The Geeks Shall Inherit the Earth

“This is a crucial concept that so many teens-those have been trying to achieve popularity and those who are disappointed that they can’t—tend to miss: to be popular does not mean to be liked.” 

Centrally in this book, Robbins defines the kind of popularity that is recognized in middle and high school as essentially paradoxical. The social science studies she cites throughout it reveal how distinctly irrational group dynamics commonly are, operating not just unjustly but contrary to logic and even obvious truths. The popularity that offers some students certain powers and an ambiance of rarefaction is often built on unhelpful and destructive prejudices.

“For at least half a century, experts considered students who engaged in aggressive behavior to be socially incompetent […] but when researchers began measuring aggression alongside perceived popularity, they found an undeniably strong link. Recent studies concluded that aggressive behaviors are now often associated with high social status.” 

As many social commentators have claimed, we are living in a highly narcissistic age. This is not just because social media reflects our own narrow perspective back to us, or due to the rise of the “selfie.” The attraction of narcissists to positions of power means that narcissistic individuals typically lead us. Whilst experts disagree about whether there is such a thing as “healthy” narcissism, solipsism is clearly on the rise. What Robbins shows is that there is a strong need for compassionate leadership that delves beneath the superficial to address the heart of things.

“Being manipulative—valuing only what works for one person at the expense of the other—should not be seen as socially intelligent.”

Robbins’ citation of Daniel Goleman’s Social Intelligence discusses an important dichotomy in contemporary culture. A 2012 study cited by the Harvard Business Review found that men who displayed “high agreeableness” (one of Raymond Cattell’s “Big Five” personality traits) were paid substantially less than less agreeable men. The disparity was less in women. This study suggests that agreeable traits such as kindness and empathy can be conflated with weakness or a “follower” mentality. Whilst independent thought is a key component of successful leadership, so is a pro-social attitude.

“It was precisely when a girl enjoyed popularity that she was most vulnerable to being labeled stuck up.” 

Another of the contradictions that has evidently made Robbins’ bestseller compelling for its many readers comes from Ball State University professor Don Merten. While from the outside popularity can have the appearance of a social suit of armor, in practice it is just as constructive to the free movement and expression of an individual as a suit of armor would be. Popularity, or more accurately, maintaining social power over others, requires constant preservative efforts. Even having popularity is another reason why an individual or group can lose the ignis fatuus of popularity, which is mercurial by definition. 

“[C]ruelty, ignoring, gossip, and exclusion are expressions of power and dominance.” 

In her chapter “Why are Popular People Mean?”, Robbins distinguishes two forms of popularity: being liked and being powerful. The latter form of popularity involves suppressing others to generate the desired social hierarchy, a strategy that remains precarious. Robbins responds to her own question of “how can [popular people] afford not to be [mean].” “Meanness” is a defensive strategy designed to sure up a social status that is inherently vulnerable. This dynamic may be behind the aphorism “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” According to the “popularity cycle” (80) study Robbins cites, power garnered through force is most precarious at its zenith. An escalation of defensive “meanness” is as likely as power, and the precariousness of that power reinforces each other. 

“When so much of students’ brain power is concentrated on their peers, it can be challenging to distinguish their social identity from their personal identity.” 

As teenagers wrestle with the development of their identity, they are particularly susceptible to the battle between the individual and the collective. Psychologists such as William Bukowski place group homogeneity at odds with individuality and diversity. When individuals are less secure and established in their own identity, they may be drawn to adopt the values and ethics of a group. Neuroscientist Gregory Berns has observed that membership of a group increases the likelihood that the individual’s brain will take shortcuts, working from the assumption that others within the group have done their “due diligence,” while unburdening themselves of responsibility for the group’s actions.

“The human brain takes in information from other people and incorporates it with the information coming from its own senses […] many times the group’s opinion trumps the individual’s before he even becomes aware of it.”

Neuroscientist Gregory Berns has theorized that at the level of brain circuitry, groups allow individuals to go on “autopilot.” Colloquially known as “crowd contagion,” this process involves an individual shirking responsibility for thinking independently by simply adopting the opinion of the group. This kind of dynamic can be seen in operation in many groups and can lead to dangerous behaviors. An extreme example is the murders of actress Sharon Tate and her friends by a group under the influence of cult leader Charles Manson in 1969. The same dynamic is not isolated to cults, however, but also operates within wider society, often leading to violence and unethical behavior.

“[I]nsofar as groups require consensus, homogeneity, and cohesion, they issue individuality, diversity, and independence.” 

Concordia University Professor William Bukowski, cited here by Robbins, has placed group consensus in opposition to the individual. This dichotomy is contextualized within the postmodern dialectic. Postmodernist debates typically revolve around a perceived juxtaposition between Modernism’s investigation into the subjective experience of the individual, and collective consumerism. American critic Fredric Jameson has elided the two, arguing that the individual is now inextricable from his or her late capitalist context.

