4 ms·

This subject is prone to so many reasoning traps. - The "problem" is with the current generation of children, so their future character is pure speculation. -

This subject is prone to so many reasoning traps. - The "problem" is with the current generation of children, so their future character is pure speculation. - The media consumed is seen as new. This means people believe (rightly or wrongly) it affects children very differently. Paradoxically, these same people claim to know how it affects them, despite it being new. - People are tempted to argue using childhood memories, despite being a child with limited understanding, the mutation of memories over time, and the limited sample size of other kids you knew. Those other kids were also only kids who knew you, meaning they weren't asocial and likely went outside. This isn't to say we can never know. Just that disciplined experiments are necessary to avoid all these subjective pits.

ordu 8y ago
> Just that disciplined experiments are necessary to avoid all these subjective pits. Disciplined experiments would require decades to learn how new media influence development of a child. Disciplined experiments require people subjects and a big moral no-no in the most cases. It is easier (maybe it is the only way for our society) to just watch what happens and to setup a small scale experiments to distinguish causes from effects. While we are designing experiments children grow and become adults. When we finish with experiments the world would be the different place and the only our scientific result would be an ability to explain what happened in the past. (It would be a limited ability, because no one would be able to replicate our experiments and to confirm our findings.) So I agree that speculations about future character of a child of current generation is a pure speculation, but it is the only way to apply brains to a current educational tasks. Alternatively we can say that a pure speculation is not good enough and do nothing, let things flow by the stream. I, personally, believe that the former way is better than the latter, even if it is unscientific.
JauntyHatAngle 8y ago
While I agree with you in principle, there are flaws with what you are saying in my opinion. We can't wait for a generation to have issues before we start attempting to fix big issues- yes they may be perceived and not present, but we can only do the best we can do, there are good reasons to think it is not healthy to never feel boredom, based on our own intuitive understanding of people so we make choices the best we can. It might be the wrong choice, but it's still our best one. Disciplined experiments would only bear out after 15 years or more so it's a bit late to wait for that. We do what we can and refine our thoughts and ideas until we do have the data, because this is an active "problem" that will have data whether we like it or not, so do the best we can now and we'll find out if we were right later.
fjp 8y ago
Without evidence, it's hard to see these takes and articles as much more than "old man yells at sky about how messed up kids are" or, at best, the neutral interpretation that "kids are adapted to the world they're raised in". I remember reading a NYTimes article that used the fact that we don't know our friend's phone numbers anymore as evidence that younger generations have deficient memories. How stupid. I live in a world where I don't need to have them memorized. It is not because I am deficient.

ordu 8y ago

> Just that disciplined experiments are necessary to avoid all these subjective pits. Disciplined experiments would require decades to learn how new media influence development of a child. Disciplined experiments require people subjects and a big moral no-no in the most cases. It is easier (maybe it is the only way for our society) to just watch what happens and to setup a small scale experiments to distinguish causes from effects. While we are designing experiments children grow and become adults. When we finish with experiments the world would be the different place and the only our scientific result would be an ability to explain what happened in the past. (It would be a limited ability, because no one would be able to replicate our experiments and to confirm our findings.) So I agree that speculations about future character of a child of current generation is a pure speculation, but it is the only way to apply brains to a current educational tasks. Alternatively we can say that a pure speculation is not good enough and do nothing, let things flow by the stream. I, personally, believe that the former way is better than the latter, even if it is unscientific.

JauntyHatAngle 8y ago

While I agree with you in principle, there are flaws with what you are saying in my opinion. We can't wait for a generation to have issues before we start attempting to fix big issues- yes they may be perceived and not present, but we can only do the best we can do, there are good reasons to think it is not healthy to never feel boredom, based on our own intuitive understanding of people so we make choices the best we can. It might be the wrong choice, but it's still our best one. Disciplined experiments would only bear out after 15 years or more so it's a bit late to wait for that. We do what we can and refine our thoughts and ideas until we do have the data, because this is an active "problem" that will have data whether we like it or not, so do the best we can now and we'll find out if we were right later.

fjp 8y ago

Without evidence, it's hard to see these takes and articles as much more than "old man yells at sky about how messed up kids are" or, at best, the neutral interpretation that "kids are adapted to the world they're raised in". I remember reading a NYTimes article that used the fact that we don't know our friend's phone numbers anymore as evidence that younger generations have deficient memories. How stupid. I live in a world where I don't need to have them memorized. It is not because I am deficient.