The weakest generation in history?

[Argus]

Are you saying that girls should be learning that their role in life is to be a housewife and mother? - that that's their purpose in life?

Yes, clearly that's exactly what I'm saying.

[dre]

Granted. But I wasn't just talking about suicide. I was talking about a kind of cultural state of mind, and the lack of toughness of so many young people who have had it so good, who have been coddled and expect to be coddled. It sometimes seems to me that young people are praised just for waking up in the morning! We eliminate risk in their lives as much as possible, and parents do their best to give them everything they want. Without risk or adversity, what do young people strive for? Nothing more than social acceptance by being pretty or hot or popular.

There was an item in the paper a couple of weeks back reminiscing about being a kid in Ottawa in the twenties and thirties, and how the city was basically their playground. Kids would roam everywere, poking their noses into slaughterhouses and factories and warehouses, play on the Ottawa river in homemade rafts, or explore forests. They'd leave home in the morning and wouldn't get home till dark. Most of the kids I know aren't allowed out of the house without parental supervision until they're teenagers. A colleague of mine was worrying over her 15 year old son the other day, who was riding the bus for the first time in his life... just a city bus! Schools do their best to encourage children, and that means not failing them, and making things easy for them. You get marks just for trying, or as one college profesor lamented a short time back "They expect to get good marks because they tried hard. They don't understand that trying hard is not going to get you anything from me unless they succeed."

What, magically? I disagree. I'm sure it will in some, but it seems to me that the great bulk of the young, never having faced much adversity, are flummoxed when they do, and have no idea how to cope. Suicide or mass murder in response to bullying is just one small indicator of the psychological trauma many get at being denied what they want -- when they're simply not used to it. I note most of these cases seem to involve the well off kids of suburbia. You don't seem to see the kids in slums doing extreme things because they're not popular. Maye they don't expect life to be all sweetness and roses?

What, magically? I disagree. I'm sure it will in some, but it seems to me that the great bulk of the young, never having faced much adversity, are flummoxed when they do, and have no idea how to cope. Suicide or mass murder in response to bullying is just one small indicator of the psychological trauma many get at being denied what they want -- when they're simply not used to it. I note most of these cases seem to involve the well off kids of suburbia. You don't seem to see the kids in slums doing extreme things because they're not popular. Maye they don't expect life to be all sweetness and roses?

Again its not the "young" we still dont know what kind of people they are going to make. Its people who are 30-50 now...

[Bonam]

Granted. But I wasn't just talking about suicide. I was talking about a kind of cultural state of mind, and the lack of toughness of so many young people who have had it so good, who have been coddled and expect to be coddled. It sometimes seems to me that young people are praised just for waking up in the morning! We eliminate risk in their lives as much as possible, and parents do their best to give them everything they want. Without risk or adversity, what do young people strive for? Nothing more than social acceptance by being pretty or hot or popular.

Well, I am 26, and was in school/a teenager not too long ago, when the culture was largely similar to what it is today. What did I strive for in my high school years? For one, to do well and get good marks and get into the university program of my choice. But since that was pretty easy and took minimal time, I spent most of my time striving for dominance and fame in computer games ;p Certainly being hot or pretty or popular was not a top consideration.

But "social acceptance" is what humans are hard-wired to strive for, one must be an accepted member of the tribe in order to have access to suitable mates and produce offspring with a reasonable chance of survival. The only difference is what used to be the tribe, and what later used to be the school or the town or the neighborhood, is now also the online community.

There was an item in the paper a couple of weeks back reminiscing about being a kid in Ottawa in the twenties and thirties, and how the city was basically their playground. Kids would roam everywere, poking their noses into slaughterhouses and factories and warehouses, play on the Ottawa river in homemade rafts, or explore forests. They'd leave home in the morning and wouldn't get home till dark. Most of the kids I know aren't allowed out of the house without parental supervision until they're teenagers. A colleague of mine was worrying over her 15 year old son the other day, who was riding the bus for the first time in his life... just a city bus!

