nerds attention here.

He also has a very logical, precise manner to his writing. Topic – definition – examples – declaration – more examples – conclusion.

Diacope?

@Hayden I really hadn’t thought about that til you mentioned it. Fridman really does need to recognize that there is more than just one definition, and we all have our own opinion of who a geek really is.

I can’t tell if his tone is serious or mocking…

@Danielle i completely agree. You choose who you want to be, so the geeks have no one to blame but themselves for missing out on social oppurtunities.

@ Carisa I like your ideas. We should just be happy with how we are. It’s East Asia’s fault they don’t know how to have any fun.

This clearly shows his position on the topic. Also, can show how quick he is ready to defend his fellow “nerds”

@Hayden I like how you refer to the people who are naturally smart as the real nerds. If you look at it that way, those of us who actually try have nothing to worry about when it comes to being ostracized.

Also, did anyone else notice the passive voice in the last sentence of this paragraph? Perhaps the author is implying that the nerds will once again wait around for someone else to change the system for them. The passive voice lays the burden of fighting for the nerd on someone else, as if no one is willing to actually stand up and do anything except make big talk about change.

Fridman compares a bookworm to the athlete, the ‘nerd’/'geek’ to the slacker to show the major differences between them. Although the nerd is being ostracized by ’society’s anti-intellectual values,’ they are protected from the harmful objects(other human beings) and substances(drugs) that others allow to enter in to their bodies.

@Ms.Huff I completely agree. It makes me sad the way teachers get paid because I know I wouldn’t be who I am today without some of the teachers who have helped me along the way.

i think Fridman was picked on as a little kid. he compares being a nerd to some deep stuff. he is right. nerds do need to stick up for themselves. no one should take crap from people.

wow he grew up in a rough elementary school if they were getting wasted at that age. elementary school isn’t about drilling your head with knowledge. its to be introduced to it and still have a little fun.

I think the use of rhetorical questions is a tactic to make the reader think about the “typical parents” in a deeper form. He

Why did he single out baseball players? It seems like a slap in the face to them to mention them in contrast to professors, whom the author obviously thinks very highly of. It’s like he’s saying, “Even the dumb baseball players are treated better than the more deserving and qualified professors. How unfair is that?” While I agree that talented professors need to be recognized and paid better, is it fair to brush off the baseball player’s hard work just because he is doing something athletic? This might be another fallacy to prove his point about the foolishness of stereotypes.

america is a materialistic place. it only makes since that this would happen in america.

The complex use of “grave” really evokes the emotions of how ‘nerdism’ follows a person all through out their lives.

I personally know of several families that the smarter child is held as an example to the other lower gpa children. East Asia is not the only ones with kids that study hard.

raped in a mosquito truck?

I believe that Friedman is using this severe comparison between “nerds” and socially inadequate persons to bring out the anger of “nerds.” He wants them to be outraged at the flat-out hasty generalization.

i was always told that a good athlete is a smart student.

Emily! You are exactly right. Where is the middle between “nerds” and partiers? I know that the exceptionally smart and bright students in our school know how to get down on the weekends. This doesn’t make these students any less smart but just multifacited.

This paragraph contains stand-out words like haunt and bright and grave. Fridman previously talked about how these intelligent kids shy away from what they want because of the prey they’ve become to dumb hunters and yet he know talks about how weak they truly are by acknowledging of their weakness. He is talking about how the life of a nerd is unfair because he gets lesser treatment than the athlete and yet this paragraph talks about how the nerd needs to start standing up for himself and not let others push him down. I don’t think that’s the case with the nerds. I think they just don’t like to be bugged, but that’s a different story than what was talked about at the beginning.

i overall disagree with this passage. its not all about book smarts, you have to have street smarts too. as long as we have the determination and want to be the best in a world-class we will be one.

He over emphasizes how long the treatment of pushing-around-the-nerd if the nerd doesn’t do a single thing about it. He does this in order to give more importance to what he really is talking about.

This statement changes the tone. I can just see all the “nerds” uniting and yelling “enough is enough” while slamming their fists into their open text books as their are studying.

I agree that many people who work hard in school are often ashamed to admit it. Why would they want to risk the jealous glances at the grade on their term papers and the snide comments about the sizes of their brains by bragging about how hard they worked? People don’t form friendships based on study habits – often, the people who fight for the top scores end up bitter enemies. Even “geeks” have something else in common than their intelligence, whether it is their personalities or an enjoyment of the game of chess.

this is the only part of the passage that i completely agree with. no body should be bullied and should stick up for themselves.

*they

This statement also catches the attention of some the lulled readers, bringing them back into the theme of the passage.

I agree with Keri. There are athletes in the world that use drugs and make themselves look like idiots. Most of the time, I don’t respect any sports figures because of their behavior. Sure, there are a few good athletes left, but most usually end up going down hill. I definitely would respect a good professor over a sports figure.

