The article addresses this question precisely: it says that high ability in athletics is a form of social compliance, while high intellect is seen as a selfish endeavor involving social noncompliance.
This is very interesting...do they speculate why this is the case? Is this culturally dependent?
They say it isn't culturally dependent, but they don't mention Asian cultures.
They talk about evolutionary psychology and speculate that the problem may be very old. For example in early hominids, high athletic ability may have conferred high status by virtue of being a better hunter. Although high intellect could have been useful when the tribe was faced with a problem needing an original solution, there could also have been suspicion that the smart ones had the ability to manipulate everyone else. I'm not completely convinced, but that's just me.
They also quote a survey of gifted and non-gifted kids. The gifted ones thought they were envied for their abilities, whereas many non-gifted people cited frustration with "social issues" of the gifted. I suspect the truth is a mixture of both, especially when I think about those common accusations of "elitism." Surely, a kid disrupting a class is not being "elitist." Also, if you harbor a malicious envy, you're not going to be terribly likely to admit it, are you? Likewise, it's hard for kids, even gifted ones, to make an objective analysis of their own behavior.
Lots of people don't behave exactly like everyone else all the time, and they aren't branded as elitist. They are just different (think: different cultural or religious backgrounds, different socioeconomic backgrounds, flower people etc.). Smart people are different too, and we are allowed to be who we are!
Again, PM me if you want a copy.
Val
