As someone with a looming high-school reunion, it was with chagrin that I read the following summary of an ISER "Popularity" study in the new issue of New York magazine:

The study uncovered "a popularity premium" that seems to quasi-scientifically confirm what Kurt Vonnegut once observed: "Life is nothing but high school … you get into real life and that turns out to be high school again-class officers, cheerleaders, and all." There was a 2 percent bump in how much money the former student made for each additional friendship nomination he or she received. And friends were worth 40 percent of additional years of education, earnings-wise; so instead of doing that master's, you should have made two and a half more friends.

As the write-up points out, this rather gives the lie to the alleged renaissance of the last few years (and, as someone I know who went to high school with neo-nerd poster-boy Marc Jacobs scoffed, 'Oh, he was always cool.' And real nerds are not cool, and people dressing up like outcasts of 30 years ago does not change anything for kids in high school now.) But then, people toss around the term "nerd" pretty loosely, and kids can be social outcasts for all kinds of reasons, be it legitimate behavioral or social problems, or simply an unconventional self-presentation in a deeply conventional community. And by the same token, "popular" can be those genuinely friendly, well-rounded people, or else a select few who most people resent but who are for some arbitrary reason elevated to special prominence in the tiny universe of one's school. I'd guess it's the former who succeed, the latter who live off high school dreams.

Besides, Facebook has changed everything. Not only has the late bloomer lost the ta-da! factor a reunion once meant, but somehow, in cyberspace, in the great universal rush to have more connections, a bigger profile, a larger network, a lot of these old animosities have disappeared. If life's high school? Well, we're all "friends" now.

No Revenge Of The Nerds? [New York]

Ms. Min explains: "Women don't want to read about men unless it's through another woman: a marriage, a baby, a breakup." She's just giving the people what they want! Though some say that the stars who court attention get it; whereas celebs who demand privacy are granted discretion, the fact remains that as a woman in Hollywood, your life is ripe for plundering by gossip blogs and tabloids. As anyone who reads Midweek Madness knows, the tabloid covers are revolving doors of predominantly female faces. And sometimes the only "news" is that (gasp!) some women have cellulite. Meanwhile, if you're a man in Tinseltown, you're having a great year, thanks to films like No Country for Old Men, Michael Clayton and There Will Be Blood, reports Telegraph. Though past Oscar seasons have brought us The Queen, Erin Brockovich, Chicago, Monster and The Hours, women are mostly sidelined this year. Why do we mock women for their trainwreck lives and laud men for their talent while shrugging off their indiscretions?

Boys Will Be Boys, Girls Will Be Hounded by the Media [New York Times]
Why Is Hollywood Going For Bloke? [Telegraph]
Earlier: Are Women With "Issues" Treated As Sensitively As Men?

A team at UCLA had volunteers look at dreamy pictures of people of the opposite sex, then write an essay either about their romantic partner or something else. The ones who wrote about their partners were six times less likely to admit to thinking about the pictures of the hotties they'd just seen. Which makes sense! If you're happy and in love, you're less inclined to care about some random handsome dude.

Of course, everyone has a story about a lover with a roving eye, or a pretty girl who's dating a dorky dude. There's an entire Web site dedicated to that kind of stuff. But what the scientists should be figuring out is why hot people think that being with other hot people is the right thing to do do. What's the value in hotness?

When you measure it against a sense of humor, intelligence, talent or knowing how to tune an engine, does it have any redeemable qualities? Given the choice between a not-so-cute dude who can play guitar, speak four languages, do silly magic party tricks and make pancakes from scratch and one who is merely hot, which makes better sense?

Study Finds Love Really Is Blind [Reuters]
Study: If Your Date Is Hot, So Are You [UPI]

But today's Science section of the New York Times makes us wonder if there isn't anything to that old adage from Miss Bitter With Baggage. The paper reports that dogs wag their tails to the left when feeling fearful and to the right when feeling happy and receptive. And because all we think about here at Jezebel is cock [And handbags! -Ed.], we wonder if a similar conclusion can be drawn about men, depending on which direction they "dress" themselves (meaning: on which side they like to pack their peens!). Are lefty dudes pessimists and righties optimists?

Wanna help find out? Get that special man in your life to take our poll.

Gawker Media polls require Javascript; if you're viewing this in an RSS reader, click through to view in your Javascript-enabled web browser.