Actually, I can well understand that. A city is one of the most dangerous and un-natural environments for humans. We did not evolve in cities. Forests and small towns/villages are how humans have lived for tens of thousands of years. A kid out in the forest, especially a forest without large predators, at a distance that they can get to by foot from their house, is in very little danger, and is equipped with instincts evolved over millions of years on how to survive in such an environment. A kid wandering around in unfamiliar parts of a modern city is in MUCH greater danger, and is equipped with few applicable natural instincts at all, and must rely on learned knowledge and rational thought processes based on said knowledge.

Schools do their best to encourage children, and that means not failing them, and making things easy for them. You get marks just for trying, or as one college profesor lamented a short time back "They expect to get good marks because they tried hard. They don't understand that trying hard is not going to get you anything from me unless they succeed."

Schools are nothing more than glorified daycare, up until at least grade 11-12. People that are looking to get ahead learn extra things outside of school. And many kids participate in clubs, sports teams, academic competitions, performing arts, etc, where results matter, not just effort.

What, magically? I disagree. I'm sure it will in some, but it seems to me that the great bulk of the young, never having faced much adversity, are flummoxed when they do, and have no idea how to cope.Suicide or mass murder in response to bullying is just one small indicator of the psychological trauma many get at being denied what they want -- when they're simply not used to it. I note most of these cases seem to involve the well off kids of suburbia. You don't seem to see the kids in slums doing extreme things because they're not popular. Maye they don't expect life to be all sweetness and roses?

Yeah kids in slums just steal, beg, prostitute, stab, and murder each other instead. Anyway, humans are very adaptable, it doesn't take too many instances of "not getting what you want" to become no longer "used to always getting what you want". A tiny minority resort to suicide or murder, always have. Do you have any evidence that suicide or murder among youth is much more common now than it has been throughout history?

[August1991]

Minor point.

Maslow's heirarchy, for those of you who haven't seen it. "A theory of human motivation"

Maslow has always struck me as completely bogus.

First of all, where is "curiousity" on that chart? People are curious (in both senses), and curiousity motivates many people.

Second, Maslow lived in the 20th century and was the son of Jewish immigrants to America. His "theory of human motivation" has an obvious source. But did human beings in the 15th century have a similar hierarchical motivation? More pointedly, will human beings in the 25th century view their lives the same way?

Life is far more complex than this simplistic, bogus theory.

Edited October 14, 2012 by August1991

[August1991]

Are you saying that girls should be learning that their role in life is to be a housewife and mother? - that that's their purpose in life?

And are you saying that girls should not learn to be mothers?

More generally AW, are you saying that there is no difference between women and men?

Edited October 14, 2012 by August1991

[TimG]

But "social acceptance" is what humans are hard-wired to strive for, one must be an accepted member of the tribe in order to have access to suitable mates and produce offspring with a reasonable chance of survival. The only difference is what used to be the tribe, and what later used to be the school or the town or the neighborhood, is now also the online community.

Except in today's world one can choose one's "tribe" (at least other than family). An important step in maturity is learning to choose the tribe(s) that accepts you for the way you are. Edited October 14, 2012 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Maslow has always struck me as completely bogus.

First of all, where is "curiousity" on that chart? People are curious (in both senses), and curiousity motivates many people.

This is about life's larger motivations. If someone is motivated by 'curiosity' on that scale, maybe we're talking about a scientist or someone who is at the top of the pyramid.

Second, Maslow lived in the 20th century and was the son of Jewish immigrants to America. His "theory of human motivation" has an obvious source. But did human beings in the 15th century have a similar hierarchical motivation? More pointedly, will human beings in the 25th century view their lives the same way?

