Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Social Cliques

  1. #1

    Lightbulb Social Cliques

    Grade school, middle school, high school, whenever you think of education this will probably come up.
    Kindergarten through graduation, we all sort of classified people and the people they hung out with.
    There were 2 kinds of cool kids;
    There were the cool kids, the ones who loved talking to people, and who people loved talking to.
    Then there were the 'cool' kids, maybe jocks... The ones who some people wanted to hang out with, but they couldn't because they were elitist assholes.
    There were the normal kids, who gossiped a little, got normal grades, etc etc. Normal.
    There were the geeks/nerds, of course... The ones who liked fantasy and such, and rather good eggs with good grades.
    Overachievers, the ones who never had fun, who went to school strictly to learn.
    And the outcasts, the other ones, the weird kids... They were the ones who never quite fit in, connected by a loose web of of friends... Some were successful, some ended up living off of welfare because they were lazy.

    Does anyone else have any experiences with the social groups? I kind of blurred the lines between outcast and normal.

  2. #2

    Default

    My schools, we have this,



    Quote Originally Posted by PoisonSnivy
    Then there were the 'cool' kids, maybe jocks... The ones who some people wanted to hang out with, but they couldn't because they were elitist assholes.
    IN N.C. at my school nobody cared we had ho's running around pregnant, (Not bein racist) Guys who wanted to sound black and back-talk to teachers. That's why I made this thread back then,

    http://www.adisc.org/forum/showthrea...otic-Situation

    and DO NOT FORGET ABOUT FEMALES in Middle and high school,

    http://www.adisc.org/forum/showthrea...irls-at-school

    Females start more than just men.

    I describe myself and my few friends this (Even thou I don't look like a nerd :p)



    Quote Originally Posted by PoisonSnivy
    There were the geeks/nerds, of course... The ones who liked fantasy and such, and rather good eggs with good grades.
    Not any school is perfect but explain the ones that have been shot up and they think they are "cool kids" detailed by bullies just because they shot and killed a few people (If they were dead they wouldn't call them cool no more)

  3. #3

    Default

    I think it's hard to find anyone who didn't have this experience. I went to many different schools (due to the 'interesting' educational system where I live) and what you describe happened everywhere. But everytime I went on to another school, I always had the feeling that I never got to know any of those people. I would describe myself the same way you did, blurring the lines, but even with people I had a good relationship with, seldomly I had the feeling that there was a 'real' connection. Those are the people I am still in contact with.

    What I take from this: Even if most of these 'classifications' might have a valid core, kind of a standard distribution of social actors, I also think that many of this classifications are based on stereotypes, because you never get to know many of those people beyond a superficial level. For example: Have you ever asked an overachiever whether she/he has fun or not And even if they would answer yes, you would judge their answers based on your own expectations, experiences, presuppositions etc

  4. #4

    Default

    I look at it this way. There are clicks no mater what you do or where you are at.

    The key is to look at the whole picture. Clicks is the name used by someone on the out side and attempting to demean the others. So do not worry about it. Some where there is someone that thinks you belong to a click. My biggest experience is in a charitable organization that is made up of "clicks" and is called a click. The bottom line is that the other groups with in the church are jealous because we actually get things done. The clicks within the group are those that talk about how it was, the once that talk about how it should be done and those of us that are doing the work and getting it done. You cant please everyone, so do what is right and be a click of one.

    Frankly how many clicks do we have in this site?
    I would guess the number of forums and groups.

  5. #5

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by PoisonSnivy View Post
    Grade school, middle school, high school, whenever you think of education this will probably come up.
    Kindergarten through graduation, we all sort of classified people and the people they hung out with.
    There were 2 kinds of cool kids;
    There were the cool kids, the ones who loved talking to people, and who people loved talking to.
    Then there were the 'cool' kids, maybe jocks... The ones who some people wanted to hang out with, but they couldn't because they were elitist assholes.
    There were the normal kids, who gossiped a little, got normal grades, etc etc. Normal.
    There were the geeks/nerds, of course... The ones who liked fantasy and such, and rather good eggs with good grades.
    Overachievers, the ones who never had fun, who went to school strictly to learn.
    And the outcasts, the other ones, the weird kids... They were the ones who never quite fit in, connected by a loose web of of friends... Some were successful, some ended up living off of welfare because they were lazy.

    Does anyone else have any experiences with the social groups? I kind of blurred the lines between outcast and normal.
    When I was in Highschool there were tons of social cliques like this.

    We had the Natives. A large group of First Nation Students who were extremely racist towards those with white skin, who all acted like they were black. (Addressing each other as "My N-Word!")

    The 'Cool' Kids. The largest social group that was full of dickbags who would bully other students if they didn't fit into their parameters of 'Cool'.

    The Nerds. I was one of these, I used to bring my Magic Cards to school every day so I could play Cards during lunch with friends, we would often play either Magic The Gathering or Yu-Gi-Oh at the time.