I agree with Carisa. Dan Pink has warned us that these overseas countries would endanger us of our jobs.

To me it seems that Fridman is trying to get his revenge on the “bullies” from his past. When Fridman writes, “In many parts of the world, university professorships are the most prestigious and materially rewarding positions. But not in America…” Fridman seems to be sarcastic. It’s as if he is saying, that America is the ONLY country that makes fun of nerds.

I agree with Shelby, some athletes have to work harder than nerds do since they have to keep their grades up plus practice and games. Some athletes may be nerds, but not all nerds are athletes.

“Lauded” makes me think of almost worshipful praise. I think the author is exaggerating this because I find it hard to believe that kids in other countries don’t resent the teachers’ pets, and I don’t think teachers idolize these students either. He does this to emphasize the contrast between the average ideal of American students to be well rounded and the intellectual ideal of other nations.

In this paragraph, Fridman is appealing to logos here. He tries to get the readers attention of the importance in treating these nerds right in order to bump up the American’s from the high scale these others countries have already scaled up.

I have to agree with most everyone on the point of my parents stressing that school comes before anything else. I think Fridman is being close-minded and thinking only about the parents who have kids participating in extra-curricular activities, not the kids who are balancing a job, a sport or two, and school.

I agree with what natanya said about how the ‘typical parent’ want their child to be the star athlete instead of the top student in the class, however that is not the typical parent.

I think Fridman’s tone is disgusted, yet determined. He cannot believe the way “nerds” are perceived in society, but he is determined to make a change.

I agree with everyone that Fridman is being very stereotypical. Not all jocks and nerds are how he described.

@ Kirbi: You make a great point about the way Fridman’s overgeneralization mirrors the way society generalizes people.

@ Carisa: Good point about the strong connotation of the word need. I never really thought about that he never really backed up the statement that “America Needs Its Nerds.”

This information above does establish Fridman’s credibility. Knowing that he writes for the New York Times makes him a very credible author. Without good credibility, the author could not be a valuable source.

Tanya makes a good point that the rhyming words create a playful rhythm that contrasts the way a “nerd” usually is.

I also agree that by the end of the first paragraph you can tell that Fridman is an intelligient, well-schooled man.

And so why does he write the logical fallacy?

@ Hayden/Emily: I like how ya’ll point out that the real nerd may the one who is naturally smart and never has to study to make good grades. Today, people are called nerds just because they make good grades or are actually seen picking a book up at night. On the other hand, in some schools it doesn’t take much to make a good grade in a class.

I also disagree when Fridman starts stereotyping children at the elementary age.

And as Grace and Emily mention, where do those in between people go? Are they just cast out of the picture? Or do they just sort of blend in?

I agree that the nerds chose how they want to be and they are the ones that can cast theirselves out their as the unsociable people. I disagree with the fact that he believes nerds have no social skills or communication tools. Most everyone that I now who may be considered a “nerd” is very sociable. Just because you are smart and intelligient, doesn’t mean you have to lack these skills.

Wow Grace. That image does pop into my head now that you mention it.

This paragraph’s strong imagery really draws a picture of a nerd in my head. His description helps me picture this “nerd” that he is continuously talking about.

And no, Natanya, I hadn’t noticed the passive voice yet, but that really does show the passiveness of the nerds. Very good point.

I also find it ironic and strange that he would say that baseball players have more respect than professors. A lot of baseball players can be setting bad examples for the children/teenagers in our world. Professors are the ones trying to help us succeed.

Firstly, as Tanya has stated in her previous post, Fridman strongly states his view on “nerds” and “geeks” in the very first sentence of this passage. His strong diction allows the reader to immediately pick up on the sarcasm and pity he feels towards the issue. Also, he pulls the reader in with a teensy bit of ethos by defining the true meaning of the words nerd and geek, while also showing pathos in his pity towards the [intellectually curious and academically serious] people who he feels are being ridiculed. But as I read this opening paragraph, I can’t help but wonder: is it the geeks he has pity and sarcasm towards? Or is it the bullies who question the ways of the smart kids?

Fridman uses a real-life example here to get his point across to his audience. This really sparked a lightbulb moment for me because I know so many kids who are very smart and make all A’s but lack the well-roundedness of other kids I know who make average grades but are the stars of the track or baseball team. While the assumed “geek” spends all hours of the time when he arrives home from school until his head hits the pillow at night studying, the die-hard athlete goes to track practice, on to a track meet, places in all divisions, then returns home to take about a thirty minute look at last nights math assignment, closes the book and goes to sleep with no second thoughts. While it is good to be prestigious and to care about one’s grades, they are just a small part of the bigger picture in life. Enjoy yourself. Live life, have fun, play hard and work hard too. I like how he uses parrallelism in the last sentence. He uses the verbs ostracized and idolized. I think he is subtly trying to show that even though the nerds think they are way out of the athlete’s league academically-wise, they are equal. They both do their own thing and both are praised for working hard, whether it be home-runs they are praised for, or 4.0 grade points.

