Kant was a That Kid

I guess blogging has always been a weird thing for me. I went through multiple phases, from daily updates about my super exciting teenage life to really bad fiction and eventually to getting in trouble for hinting at certain people at my middle school in a slightly bitter post about some horrible field trip. I’m not really sure what my motivation has been through all of those attempts to claim a piece of the World Wide Web but I don’t particularly remember feeling a strong need to censor myself or put all that much thought into what people will think of me based on my opinions that would occasionally pop up in between Iron Maiden worship and adventures of dark elves or whatever it is that I used to write about. Now, about five years later, the fact that writing a blog actually crossed my mind made me stop and give myself a thorough mental check up to make sure I’m not turning into some super pretentious something or even worse a That Kid. While I do realize that this connection might not be a typical one it did kind of make me think of the whole That Kid label and how you should always be on the lookout not to become one. And since the term has been more or less coined at the University of Chicago, my home away from home, I thought it would be appropriate to start this off with a rant on That Kids.


“This is the University of Chicago definition. Also known as That Guy.

The "That Kid" is, in short, the kid in your class who everybody hates. He consistently attempts to impress the professor with references to books and topics that ultimately irrelevant to the topic and class at hand. He uses big words which he has little grasp of, and quotes authors and thinkers in a nonchalant and usually incorrect manner. He will argue with the professor over anything in a desperate attempt to appear smart. Sometimes, he will go so far as to try and correct the professor--this always fails, because he is an idiot. It is unknown whether "That Kid" really believes in himself, though it is clear that even if he does not, he is still a raging douchebag.”
- Urban Dictionary

Suppose you were in a class that was discussing Nabokov’s Lolita. Suppose you know about Heinz von Lichberg and his Lolita. Suppose you raised your hand and shared the information with the class. Suppose you also used the term “cryptomnesia” in order to argue that Nabokov’s work is actually not an example of really successful attempt at plagiarism. Would that make you a That Kid? Would everyone in the class roll their eyes and hope that the professor will never ever call on you again? Or would that be just an interesting even though only tangentially related piece of information that would actually make the discussion better? The line between these two options seems to be incredibly thin. On the other hand, as suggested by the definition above there seem to be a couple of defining characteristics of That Kids. Their comments are usually only loosely related to the topic of the conversation and they often include too much jargon. They also often seem to be using ideas or facts that they are quoting out of context or in an incorrect manner and, finally, the way they speak makes everyone think that they trying to prove themselves to be superior. I guess it would be fairly easy to argue that it is this last description that led towards the establishment of the classification and the label of a That Kid as such a powerful pejorative. It is no secret that no one likes to feel inferior, especially not in the academic context when it was really easy to feel nervous and unsure of the opinions that you are supposed to offer. Even if the supposed That Kid is correct their peers will still pin the label on them and find them annoying if they seem even a little bit too sure of themselves. Even if they start each of their sentences with a question or explain that they are uncertain of their reading, there is still a good chance that the rest of the class will “see through” that and realize that they are a That Kid in disguise. “Could it be that the author’s argument is somewhat analogous to that of David Hume in regards to the true nature or causality” somehow becomes as bad as openly stating that you do actually think that the author is echoing Hume’s argument in a rather obvious manner. Are we really that sensitive when it comes to someone supposedly knowing more than we do? Insecurity always seems to be a very good incentive for marking someone as the bad guy.

Someone recently told me that as long as I am worried about being a That Kid it is probably pretty safe to assume that I am not one. According to my interlocutor, you should be worried about being a That Kid if you start questioning why your peers don’t appreciate all the extra knowledge that you bring to the table. As true as this statement is, it strikes me as slightly odd that we have developed a culture that is aimed at discouraging people that might actually know things that we wouldn’t be exposed to otherwise just because they might be slightly wrong or liking themselves just a little bit too much. In some sense, at an institution aimed at academic excellence rookie mistakes such as quoting something wrong or being slightly too enthusiastic or too sure of yourself should be at least somewhat tolerated. I wonder how many That Kids get comfortable in and retain their role as “the kid in your class who everybody hates” just because everyone rolled their eyes the first time they spoke about something even slightly pretentious.
Discussion classes are scary for everyone and some people react in ways that differ from always playing it safe or just kind of staying within their shell until the professor decides to pick on them. Furthermore, it tends to be really hard to realize that you are being annoying while you are doing so and picking up on other people’s frowning faces usually does not offer the best incentive to change your evil ways. It is always worth remembering that people come from very different contexts and that everyone has to adopt to new classes, new setups and new rules. Some people have never had a chance to express their opinion and, as far as I am concerned, they shouldn’t be discouraged from it when they get a chance just because they are being slightly socially awkward about it. If nothing else, there must be some more peaceful, less intense way of dealing with it than simply applying the label of a That Kid onto someone as an open invitation for hate and gossip.

Finally, try asking me about Durkheim’s take on epistemology, I can pull a great That Kid spiel on it, full of Kant and Hume references and a lot of fancy terms such as “transcendental idealism” or ” fundamental traits of the human understanding”. You might get really annoyed; you might even think that I’m consciously trying to show off every single thing I have ever heard about the categories of understanding just to make you feel bad because you haven’t read some of the works that I can cite. One of my recent professors, on the other hand, thought that this was great and insightful. Maybe he should have written That Kid all over my way too long, way to technical papers in thick red pen so that I never pull that off again. Or maybe I did learn something in the processof developing that spiel.

Finally, I challenge you to imagine any great thinker in a discussion class. Would the y be a That Kid? In nine out of ten cases I am 100% sure the answer would have to be affirmative.