思考与写作paulgraham.com
书呆子为什么不受欢迎（2003）
Why Nerds are Unpopular (2003)
2014 — 2020，它一次次回到首页
黑点是上首页（≥ 50 分）的那次投稿，空心点是没冲上去的投稿，点越大分数越高。
导读
Paul Graham 2003 年的文章讨论为什么美国校园里的“书呆子”不受欢迎。他反驳“聪明必然不受欢迎”的简单解释，认为学校像半日监狱、缺乏有意义的激励，使学生把精力投入扭曲的人气等级，而聪明孩子往往选择不参与这场游戏。文章真正的火力集中在学校制度，而不是证明书呆子更优越。
为什么经久不衰：它把校园人气政治、教育激励和技术从业者的自我认知连在一起，二十多年后仍能引发强烈共鸣与反驳。
HN 评论精选
批评“书呆子更优越”的假设，指出边缘化不等于道德或智力优势，科技文化也有从众与排斥。
我对这篇文章最大的异议是“书呆子已经领先几步”这个说法。我认为这源于 PG 把智力与“书呆子气质”混为一谈。书呆子并不更优秀，也未必更聪明——很多人只是因与众不同而被边缘化；他们自己的圈子也绝非无评判的乌托邦，同样会排挤异类。书呆子并非更好或更聪明，只是没得到同样多去刻薄待人的机会。反证就是我们主导的技术行业：大家拼命从众，对“不一样”的人并不友善。PG 说人在地位不稳时会攻击他人，那正该想想这如何塑造了今天的科技文化。
imc查看英文原文
My main problem with this essay is the idea that the 'nerd' is a "few steps ahead" already. I think this stems from pg's confusion of intellect (which he notes is not scalar but discusses it as if it is anyway) with 'nerdiness'. The nerd is no better (or generally, even that much smarter - many of the non-marginalised people will grow up to be just as bright and successful), they are simply marginalised for being different. And they have not created a judgement free utopia within their own circles either; their social constructs are every bit as abusive and oppressive to those who are different as the ones that marginalise them. Nerds were never better, or smarter. They just weren't given the same opportunities to be as cruel. The true evidence against the 'nerd' being superior is the society that they/we have created where we are in the majority. Look at the technology industry and look at how we all are desperate to conform. Look at the people who are different to what we consider normal/cool/popular and look at how we treat them. As pg notes, people lash out/oppress/marginalise when they are insecure in their position. Perhaps people should try to truly understand how that has shaped the technology culture we have today.
文章不完整；融入意愿、社交技能、外貌、媒体刻板印象等多因共同作用。
书呆子不受欢迎有很多原因，这篇文章显得不完整。最大原因之一是书呆子根本不尝试融入——融入是受欢迎的前提，而很多人没意识到，或宁可要独立。其次，社交技能是后天习得、需要努力和觉察的，文章有点“酸葡萄”式辩解；多数人其实两者都想要。还有外貌：好看的人得到更多社交练习，优势会累积。影视刻板印象也影响外群体认知。
tpeng查看英文原文
Nerds are unpopular for a lot of different reasons. This essay seems incomplete. Probably the biggest reason is that nerds don't make any attempt to fit in. While this may seem like the same as popularity, it's not. Popularity is the goal, fitting in is a prerequisite. Many nerds don't even realize this. Some realize it but value their independence over popularity. Another reason is that nerds are simply lacking in social skills. Social skills are learned, not innate, and they take a great deal of effort, intelligence, and awareness. The essay to some extent acknowledges this but I think it makes excuses that sound a lot like sour grapes. "Sure, we're bad at social skills -- but only because we don't care so much about them!" I think if we are all honest with ourselves, most of us would love to be good at both social skills and our intellectual/scientific/engineering pursuits. Another big reason is physical attractiveness. If I could make the rules, being good looking wouldn't matter as much as it does. But I don't make the rules and it matters a great deal to most people. Good looks help with social skills too because good looking people get more practice. Over time that advantage builds up. This is why you don't see a lot of really good looking nerds, even though many good looking people are in fact quite intelligent. Another reason is movies/TV. Hollywood stereotypes really affect people's perceptions of outgroups a great deal. What movies gets wrong about nerds is this: they correctly display the negatives about nerds (extreme social awkwardness) while completely glossing over the positives (brilliance). This is because most actors and screenwriters are not brilliant (other than perhaps in an artistic sense). So to the average person who learns about people from movies, nerds seem like average intelligence people who are really weird. Again, if I made the rules, people wouldn't be affected by media. Nobody thinks they are, but nobody thinks they are affected by advertising either, yet it's a half trillion dollar industry. TL;DR: There are a lot of reasons why nerds are unpopular. And "because we don't want popularity" is not one of them.