@Grace: I know so many kids who party the hardest on weekends, but then are the first to class Monday morning! Fridman does make a valid point that the bullying begins at quite a young age, but he fails to address the exception to the labels of the two totally opposite kinds of students.

No matter where a student goes, there are going to be bullies in every school. I would argue that although some kids are just mean, it isn’t as dramatic as Fridman is making the situation out to be. Kids who pick up books aren’t shunned or anything, maybe they are jokingly picked fun at, but if they lack social skills because they lock themselves in their dorms with books and never talk to anyone, then they only have themselves to blame. Prioritization is key. Just like everything in life, everything has to have balance and moderation. Sheeeesh.

By using this rhetorical fragment as a red flag attention-getter to his reader. Fridman is trying to pursuade his audience that they should do their part to put an end on labelling the people who study and try hard at school. The bullying has to stop! You crazies…

Yay! Im so glad to see Fridman switch to the other side of this arguement. The geeky kids need to come out of their shells and into the light of day. Put down the book for five minutes and go share some of the knowledge you’ve obtained through all your grueling studying and beat someone in an intense scrabble game or something. No really, everyone has to do their own thing and if knowleege is your thing, stand up for being smart and use the talent you have to better our society and others. Just dont be weird about it.

This is a horrible arguement and example to use in comparison to U.S. students. In the countries that Fridman is talking about, the kids don’t have near the numerous opprutunities that we are so blessed to have. Perhaps they do spend a lot more time working and studying, but not because they are slaves, that is their culture, their way of life!

Ha, this isn’t ALL true. I have little respect towards coaches at our school who TRY to half-heartedly attempt teaching a legit class like math or history. What the heck? I respect teachers who care a lot about their job and try hard to make learning fun and truly care about the betterment of their students. I respect validictorians, and I congratulate my fellow classmates for doing good things. I hold a different kind of respect to students who are talent athletes, but I applaud them as well. I respect the different parties for different accomplishments.

How to we label a parent “typical?”

Fridman’s use of rhetorical questions at the end is for us to think about what we have read. He writes attempting to leave a mark with his last question. The combo of diction (“world-class power”) and rhetorical question is to make us realize that we need to change our opinion of “nerds.”

I agree with Fridman. Parents should be encouraging their kids to strive for academic achievement. However, I do believe that parents should also encourage their kids to live a little.

@Tanya: I agree that his use of rhetorical questions in the wrap-up of the article is used to make the reader reflect on what they have just read. His questions have no specific answer but they do cause many thoughts to swirl through the mind of the reader and to help them take ther OWN stance on the issue on which Fridman has written.

Everyone has to remember that this was written back in the 90’s. Back when bullies and nerd relationships trully existed. Remember Saved By the Bell anyone? today we have different ways of labeling the nerds and geeks.

Here Fridman had good use of rhetorical questions.

Fridman’s position is stated in his very first sentence. He states that society is incorrect in using only “derogatory terms” to describe those people who are intellectual and academic. Although he makes a valid point and backs up his points very well, he leaves out the other side of his arguement. Students are rewarded in the long run for their achievements with prestigious jobs and self respect.

@Kaylin: I feel the same way, because when I first read the title of the article, I initally thought it was just some silly story about bullying in schools like the other five zillion I have read in teen magazines like Seventeen, for example. But then I read on and my eyes scanned across the words “appeared in The New York Times” and I felt a lot more strongly about the creditability of the information within the article as well as the author himself.

PARALLEL PHRASES!!! spotted some rhetorical junk…

It sounds to me that Friedman grew up in a pretty rough elementary school.

Whether you are a nerd, a dummy, an athlete, a musician, whatever you are, the world needs you. Everyone serves a purpose and if we were all the same, the world would be so boring. So thank goodness for nerds. And hellooooo….nerds aren’t the only ones who are ridiculed for being different, so that part of this article still confuses me. Arent the homeless and diseased neglected? I think the author is bitter towards the way that maybe he has been treated for the way he has acted, and feels like everyone is treated cruelly for being different, but maybe he was just surrounding himself with negative people?

Fridman’s short sentence emphasises his tone of angry and powerful. He wants to take a stand on the bullying issue of the 90’s. By using this type of sentence, he is making an obvious point, but in a powerful way.

What is [wrong with the system of values]? Everyone’s system of values differs? I know that I make personal choices about things that are more important in my life than academics. My family and my music comes before my school work, and that is just the way I think. Everyone is different. There is no right or wrong way to organize your values and whats more important than other things. Its a personal preference.

