Perhaps it is the year in sports thus far - we went from the Olympics, to the NHL Playoffs right into the World Cup of Football - but I've been thinking about sport more than I like to admit. In honour of the nerdish celebration of jock culture we are currently surrounded by (only pollsters value stats more than sports fans), I think it’s time we challenge the concept of a unquestionable, insuperable abyss between the two camps of jocks and nerds.
Photo: me and the sysop - Flikr Creative Commons
Consider the following:
San Diego Padres pitcher Chris Young went to Princeton wrote a senior thesis entitled The Integration of Professional Baseball and Racial Attitudes in America: A Study in Stereotype Change, which examined the impact Jackie Robinson and the integration of Major League Baseball had on attitudes and stereotypes regarding race in the media. Man, that sounds pretty damn nerdy.
Anaheim Ducks right wing George Parros also attended Princeton, majored in economics and maintained a B-average, had a GPA of approximately 3.18 - presumably while training intensively for his sport.
Free agent utility player Eric Bruntlett attained a degree in economics in just 3 1/2 years, recorded an SAT score of 1440, posted a 3.97 GPA in high school, started studying algebra when his parents introduced him to it when he was in first grade. Such early signs of nerd-hood, are particularly interesting - he was likely nerdy long before knowing he was also a jock.
Anyway - enough with the anecdotal stuff. There are SO many such examples to be found on the interweb. Many of these men chose sport over knowledge work, as it can be so lucrative and presumably because sport was their true passion. I had a harder time finding female athletes for this exercise - presumably because the comparable women are likely more notable for their knowledge careers, given the relative dearth of women known for their professional athletic carriers. Moreover, searching anything about female athletes always leads to a plethora of "100 Hottest Female Athletes" lists - which despite my orientation, I find rather tedious. However, during my lifetime of playing a variety of sports, I've noticed that the best athletes have been what one might conventionally consider highly intelligent - as they generally have a better grasp of the training and strategy needed to excel in their sports.
Further, in a Northwestern State University study it was discovered that 133 "student athletes" were on the school's honour roll, and a full 21 students had achieved a 4.0 average. (Not knowing how many students in total qualify as "student athletes" makes it hard to interpret the study results as significant or not - but that academics are excited enough to talk about the findings to the media, suggests a certain degree of significance).
I think it's high time to acknowledge the false divide between jocks and nerds. I would suggest just like the controversial concept of "highly intelligent beautiful people", the idea that someone can be both kinestheticly wise and intelligent in more academic ways seems unfair in the grand scheme of things. Well guess what? Life is not fair. Deal with it. And while you are at it put your kids into sports - especially your daughters - you never know, it might help with their math grades.
Note: I recognize that rhetoric around Nerd/Jock relations is incomplete without addressing the issue of Preps. I feel the particular tension between the two former groups requires careful attention and at this point I did not want to burden this foundational issue with additional complexity.
Maybe it isn't a binary... imagine four posts, planted in a square shape. Walk around them in one direction, and do the following: On one post, hang a little flag with the label Nerd, on the next post hang a flag with the label Not Nerd. On the next Not Jock and on the last an old T-shirt with sweat stains labeled Jock.
ReplyDeleteYou can tie a rope between the posts Nerd + Jock, or Nerd + Not Jock. Or from Not Nerd + Jock or Not Nerd + Not Jock.
You can be concurrently any of those combinations. No need to choose only Jock + Not Nerd or Nerd + Not Jock.
when I do things that I enjoy, it sometimes strikes others as infuriating... not because there is an inherently 'mutually exclusive' quality/characteristic to those activities, but because they think there is a maximum level of happiness you are allowed to have.
They 'compromise' themselves away from bliss and only allow 'happy' in small doses...
The most beautiful man I know is also a woman. He couldn't be half of either, but sometimes he tries to tell himself he needs to choose, be less of one in order to be more of the other. I hope to someday witness him discovering that by being fully himself he is fully both, concurrently. When he tries to be less one, he is just less, not more the other.
Find your bliss little-blogger... and don't sip from the cup, gulp it down until it pours both into you and messily all over you. Be greedy with the happiness that feeds and nurtures you.
There is not a limited quantity of happiness, nor is it selfish to want lots for yourself. It is an infinite quantity, not to be used sparingly. Lots to go around, but only if consumed.
with great tenderness,
Melissa
I actually don't generally believe in binaries - that's the point of the post, perhaps it's not clear. I'm just poking a bit of fun at them, using a particularly silly divide I've noticed - being a nerd athlete, amongst other things. The very reason for the title of this blog, "almost arbitrary," is because there are very few lines drawn around my interests - and it's often at the intersection of supposed divides that many of my thoughts linger.
ReplyDeletethanks for the comment!