“Deviation from the group opinion is regarded by the brain as a punishment [which] explains why we often automatically adjust our opinion in line with the majority opinion.” 

A critical piece of research on which Robbins founds her argument is a 2009 study undertaken in the Netherlands that involved MRI scans of volunteers’ brains. Researchers concluded that the brain sent error signals when it diverged from the opinion of group. This suggests that our brains prioritize conformity, which can impede our critical faculties. Vasily Klucharev, the leader of the Dutch study, surmised that an individual’s tendency to conform is dependent upon prior experiences of social conflict. The threshold for conformist error messages depends upon the mindset developed through such experiences.               

“The more faithfully you listen to the voice within you, the better you will hear what is sounding outside. And only those who listen can speak.” 

In his role as Former UN Secretary General, Dag Hammarskjold held a senior post in the primary intergovernmental organization for maintaining world peace through cooperation and diplomacy. Set up in the wake of the World Wars, the United Nations has thus far succeeded in avoiding a Third World War, though war persists throughout the world. Hammarskjold’s words echo those of Buddhist Monk Thich Nhat Hanh, who began a correspondence and affiliation with Martin Luther King at the time of the Vietnam War: “[D]eep listening is the kind of listening that can help relieve the suffering of the other person.” The relationship between listening and speaking is for both men essential in effective communication and diplomacy.

“One of the most important ways to manifest integrity is to be loyal to those who are not present. In doing so we build the trust of those who are present.” 

Especially at times of uncertainty and social disconnection, it can be especially tempting to forge alliances through shared opposition to an “other.” Arguably this was a driving force for Nazi Germany, which emerged from a time of great economic hardship known as the Great Depression. At the time that the Nazis came to power, the unemployment rate was 30%. A common enemy promised a much-needed social unity. Yet, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People cites integrity as an essential trait for leaders in an effective society. Not only does integrity enable real social cohesion, but honest communication allows intelligent and innovative ideas to emerge. Long-term success has been shown to rely on this capacity for innovation.

“Everything is fake when you’re in a clique.” 

Whitney’s comment, in the chapter on “Outcast Profiling and Other Dangers,” reveals the corollary of a lack of integrity. Stephen Covey writes in his bestselling business book The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People that “integrity also means avoiding any communication that is deceptive, full of guile, or beneath the dignity of people.” This offers a refreshing lens through which to examine social media communications. While greater authenticity may be expressed in some areas, social media can also facilitate the projection of a “false self” (a phrase coined by British psychologist Donald Winnicott). The “false self” is a concept associated with narcissism, leading some to view social media as pathological.

“Psychologists point out that high status cliques teach the exclusionary behavior that may be the foundation for eventual racism, anti-Semitism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry.” 

Cliques can feel threatening and disturbing in middle school, but when the power extends much more broadly, they often present a genuine threat to social cohesion. Robbins argues against what she calls “outcast profiling” in schools, which has emerged in the wake of tragedies such as the Columbine massacre. School shootings are relatively common in America, leading to the profiling and often oppression of students who are considered nonconformist. Robbins argues that Eric Harris, one of the Columbine killers, was popular in his school in New York before moving to Colorado. Robbins aligns “power over” popularity, not nonconformity, with violence. 

“[C]onsistency is less taxing than inconsistency. It’s less work for the brain. Several studies have shown that teenagers are more likely to remember behavior that conforms to stereotypes and behavior that doesn’t.” 

It is well known that teenagers’ brains are working overtime to develop to maturity. Physiologically and psychologically, teenagers undergo complex changes. This may impart explain why the teenage brain leans on stereotypes as it struggles to make sense of the world. However, especially when under pressure, it can be both easier and more comforting to resort to stereotypes. It is well known that the learning and retention information is facilitated by its relevance to the learner. Thus, we are more likely to retain information that corresponds with the patterns of cognition with which we are accustomed, reinforcing ideologies over time. 

“In situations in which little personal information is available, teens often rely on stereotypes when drawing conclusions about a person. Even if, as they age, adolescents become more aware of discrimination issues, their stereotypic expectations also tend to increase.” 

As we gain more life experiences, we arguably apply more preconceptions when we approach the world. During adolescence, teenagers are engaged in adapting themselves to society. The pressure to conform can be intense, implicating an individual’s survival within society. In this pressurized context, the presentment of power can be highly seductive, leading to conformist behavior. The intellectual understanding of discrimination does not preclude conformity and discriminatory behaviors in part because some segments of society incentivize them. The studies cited in Robbins’ book help to elucidate such blinkered group dynamics.