Why bring up his heritage ? Oh, right... this is what *you* do ... constantly ... all the time ... your form of ad hominem. Last time you did this, I brought up the fact that you do it because you're from Quebec but I guess that went over your head. Biographers sometimes try to determine these types of motivations, or maybe if they were motivated by personal relationships... but it's not germane to the discussion. The model has stood for a long time, so it must ring true at least to the point of generating some discussion.

As to whether this model stands throughout history, I would say yes. Humans don't change much at the core over time. We evolved over something like... I don't know... a million years ?

Life is far more complex than this simplistic, bogus theory.

It seems to me that you don't understand it. Read a psychology book, perhaps.

[msj]

This is about life's larger motivations. If someone is motivated by 'curiosity' on that scale, maybe we're talking about a scientist or someone who is at the top of the pyramid.

In a later and expanded version of the pyramid curiosity was worked in:

• Physiological needs
  
• Safety needs
  
• Social belonging needs
  
• Esteem needs
  
• Cognitive needs — knowledge, curiosity, understanding, self-awareness
  
• Aesthetic needs — beauty, sensory stimulation, balance
  
• Self-actualisation needs
  
• Transcendence needs — helping others to achieve self-actualisation, spiritual and global concerns
  

[Michael Hardner]

Interesting - I studied this in University and no mention was made of the iteration. It's a model, though, just a reference that might be used to in other discussions.

[eyeball]

Blaming a generation is really just pointless scapegoating. I must say, though, nobody has blamed generation X from my memory.

--- --- ---

There's a saying in consulting - when you solve problem #1, then problem #2 gets a promotion.

Western society is a victim of its own success. Starvation, mass disease, misery is a thing of the past in many respects. As a society, we're solving our basic needs and moving up Maslow's pyramid to the middle parts. It's hard to get depressed about the meaning of life when you're fighting to survive... when that fight ends, the mind turns to deeper questions.

Maslow's heirarchy, for those of you who haven't seen it. "A theory of human motivation"

Is this a model of a society's evolution or an individual's - they are two completely different things aren't they? This model could also describe a rising star in a sinking fascist state.

[Mr.Canada]

Is this a model of a society's evolution or an individual's - they are two completely different things aren't they? This model could also describe a rising star in a sinking fascist state.

I wish so badly that Canada was a fascist state. It's the ideal system. It hasn't been implemented correctly through history which gives it such a bad name. Too bad Canada would be much further ahead with state fascism. Instead of arguing with the left we'd outlaw them and concentrate on making Canada better and stronger, more advanced race of people.

[eyeball]

I wish so badly that Canada was a fascist state. It's the ideal system. It hasn't been implemented correctly through history which gives it such a bad name. Too bad Canada would be much further ahead with state fascism. Instead of arguing with the left we'd outlaw them and concentrate on making Canada better and stronger, more advanced race of people.

You're such an obvious poser, but keep it up, with booster club members like you boosting the joys of right-wingism who needs the left to make the world completely FUBAR?

[Argus]

I wish so badly that Canada was a fascist state. It's the ideal system. It hasn't been implemented correctly through history which gives it such a bad name. Too bad Canada would be much further ahead with state fascism. Instead of arguing with the left we'd outlaw them and concentrate on making Canada better and stronger, more advanced race of people.

You're supposing that this theoretical fascist government would be made up of selfless and brilliant individuals who would only do what was in the best interests of the state, I presume. The members of it would be neither corrupt nor incompetent. None would be empire builders within their own little baliwick, and none would be offended enough by any criticism of their errors (because they wouldn't make any) to, say, have people executed? Also, they wouldn't spend a lot of money on secret police and informers and pick people up in the middle of the night to take them to concentration camps because they merely suspect disloyalty?

[Moonlight Graham]

Bonam, very intelligent post. Nicely stated and to the point.

agreed.

I want to add that the pressure on people today is massive in many regards compared to the past. The media instills an image of ever-increasing perfection as an ideal that we're supposed to drive for. Females see skinny women with fake breasts and photoshopped skin complexions in magazines who have both successful careers and raise a family. Men see steroid-injected athletes/models as an ideal, and have had their masculine identities (gender roles) confusingly altered massively since the feminism movements starting in the 60's.