文章真正批判的是学校制度与扭曲激励，而非书呆子优越论。
这是 PG 最被误解的文章之一，标题要背锅。它更该叫《学校制度出了什么问题》：核心不是书呆子与别人的区别，而是现代学校缺乏视野和正确激励，催生出病态的社会等级，让霸凌者和心理病态者占上风。他把学校比作“半日监狱”非常准确。我认为这是他最强的文章之一，确实改变了我对自身校园经历的看法。
rsp1984查看英文原文
This is one of PG's most misunderstood essays. The title is to blame as well. It should rather be called "What's wrong with the school system" since the essay's main point isn't about Nerds and what distinguishes them from the rest. At the core of the essay is much more the truth about our modern school system and about the lack of perspective and proper incentives therein. As PG rightfully points out this leads to the creation of sick social hierarchies in which the bullies and psychopaths have the upper hand. His comparison of schools to "part-time prisons" is right on the money. In my opinion it is one of PG's strongest essays and it really influenced the way I think about my time in school today.
跨文化反例：印度学校中书呆子与运动员不二分，学业成就受推崇，但学业定义过窄也有问题。
既然大家（包括 PG）都在拿轶事说理……以我的经验，印度学校的动态恰恰相反：“书呆子”往往学业和课外活动都出色，多数情况下还能同时算“运动健将”。把书呆子和运动员分成午餐桌两端，是我最大的文化冲击；我母语里甚至没有对应词。我长期相信智力是广泛适用的特质，能迁移到空间推理（运动）、抽象推理（学业）和情绪觉察（社交），在印度学校体系里没见过例外。当然这有文化理想因素：美国相对不崇尚学业成就；但我也承认印度当前对学业成就的定义窄得可怕，会滋生傲慢和智力不安全感。
nikhilsimha查看英文原文
Since we(comments and PG) are all peddling anecdotes.. IME, the dynamics in Indian schools, are polar opposite to the ones described here. "Nerds" tend to do well in both academics and extracurriculars. And in the majority case can also be referred to simultaneously as "Jocks". The separation between "nerds" and "jocks" into two ends of a (lunch table) spectrum is the biggest culture shock to me. The words that separate "nerds" and "jocks" don't exist in my native language's vocabulary even. For the longest time, I believed that intelligence is a broadly applicable trait, that translates well to rapid spatial reasoning(sports), abstract reasoning(academics) and emotional awareness(social). I haven't seen even a single exception to the rule while going through the Indian school system. While there is some truth to it. IMHO, it has to do with cultural ideals that "adults" adhere to. Academic achievement isn't celebrated culturally in US (relatively speaking). I say that while also simultaneously acknowledging that the current Indian definition of academic achievement is disastrously narrow and breeds a culture of arrogance and intellectual insecurity.
历次讨论
同类还值得读
保持你的身份认同足够小
Keep Your Identity Small (2009)
Paul Graham 2009 年的一篇短文：人一旦把某个话题当成自己身份的一部分（宗教、政治、编程语言皆然），讨论就会退化成站队和争吵，因为此时争论的不再是事实，而是"我是谁…
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2009–2021paulgraham.com编辑精选苏格拉底式教学法：通过提问而非讲授来教学
The Socratic Method: Teaching by Asking Instead of by Telling
记录了作者用纯提问的方式，引导一群小学生从零推导出二进制计数法的课堂实验，展示了苏格拉底式教学法的惊人效果。
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2011–2022garlikov.com你不能说的话
What You Can't Say (2004)
Paul Graham 2004 年的经典文章，探讨那些因道德时尚而不能公开说出的观点。
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2014–2022paulgraham.com编辑精选龙暴君的寓言（2005）
The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant (2005)
哲学家 Nick Bostrom 于 2005 年写的一则寓言：一条每天吞噬数千人的巨龙（隐喻死亡与衰老）长期被人类当作不可抗拒的自然规律接受，直到有人提出并最终用导弹将其杀死，…
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2009–2021nickbostrom.com编辑精选现实有着惊人的细节量
Reality has a surprising amount of detail (2017)
2017 年的博文指出，现实远比我们以为的充满细节：我们习惯用简化的心智模型看世界，直到真正动手做事（比如作者举的造楼梯例子）才发现处处是未曾预料的细节。
思考与写作上首页 4 次 · 2018–2025johnsalvatier.org编辑精选