“[T]eachers play role not only in perpetuating stereotypes, but also in alerting students to them.” 

Organizational dynamics can exert a huge influence over the behaviors exhibited within an institution or group. It is for this reason that most companies publicize a statement of their values. Under the banner of diversity, however, bigotry is still possible, as Regan discovers in her meeting with the Diversity Committee in Chapter 6. Institutions can become ossified by their own structures. Social psychologist Wilfred Bion has written influentially on group dynamics. 

“Studies have found that the dopamine system, which plays a large role in developing the ability to innovate, which is at its peak in activity during the teenage years.” 

Leveraging teenage brain activity for the purposes of innovation, creativity, and individuation presents a huge opportunity to schools, parents, and students. In response to a study that concluded “we teach conformity,” the British government established a new foundation designed to harness the creative power of the adolescent mind. The new national organization—Creativity, Culture, and Education—is unparalleled in America. Yet in an era defined by job instability, creativity is more essential to the average worker than ever. Entrepreneurial ability is highly beneficial in the marketplace, yet it requires a healthy dose of independent thinking, something that is discouraged in schools, if we are to believe the Scottish health services report.

“In the 1970s, fewer than 25 percent of US residents lived in counties in which the presidential candidate won by a landslide. Thirty years later, that percentage has nearly doubled.” 

One of the most impactful statistics in Robbins’ book is the revelation that Americans live in an increasingly partisan society. This fact is frequently reported on in newspapers, but Robbins contextualizes it within the findings of social science. The dynamics that can be observed in middle schools across the country are perhaps equally relevant at the national level. It is surely no coincidence that Robbins was prompted to write this at such a time, nor that students are being driven to suicide by bullying, as Robbins reminds us in the Prologue.

“The school system was invented by industrialists, and it’s only function was to train people to work in factories. When you slap on top of it standardized testing and ‘No Child Left Behind,’ what you are left with is a system optimized for compliance.” 

Marketing expert Seth Godin distinguishes between the education likely to support the average factory worker and the education required to navigate the contemporary world of work. Arguably, in the late capitalist market, the requirements have shifted. The demand for nonconformist thinking is arguably higher than ever, given the automation of many repetitive tasks by machines. As the internet has revolutionized the job market, students’ ability to respond to such changes is critical to success. Many digital (and non-digital) companies have developed their own standardized approach to uncertainty, known as “agile working.”

“Conformity is a mask behind with students can hide their identity or the fact they haven’t yet figured out their identity.”

The Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung developed his concept of the “persona” to give a name to the adaptation of the individual to society. Jung defined the persona as a “kind of mask, designed on the one hand to make a definite impression on others, and on the other to conceal the true nature of the individual.” Jung advocated a flexible persona, that allowed the individual to relate effectively with the social context, without inhibiting the expression of his or her individuality. Jung warned “the danger is that [people] become identical with their personas.” In fact, for Jung, the critical moment in the life of an individual was the disintegration of the persona, and the confrontation with reality.

“The narcissism of minor differences.” 

Robbins cites another famous investigator of the human psyche, Freud, who wrote portentously in 1917 about “the narcissism of minor differences.” Freud’s coinage referred to the hostilities that can arise from the perception of small differences between groups, for instance, fashion sense in adolescents. Freud saw this as a manifestation of what he considered to be the aggressive drive in humans. Clive Hazell has used the coinage to describe the consumerist sense of individuality and uniqueness, in the context of the reality of mass production and uniformity. Examples might be marketing mass produced goods as “authentic.”

“In the studies, as elementary school and high school students became more popular, their unexplained absences from school increased and their GPAs declined.” 

Robbins presents an ambivalent picture of popularity. While monkeys with high levels of serotonin are more popular (according to the UCLA study she cites on Page 346), popularity also entails risks for young people. Both overt and covert aggression were higher in popular students surveyed in a Los Angeles-based study. University of South Florida professor Sarah Kiefer has theorized that “off task behavior” may be associated with low achievement. Popular students are under intense pressure to maintain their social status, which can inhibit their academic and extracurricular success.

“The Robbers Cave boys were able to reconcile because Sherif shifted their focus to joint goals that transcended group boundaries.” 

Robbins offers some solutions to the problem of exclusionary tactics and bigotry. The famous Robbers Cave experiment revealed that arbitrary divisions and connections could facilitate an entirely different relationship between group members. Often replicated in corporate bonding exercises, the Robbers Cave collaboration revealed that a task-based orientation helped to dissolve boundaries and hierarchies in service to a shared goal. This may be because the introduction of a new task disrupts the established social structures by making a creative demand on participants. The same brain circuitry that facilitates bigotry can also be employed to encourage bonding.