Life/society is also faster-paced than ever thanks to technology and globalization. Competition in school and jobs have gone almost fully global, and as a result we're working longer hours for the same wage (adjusted for inflation, statistics backs this up).

Young people also face many new challenges/pressures that have never existed before in the numbers they do. Divorce rates (of parents), drug use, pre-marital sex.

No wonder mental health in the west is in a crisis.

[jacee]

I wish so badly that Canada was a fascist state. It's the ideal system. It hasn't been implemented correctly through history which gives it such a bad name. Too bad Canada would be much further ahead with state fascism. Instead of arguing with the left we'd outlaw them and concentrate on making Canada better and stronger, more advanced race of people.

Outlaw the opposition ...

And 'improve the race' ... eugenics.

Unh-hunhhh ...

What else would you like, mein fuhrer?

[August1991]

This is about life's larger motivations. If someone is motivated by 'curiosity' on that scale, maybe we're talking about a scientist or someone who is at the top of the pyramid.

My house cat is very curious when looking for food. [bTW, curiousity (and obsessive behaviour) are not solely the domain of teenage boys.]

And, thinking along the same lines, it's not hard to imagine why the child (Maslow) of 20th century European Jews would place "physiological" and "safety" as primary concerns.

Why bring up his heritage ? Oh, right... this is what *you* do ... constantly ... all the time ... your form of ad hominem.

WTF?

Is it now illegal to say that Barack Obama is American?

Edited October 20, 2012 by August1991

[August1991]

In a later and expanded version of the pyramid curiosity was worked in:

msj, you seem to have inverted that pyramid. Are the "cognitive needs" greater than or less than the "self-actualisation needs"?

My cat is curious to know.

Edited October 20, 2012 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

My house cat is very curious when looking for food. [bTW, curiousity (and obsessive behaviour) are not solely the domain of teenage boys.]

And, thinking along the same lines, it's not hard to imagine why the child (Maslow) of 20th century European Jews would place "physiological" and "safety" as primary concerns.

WTF?

Is it now illegal to say that Barack Obama is American?

Not illegal but in many cases irrelevant. You effectively dismiss opinions this way.

And of course safety needs are primary. Would you risk your life for a new TV?

[Guest Peeves]

The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.

Socrates

Attributed to Socrates by Plato...

Probably spuriously

None the less. I find the huge over indulged 'kids' of today less polite and more greedy.

I find adults of the past couple of generations increasingly incapable (generalizing) of living within their means, lacking in patience in acquiring the niceties until they can be afforded, unconcerned with energy waste,(lights left on tap left running, a/c on, heat on when hardly needed, not using clothes line, etc. etc.)

A kid today likely to wear hand me downs...HA!

Likely to wear an off brand shoe HA!

and, their parents seem to encourage that attitude by giving...always giving.... Then there's the 'toys' adults and kids JUST HAVE TO HAVE affordable or not...

Gas guzzlers, HUGE homes, not the starter homes or cars we were happy to have.

I say that greed is the common denominator.

But what do I know. I picked up coal bits dropped by engines tenders along RR tracks to heat our rented house and to cook on.

Edited October 20, 2012 by Peeves

[Michael Hardner]

and they REFUSE to get OFF our LAWN

[Argus]

And of course safety needs are primary. Would you risk your life for a new TV?

People do every day.

[GostHacked]

What is my point? I suspect that socialists (or modern progressives) don't quite understand how quickly the world can change. The idea of revolution works both ways.

And with technology being so integrated into our lives more than ever, the changes are exponentially occurring. You have just got the hang of something current, and yet there has already been another change. That causes stress just in of itself.

[jacee]

The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.

Socrates

Attributed to Socrates by Plato...

