81–90 of 108 posts
When people talk about how much better off kids were in the past, I remember stories from my father (who went to school in the 1960's). They involved drugs, knives, and bombs. I had it pretty good in the 1980's.
I think one aspect that wasn’t discussed in this article sufficiently is: > given that all of their peers have adopted it, there is a serious social cost to opting out. Unlike reading a book, or fishing, or whatever, there’s no peer pressure to pick a specific hobby. There is significant pressure to use social media. I’m usually on the authors side, the view that the youth is rotten is literally as old as time (go ch…
With what? It’s not prima facie bad to have limits or bounds. I’d agree it’s good to be able to be goofy, but there’s plenty of actually-illegal activities teenagers used to “experiment” with (and skate by under the radar) that doesn't feel like a loss if it’s gone.
This article is so unbelievably misguided. Kids nowadays deal with a lot of crap that none of us dealt with in the 80s/90s/2000s.
I think one aspect that wasn’t discussed in this article sufficiently is: > given that all of their peers have adopted it, there is a serious social cost to opting out. Unlike reading a book, or fishing, or whatever, there’s no peer pressure to pick a specific hobby. There is significant pressure to use social media. I’m usually on the authors side, the view that the youth is rotten is literally as old as time (go ch…
you need to be able to experiment With what? It’s not prima facie bad to have limits or bounds. I’d agree it’s good to be able to be goofy, but there’s plenty of actually-illegal activities teenagers used to “experiment” with (and skate by under the radar) that doesn't feel like a loss if it’s gone.
When people talk about how much better off kids were in the past, I remember stories from my father (who went to school in the 1960's). They involved drugs, knives, and bombs. I had it pretty good in the 1980's.
Sounds like you had a pretty lame childhood to me, and in the 30 years since it's only become worse. Much like panda bears in captivity, it is unusually difficult to give a human being a life that resembles what it evolved for, which mostly involves convincing other humans to back off the safetyism a little. What dignity can be found in the life of the modern child?
Call that lame if you will. I'd rather think of it as being civil.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like you had a pretty lame childhood to me, and in the 30 years since it's only become worse. Much like panda bears in captivity, it is unusually difficult to give a human being a life that resembles what it evolved for, which mostly involves convincing other humans to back off the safetyism a little. What dignity can be found in the life of the modern child?
I felt the same way as an adult exploring Africa for three years. One guy even said I was a lion that grew up in captivity, so not completely wild. “People in developed countries don’t know how to really live, they just die slowly” Note that guy lived in the US for a decade, and his adult kids still do.
Something about the environment, maybe the increased Microbiota due to food, higher freshness and Non-GMO food, being forced to talk with family. Its not as though as screens aren't present, but they don't feel so overwhelming back there.
Despite Lima having pretty bad places (hence the joke of Perukistan), Peru overall has one of the lowest suicide rates in the world, with underreporting being unlikely, since their neighbors with similar culture have less infrastructure yet report much more.
I think one aspect that wasn’t discussed in this article sufficiently is: > given that all of their peers have adopted it, there is a serious social cost to opting out. Unlike reading a book, or fishing, or whatever, there’s no peer pressure to pick a specific hobby. There is significant pressure to use social media. I’m usually on the authors side, the view that the youth is rotten is literally as old as time (go ch…
you need to be able to experiment With what? It’s not prima facie bad to have limits or bounds. I’d agree it’s good to be able to be goofy, but there’s plenty of actually-illegal activities teenagers used to “experiment” with (and skate by under the radar) that doesn't feel like a loss if it’s gone.
With stuff that you're be free to do as an adult with minimal to no restrictions.
Teens should have opportunities to experiment with these activities in safe spaces so that they have direct life experience to reflect on when they're in a less safe or unsafe environment.
I can't stand this writing style. It's very boomer-ey and reeks of elitism and "well back in MUH day we just toughed it out and it was great and the kids these days are too WEAK!" This article is so unbelievably misguided. Kids nowadays deal with a lot of crap that none of us dealt with in the 80s/90s/2000s.
That is, someone who lived through the best periods of America and Liberalism, and didn't know that it ended at 2014, the exact year China surpassed the US in PPP, and still lives with the "End of History" optimism and wealth the rest of us never got to experience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shortchanging? Do you have any idea what a "typical" middle class lifestyle was like in the 1960s? (Not the romanticized one). Do you think they were eating organic avocados? Life and technology and healthcare and many other things are objectively better in many, many ways.
> Do you have any idea what a "typical" middle class lifestyle was like in the 1960s? You mean the one where they could have 3 kids, send them to college, and graduate with no debt? One of my professors went to UC Berkeley in the 60's. Inflation adjusted, his cost was $700 (I forget if this was per semester or per year).
Do you know how many households didn't have indoor plumbing?
Do you know how many people died of measles?
You are cherry picking a few data points to paint a very, very rosy picture of a reality in which the vast, vast majority of people were living a life much, much poorer than even a poor person today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, but I imagine in an environment in which the vast majority of people smoke, the ones who don't will probably still passively inhale a lot more toxins than if no one smoked at all - making the effect size in direct comparison with smokers seem weaker than we know today it really is. I believe social media and phone use could have a similar dynamic - like the kids said themselves, it's more a "collective action"…
One of the effects of heavy social media and phone use is parents (and other carers) paying less attention to kids.
> Parents now spend twice as much time with their children as 50 years ago