    The Socially Unacceptable's. A group of kids who never fit in anywhere or were just generally really really really awkward! I mean these were the people who were so obsessed with Naruto they bought those crappy headbands and wore them around school, telling everyone how bad ass they were because they were 'Real Ninja's'

  6. #6

    Smile

    I remember watching film version of The Breakfast Club when I was younger, which is a drama about a handful of pupils on a Saturday detention. Each one portraying a stereotype of a member of a different clique.

    I've seen a few more films (and read books, etc.) since then, and I was a little surprised at how often the same cliques (or "social identities") in American high schools and universities crop up.

    Maybe it's just because I've only seen these cliques in American fiction, but I always get the sense that people feel, in some way, completely trapped in their choice of clique/identity -- as if it chose them, rather than the other way round.

    In my experience of school (in the UK in the 1980s to 90s), there were groups of people, but they were fairly vaguely defined, and someone might belong to two (or... theoretically, at least, more) groups. And the "jock" stereotype doesn't exist at all in the UK.

    I wonder if the less-class-based meritocracy of the US makes people feel like they need to find their own identity more than British kids... Or whether school uniform (prevalent in the UK, but not US) means that UK kids aren't visually displaying their membership with particular groups...? Or whether there's some other socio-cultural difference... Or if I'm just spouting nonsense! I dunno!

    If I had to define the groups that existed throughout my school life, I'd say that, until secondary school (age 12-16), there were no particular groups at all -- people just had friends, rather than groups or cliques. After that, it was something like this (for boys, at least):

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Psychopaths: Troublemakers with issues. They'd hang round with the Troublemakers (but weren't so much in the group as respected/feared). Not really a clique, since psychopaths never hung out together (as their instinct would be to fight the other). If anyone is going to get expelled from school, it'll be a Psychopath!

    Troublemakers: More-or-less normal kids, seen as "cool", below average grades, not worried about doing well in school or getting in to fights, but wanting to stay out of trouble. Would act hard, bully where possible, avoid work, smoke in the toilets... but were always afraid enough of being caught that they weren't totally out of control. Troublemakers were probably a clique as they would hang out together, and show off to each other how much they didn't give a f*** about anything!

    Socialites: More-or-less normal kids with average grades. They want to do well, but not at the cost of their social life! They know that they want to do well in school, but are intimidated academically by the Intellectuals, and intimidated socially by the Troublemakers. Their life at school is a balancing act between trying to study (even though they'd rather be socialising) and trying to be seen as "cool" by the Troublemakers. They are very easily-led. In private they can be civil, social and enjoy the company of more-or-less anyone. But, with Troublemakers present, they will be intimidated into doing whatever it takes to join the Troublemaker group for their own protection.

    Intellectuals: Smart kids, determined to do well at school regardless of the social ramifications. The more social Intellectuals can join the Socialites (so long as there are no Troublemakers around). The Socialites will often be jealous of the Intellectual -- both of his/her intellect, but mostly because the Socialite wants (partly) to be an Intellectual, but is too intimidated by the idea that they might be seen as "uncool".

    Isolated: More-or-less normal kids who were both extremely shy, and had something "different" about them. Often children of different ethnic appearance and with English as a second language. They would very occasionally join the Socialites (if the Troublemakers weren't around) who would tolerate them, but would be bored and unstimulated by their introversion. The Intellectuals would be even more bored, but feel more sympathy towards their isolation.

    Dalit: The "untouchables". I feel uncomfortable talking about this "group" because... Children can be cruel... In the naiveté of youth... it was easy to judge someone to be in this group and to feel little empathy. This group consisted of children who (looking back) had mental and/or welfare issues. Perhaps they lacked social skills (to the point of major irritation), or they had a dirty and unkempt appearance or unhygienic behaviours, but notably, they would be seemingly oblivious to their social status.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Girls seemed to have a different system going on. It seemed to be a lot more focussed on the Socialite vs. Intellectual distinction, and there was a lot of cross-over. Girls seemed to have less conflict, and more confidence amongst themselves (although often seemed intimidated academically by boys in typically "boy" subjects like maths and science). As a boy, it seemed that girls generally got along a lot better than boys did... but when two girls wound each other up... all hell broke loose!

  7. #7

    Default

    -Pot dealers everyone was friends with
    -Social outcasts who stuck to band
    -Jocks who could be friendly to everyone but mostly stayed in their own social group and fucked around constantly
    -Dumbasses who couldn't be bothered to do any work at all and just tried to talk back to the teacher to seem cool
    -Whores

    My high school was like a typical high school sitcom.

  8. #8

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Gumball View Post
    -Pot dealers everyone was friends with
    -Social outcasts who stuck to band
    -Jocks who could be friendly to everyone but mostly stayed in their own social group and fucked around constantly
    -Dumbasses who couldn't be bothered to do any work at all and just tried to talk back to the teacher to seem cool
    -Whores

    My high school was like a typical high school sitcom.
    Sounds about right, lotta young potheads here in NH


    Quote Originally Posted by tiny View Post
    I remember watching film version of The Breakfast Club when I was younger, which is a drama about a handful of pupils on a Saturday detention. Each one portraying a stereotype of a member of a different clique.