Probably spuriously

None the less. I find the huge over indulged 'kids' of today less polite and more greedy.

I find adults of the past couple of generations increasingly incapable (generalizing) of living within their means, lacking in patience in acquiring the niceties until they can be afforded, unconcerned with energy waste,(lights left on tap left running, a/c on, heat on when hardly needed, not using clothes line, etc. etc.)

A kid today likely to wear hand me downs...HA!

Likely to wear an off brand shoe HA!

and, their parents seem to encourage that attitude by giving...always giving.... Then there's the 'toys' adults and kids JUST HAVE TO HAVE affordable or not...

Gas guzzlers, HUGE homes, not the starter homes or cars we were happy to have.

I say that greed is the common denominator.

But what do I know. I picked up coal bits dropped by engines tenders along RR tracks to heat our rented house and to cook on.

Too frickin funny!

It's always a laugh listening to disgruntled old farts being jealous of youth.

If that's how your children and their children behave, whose fault is that?

Mine don't.

[jacee]

and they REFUSE to get OFF our LAWN

:lol:

[GostHacked]

Granted. But I wasn't just talking about suicide. I was talking about a kind of cultural state of mind, and the lack of toughness of so many young people who have had it so good, who have been coddled and expect to be coddled. It sometimes seems to me that young people are praised just for waking up in the morning! We eliminate risk in their lives as much as possible, and parents do their best to give them everything they want. Without risk or adversity, what do young people strive for? Nothing more than social acceptance by being pretty or hot or popular.

I have a real problem with allowing the kids to not know failure. Pass them to the next grade, no zero policy all contribute to that. What we are raising are children who expect everything handed to them. It's almost like a socialist society is being engineered to eventually have these people growing up to depend on the system for help instead of doing what needs to be done in order to advance and progress and grow as a person. We are not teaching these future adults to be independent.

The claim of 'no child left behind' will eventually put a lot of stress on society as a whole in order to continue the mentality and change it to no adult left behind. What kind of adults do we expect these kids to be when they grow up? And how will the contribute to society instead of just going along for the ride expecting the system to carry them along to the grave. That's perfect for a government that wants to control every aspect of your life, create a 'generation' of dependant people in order to justify government and certain programs to become more in numbers and scope.

What you are getting at is that kids need some tough love. Being a parent is not always about being nice to your child and giving them everything they want. The government also loves people who depend on their system of control. And we are going there faster than ever.

There was an item in the paper a couple of weeks back reminiscing about being a kid in Ottawa in the twenties and thirties, and how the city was basically their playground. Kids would roam everywere, poking their noses into slaughterhouses and factories and warehouses, play on the Ottawa river in homemade rafts, or explore forests. They'd leave home in the morning and wouldn't get home till dark. Most of the kids I know aren't allowed out of the house without parental supervision until they're teenagers. A colleague of mine was worrying over her 15 year old son the other day, who was riding the bus for the first time in his life... just a city bus! Schools do their best to encourage children, and that means not failing them, and making things easy for them. You get marks just for trying, or as one college profesor lamented a short time back "They expect to get good marks because they tried hard. They don't understand that trying hard is not going to get you anything from me unless they succeed."

This goes back to my notion of the social engineering we are all experiencing on a daily bases from various avenues of media and social networking. It's all based on fear mongering instead of nurturing and love. Every day we are bombard with things to keep us scared. We also have neighbors that don't talk to each other anymore because we are conditioned in a way to suspect everyone. So parents even coddle their kids well into their teens.

I was fortunate to grow up in a neighborhood that was very safe. Simply because the parents made that happen. Collectively we had about 15 families that would keep an eye out in the neighborhood when we were out playing. No matter where we went we has someone looking out for us, but not to the point of getting in the way of us kids being kids. We were allowed to explore, play and even get hurt. Getting hurt is not something you can avoid when being a kid. We were allowed to grow all because of it. Keeping kids from not knowing risk is definitely a troubling course of action.