NOT NOT NOT NOT true. My mom knows that I can dance and sing, and she praises me for the good I do in my extra-curricular activities
but she constantly harps on me about my grades. So no she is NOT ashamed when I have to study.

That or we grew up in an exceptionly good system.

Well I agree that maybe knowledge isn’t the top priority to Harvard students, but maybe it’s because the students that get into a school like that have worked hard their entire school career and know enough to be able to finally have other activities. School doesn’t always need to be first, although it is important. And those who study hard might not brag about it, but why would they?? there’s no problem with wanting to think about other things when they’re with their friends.

Baaaahahahahahaha

Fridman’s rhetorical questions at the end of his essay really stand out and give the reader something to think about. He brings a bigger picture into this essay, and takes in out of highschool into the world.

Or maybe hes a pedophile!!!

okay so, does anybody else think that maybe Fridman’s arguement is against atheletes? Sure atheletes are sort of over-paid, but so are a lot of other professions. This arguement would have more impact if he addressed other professions besides just atheletes, because he drives them away.

Like Kirbi said i think Fridmans hasty generalization of “nerds” and “jocks” mirrors societys labels people. He assumes that if you play football you are dumb and that all nerds are mistreated. This is not not always true because nerds can have a lot of friends and football players can be ap students.

In this essay, he starts out with a couple of paragraphs defining a geek and attempting to emphasize the supposed mistreatment of them and then shifts to the major differences between a geek and other people.

This essay starts out with paragraphs defining a geek and the way they are treated in todays society, and then shifts to saying the major differences between those considered geeks and those considered normal.

test

The last sentance has parallel structure that emphasizes the differences between athletes and geeks.

When the author says “intellectually curious and academically serious” the words give a very relaxed feeling. He uses this to contradict the feelings and the ways of a geek. They are constantly up tight and stress and rarely relax.

In this paragraph, he gives the definition of a geek, but doesn’t consider any other definition of a geek. He does this to reflect to the inconsiderate ways that most people treat geeks.

The author uses these rhetorical questions to force the readers to think back on what he had explained in his writing about the treatment and discrimination of geeks. He also puts the postion of geeks in retrospect in the world and how they hold up our nation in the race to be the greatest.

I agree that nerds should come out into the world and not be “ashamed” to show their talents. If they stay doormant, then they will never rid themselves of the stereotype. If the world saw what talents they really possessed instead of just seeing their noses in a book then most would forget about the name geek.

@ Carisa
Great point. I agree that society is on more of a creative path, not book smarts. Without fun, Asia may dwindle down to the next third world country, well maybe not but it’s a good hope.

@ Natanya
I think he is exaggerating too. He does it throughout the entire essay to emphasize his point.

@ Natanya
I agree that the passive voice shows exactly how passive nerds are. They just want someone else to fix the dicrimination problem for them, but they need to learn that they must take the first step.

@ Grace
I really see the imagery that he is trying to evoke when he uses the word “grave,” too. He makes everyone believe that nerdism is stuck to a nerd until death.

@ Carisa
It is a very straightforward point and the shift of the essay. I think it is so straightforward to emphasize there must be a change.

When he uses the parallel structure at the end it seems to me that the same can be said about every other educational institution in America. It’s almost like the author is so used to saying this phrase that he omits all other modifiers and widgets in the sentence just enough to get his point across. The more something is repeated a little more of the sentence is taken off. This stresses the fact that this is rampantly happening across American schools.

I think that if nerds would “stop being ashamed of who they are” then they wouldn’t be nerds. If they all did this then the US would be de-popularized of its nerds; the opposite of what this author wants to happen. Un-Nerd like of him to use this in his arguement.

This could be totally stereotypical of me but the authors name sounds an awful like a nerdy type of name. Leonid?? Maybe he was tormented by bullies and is totally biased in his argument.

He juxtaposes the phrases “anti-intellectualism” with “lauded” and also the phrases “the U.S.” and “East Asia.” When he sets it up like that it adds to his case of how bad the U.S is.

He appeals to our emotions by using the word “pursuit” in the phrase “pursuit of knowledge.” He compares this to a famous line in the Declaration of Independence, the “Pursuit of Happiness.” This makes his words seem more monumental and powerful by stealing a line from the most famous document in US history.

When I hear “geek” or “nerd,” I do not think of someone who is extremely smart….my first thought goes to someone who is obsessed with sci-fi. Therefore, I disagree with Fridman about “geek” and “nerd” ONLY being the “derogatory terms” for the “bright” students.

[...] minute timed essay- Students had to analyze an article by Leonid Fridman concerning the use of the word “nerd” to describe the intellectually [...]