    I've seen a few more films (and read books, etc.) since then, and I was a little surprised at how often the same cliques (or "social identities") in American high schools and universities crop up.

    Maybe it's just because I've only seen these cliques in American fiction, but I always get the sense that people feel, in some way, completely trapped in their choice of clique/identity -- as if it chose them, rather than the other way round.

    In my experience of school (in the UK in the 1980s to 90s), there were groups of people, but they were fairly vaguely defined, and someone might belong to two (or... theoretically, at least, more) groups. And the "jock" stereotype doesn't exist at all in the UK.

    I wonder if the less-class-based meritocracy of the US makes people feel like they need to find their own identity more than British kids... Or whether school uniform (prevalent in the UK, but not US) means that UK kids aren't visually displaying their membership with particular groups...? Or whether there's some other socio-cultural difference... Or if I'm just spouting nonsense! I dunno!

    If I had to define the groups that existed throughout my school life, I'd say that, until secondary school (age 12-16), there were no particular groups at all -- people just had friends, rather than groups or cliques. After that, it was something like this (for boys, at least):

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Psychopaths: Troublemakers with issues. They'd hang round with the Troublemakers (but weren't so much in the group as respected/feared). Not really a clique, since psychopaths never hung out together (as their instinct would be to fight the other). If anyone is going to get expelled from school, it'll be a Psychopath!

    Troublemakers: More-or-less normal kids, seen as "cool", below average grades, not worried about doing well in school or getting in to fights, but wanting to stay out of trouble. Would act hard, bully where possible, avoid work, smoke in the toilets... but were always afraid enough of being caught that they weren't totally out of control. Troublemakers were probably a clique as they would hang out together, and show off to each other how much they didn't give a f*** about anything!

    Socialites: More-or-less normal kids with average grades. They want to do well, but not at the cost of their social life! They know that they want to do well in school, but are intimidated academically by the Intellectuals, and intimidated socially by the Troublemakers. Their life at school is a balancing act between trying to study (even though they'd rather be socialising) and trying to be seen as "cool" by the Troublemakers. They are very easily-led. In private they can be civil, social and enjoy the company of more-or-less anyone. But, with Troublemakers present, they will be intimidated into doing whatever it takes to join the Troublemaker group for their own protection.

    Intellectuals: Smart kids, determined to do well at school regardless of the social ramifications. The more social Intellectuals can join the Socialites (so long as there are no Troublemakers around). The Socialites will often be jealous of the Intellectual -- both of his/her intellect, but mostly because the Socialite wants (partly) to be an Intellectual, but is too intimidated by the idea that they might be seen as "uncool".

    Isolated: More-or-less normal kids who were both extremely shy, and had something "different" about them. Often children of different ethnic appearance and with English as a second language. They would very occasionally join the Socialites (if the Troublemakers weren't around) who would tolerate them, but would be bored and unstimulated by their introversion. The Intellectuals would be even more bored, but feel more sympathy towards their isolation.

    Dalit: The "untouchables". I feel uncomfortable talking about this "group" because... Children can be cruel... In the naiveté of youth... it was easy to judge someone to be in this group and to feel little empathy. This group consisted of children who (looking back) had mental and/or welfare issues. Perhaps they lacked social skills (to the point of major irritation), or they had a dirty and unkempt appearance or unhygienic behaviours, but notably, they would be seemingly oblivious to their social status.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Girls seemed to have a different system going on. It seemed to be a lot more focussed on the Socialite vs. Intellectual distinction, and there was a lot of cross-over. Girls seemed to have less conflict, and more confidence amongst themselves (although often seemed intimidated academically by boys in typically "boy" subjects like maths and science). As a boy, it seemed that girls generally got along a lot better than boys did... but when two girls wound each other up... all hell broke loose!
    Absolutely.
    ?
    But what about later in life - In college, work, and hell, maybe even nursing homes?

  9. #9

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by PoisonSnivy View Post
    Absolutely.
    ?
    But what about later in life - In college, work, and hell, maybe even nursing homes?
    Oh, after age 16, people leave school and are mature enough to behave like adults (well... mostly!).

    I haven't really notice any cliques at all since then. At college, university, work, etc. people tend to get on with anyone who isn't a bell end! :-)

  10. #10

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by tiny View Post
    people tend to get on with anyone who isn't a bell end!
    This is off-topic on my own discussion, but why is it that us Americans say boring shit like "dickhead" while across the pond you guys are being funny?
    "Knob" sounds a lot better than "dick".

Similar Threads

  1. Social troubles
    By dlninja in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 30-May-2013, 06:20
  2. Social Class and Social Mobility
    By Talula in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 08-Dec-2012, 06:55
  3. Aw poo.. I gotta be social now?
    By FFXIDL in forum Greetings / Introductions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 07-Mar-2010, 19:05
  4. New social group
    By Maxicoon in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-Aug-2009, 23:38

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.