<p>imacrazyscientistThe type of nerds that have excellent social skills, the ones that still go out and have fun, are involved in numerous extracurriculars are considered popular. However, there are the ones that really do act nerdy, dress nerdy, and talk really nerdy, and don't do anything else but study. They are involved in no extracurriculars and never have fun. They have no social skills and that is why they are unpopular. </p>
<p>Yeah, that makes sense. The kids in the same core of APs+ECs+Positions tend to form spheres of socializing, studying, activities and friendships and since my class is less than 200, they ARE the face of c/o 2006 and are naturally considered popular. </p>
<p>CHH0723*I think the difference between the popular and outcast nerds is the individual's approachability. The only reason why the outcasts are aloof is their eccentric interests. I mean, it's true, the popular nerds might have some hobbies that arent' considered "the norm," but all of those kids actually have some common ground with everyone else. That's why they can get through conversations without the overly-awkward pauses.</p>
<p>The outcasts that would much rather talk about the robotics competition (no offense to anyone interested in this field) that they participated in over the weekend than the latest results of last night's American Idol don't compromise their interest for the good of the conversation. Therefore, the outcast kids don't seem as approachable or interesting, when in fact, no one outside their circle of friends has even peaked their interests.*</p>
<p>Your first batch of statements ring true. Anyone outside the norm of activities or interests of the main AP-mob at schools (who are just as smart or smarter) will feel alienation and inability to relate to the said people. </p>
<p>At my school, I have difficulty relating to dances, prom, and gossip of any sort simply because they are out of my tastes and so that does leave me a sore thumb for the majority of kids do those sorts of things. It is true that I have not been able to have hour-long conversations of the people I lump together and also, acknowledge the differences in their personalities and what peaks their interests that are, of course, floating out of the norm of which I stereotype them or lump them together - but I must first acknowledge that first impressions run deep (both sides) and that this tension will exist to separate the rigid stereotypes from the sides that have been mentioned in previous posts (i.e. overall, well-rounded smart vs. outcasted nerd). </p>
<p>And no, I am not trying to sound superior to what "the well-rounded norm" deem fun and exciting - I completely respect their interests but it is very difficult if I wanted to strike a conversation about any of my interests lest I want to seem pompous, condescending, erudite, and seemingly above my age-group because of a strange set of well, likes and dislikes. If I were to recite the names of the amino acids (fairly basic idea) and talked about alphabet soup and proteins, I could fool people into believing I'm brilliant - which is far from true - by carefully inflecing my language, wearing the coke-bottle glasses, and looking disgruntled, frustrated, messy, and passionate. (And, I did this unintentionally with a complete different set of facts - leaving me looking incredibly unapproachable and intimidating - which is unfounded for I am far from being a PhD candidate or anything worth similar merit/achievement.) First impressions are incredibly strong. </p>
<p>I must also acknowledged that pretenses of the aforementioned will create an invisible tension between members of the stereotypes groups - there will be a certain expectation in the flow of conversation and hence, will inhibit open-mindedness - for who can truly speak freely and willingly to persons they have already labeled and confined within the said persons expectations? It is a difficult situation and takes some time on both parts for the groups to be understood - if that is even wanted in the first place because of the existing impressions that have been reiterated.</p>
<p>**The overall concept of the post could have been labeled under something involving stereotypes, perception, existing notions, and finally, general views evolved over time and possibilities of smashing one idea for a completely new one under different basis. ---> Misunderstandings.</p>