I'll confirm his opinion anecdotally. I don't think that there's any science on the subject; despite its importance in adult development, it seems that few people actively study the interactions of teenagers.
When I was going through school, people grouped themselves according to activity. The football players all hung out together; so did the baseball players, D&D players, drama kids, band kids, etc. Kids were affiliated with multiple groups according to interest; a kid could be, for example, a football player, a baseball player, a member of the chess club, and an academic decathlete, and his network of friends reflected that. This was independent of being male or female; girls did the exact same thing with their sports, clubs, and activities.
The difference was how hierarchy was determined. With boys, it was either not really thought about, (who is the leader of an electronics hobby group?) or leadership was determined by a default position (football quarterback, team captains, etc). There was relatively little struggle going on.
In contrast, with girls, there was always infighting because there was no default leader and there was a perceived need for one. With no default leader, girls were constantly jostling each other to get a leg up on the competition. It led to the insane results of, "I'm friends with Sharon, but I fucking hate her" and "Oh, we're best friends now, but if I get the chance to ditch you for another group of better-connected friends, you're gone."
Both mindsets were pretty retarded - the guys' mindset often had bad results because of the fact that a great quarterback might be an idiot,[1] and the hierarchy reflects that because all of the high-ranking people are now his dumbshit friends. But it just seems to me like the girls' mindset could never get good results, whereas the boys' mindset could succeed by accident if the stars aligned and made a nice, smart kid really good at throwing a prolate spheroid.
In both cases, the proper thing to tell kids seems to be Paul Graham's advice of "Look around. The world you guys have created is dumb as hell and fake as a Twinkie. You won't be dealing with this idiocy once you have something real to work on. And if you do, you can do better and find a place where people aren't playing high-school games."
When I was going through school, people grouped themselves according to activity. The football players all hung out together; so did the baseball players, D&D players, drama kids, band kids, etc. Kids were affiliated with multiple groups according to interest; a kid could be, for example, a football player, a baseball player, a member of the chess club, and an academic decathlete, and his network of friends reflected that. This was independent of being male or female; girls did the exact same thing with their sports, clubs, and activities.
The difference was how hierarchy was determined. With boys, it was either not really thought about, (who is the leader of an electronics hobby group?) or leadership was determined by a default position (football quarterback, team captains, etc). There was relatively little struggle going on.
In contrast, with girls, there was always infighting because there was no default leader and there was a perceived need for one. With no default leader, girls were constantly jostling each other to get a leg up on the competition. It led to the insane results of, "I'm friends with Sharon, but I fucking hate her" and "Oh, we're best friends now, but if I get the chance to ditch you for another group of better-connected friends, you're gone."
Both mindsets were pretty retarded - the guys' mindset often had bad results because of the fact that a great quarterback might be an idiot,[1] and the hierarchy reflects that because all of the high-ranking people are now his dumbshit friends. But it just seems to me like the girls' mindset could never get good results, whereas the boys' mindset could succeed by accident if the stars aligned and made a nice, smart kid really good at throwing a prolate spheroid.
In both cases, the proper thing to tell kids seems to be Paul Graham's advice of "Look around. The world you guys have created is dumb as hell and fake as a Twinkie. You won't be dealing with this idiocy once you have something real to work on. And if you do, you can do better and find a place where people aren't playing high-school games."
[1]http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/a5/6b/57/a56b57600606...