4 ms·

When successive generations complain about "kids these days", there is a contradiction. Gen 1 says "we were great as kids, but kids these days are terrible". Ge

When successive generations complain about "kids these days", there is a contradiction. Gen 1 says "we were great as kids, but kids these days are terrible". Gen 2 claims they were great as kids and it's Gen 3 that's terrible. Gen 1 and Gen 2 are contradicting each other. Was Gen 2 good or bad as kids? Depends on if you ask them or their elders. It's possible that there is a constant decrease in standards, such that every generation is worse than the one before it. But I doubt it. If such a steady decline had been happening since the 8th century BC civilization ought to have collapsed several times over. Tellingly, no one ever says "kids these days are much better behaved than we were as kids", even when it's empirically true. For example, kids these days in the UK drink less than their parents did at that age, but they don't get any credit for it. What's actually happening is likely sampling bias, where the person making the pronouncement is looking at a few bad apples as well as nostalgia biasing their recollection of their childhood.

oldsecondhand 5y ago
> When successive generations complain about "kids these days", there is a contradiction It's not a contradiction, if each successive generation is more terrible than the one that came beforehand.
- shadowfox 5y ago
  > It's not a contradiction, if each successive generation is more terrible than the one that came beforehand. The OP considered this though, to quote: It's possible that there is a constant decrease in standards, such that every generation is worse than the one before it. But I doubt it. If such a steady decline had been happening since the 8th century BC civilization ought to have collapsed several times over.
  - ethelward 5y ago
    > civilization ought to have collapsed several times over. Which it did, in some ways.
  - Pet_Ant 5y ago
    > But I doubt it. A contradiction leaves no doubt. It's not a contradiction then. A contradiction is not just something that is unlikely or infeasible, it is something impossible. It means that your set of beliefs is flawed and that at least one premise needs to be corrected for them to become consistent. OldSecondHand is correct that it is possible for each generation to have been worse than the preceeding one. For example, the degradation might be so minute, or we may have started from such lofty heights, or the society has become more resilient to the degradation. It is possible, and therefore no contradiction. ...just unlikely.
bryanrasmussen 5y ago
>civilization ought to have collapsed several times over. uhm, didn't it?
- fogihujy 5y ago
  Yeah. A few times before the 8th century BC aswell.
- nindalf 5y ago
  To the point where we abandoned civilisation and became Hunter gatherers en masse? No. There have been ups and downs for individual kingdoms and empires but civilisation as a whole did alright since the 8th century BC, Socrates’ concerns about kids these days notwithstanding.
  - coldtea 5y ago
    >To the point where we abandoned civilisation and became Hunter gatherers en masse To the point of the fall or Athens and Greek empires, the fall of the hellenistic kingdoms, the fall of Rome, all the way to WWI and WWII, and that's just confined to the Western side of the world...
    - XorNot 5y ago
      The fall of Rome was not "the collapse of civilization" and the Roman empire as a political entity never quite ceased existing seeing as how it continued in one form or another all the way up to the modern day by virtue of Istanbul still existing.
watwut 5y ago
> When successive generations complain about "kids these days", there is a contradiction. There is absolutely no contradiction, because in fact they are complaining about different things. Sometimes they are complaining about kids being more violent then they used to be. Other times they are complaining about kids being more rude, more passive, more drinking. Then they complain about kids dont more sport, less sport, reading too much, not reading enough. If you abstract it away to "kids are bad", then yes, it sounds as if the complain was constantly the same. But that abstraction is manipulative. > Tellingly, no one ever says "kids these days are much better behaved than we were as kids", even when it's empirically true. I have in fact said that multiple times. The "no one ever says" part is not true either. Yes, people are more likely to comment on negatives that affect them then on positives. That is true about literally anything, including software updates. And that still does not imply that every complain about bad software update should be shut down.
coldtea 5y ago
>When successive generations complain about "kids these days", there is a contradiction. Not really. It's totally logically consistent if things are going downhill with each successive generation. (In fact, it would still be consistent if different things were going downhill, Gen 2 worse on X compared to Gen 1, and Gen 3 worse on Y compared to Gen 2, and so on). Whether that's the case it's another matter. >It's possible that there is a constant decrease in standards, such that every generation is worse than the one before it. Exactly. >But I doubt it. I wouldn't be so sure. Note also that since there are no permanent eternal standards standing outside of history, each generation only has to be worse by the standards of its previous generation, for the accusation to be true...
rsync 5y ago
"It's possible that there is a constant decrease in standards, such that every generation is worse than the one before it. But I doubt it." On the contrary, that has been my interpretation of these signals since I first started hearing them. All living things (cats, societies, lizards, civilizations) are born, have an adolescence of growth and development, then decay and die. So there must be some brief period in the adolescence of a civilization where "kids these days" cannot be applied. Society is growing, developing and integrating. After that brief period it may then, indeed, be possible for each successive generation to correctly identify and decry the decay of their (society/civilization).
bean5 5y ago
>kids these days in the UK drink less than their parents did at that age, but they don't get any credit for it Illegal narcotics would like a word.

oldsecondhand 5y ago

> When successive generations complain about "kids these days", there is a contradiction It's not a contradiction, if each successive generation is more terrible than the one that came beforehand.

shadowfox 5y ago
> It's not a contradiction, if each successive generation is more terrible than the one that came beforehand. The OP considered this though, to quote: It's possible that there is a constant decrease in standards, such that every generation is worse than the one before it. But I doubt it. If such a steady decline had been happening since the 8th century BC civilization ought to have collapsed several times over.
- ethelward 5y ago
  > civilization ought to have collapsed several times over. Which it did, in some ways.
- Pet_Ant 5y ago
  > But I doubt it. A contradiction leaves no doubt. It's not a contradiction then. A contradiction is not just something that is unlikely or infeasible, it is something impossible. It means that your set of beliefs is flawed and that at least one premise needs to be corrected for them to become consistent. OldSecondHand is correct that it is possible for each generation to have been worse than the preceeding one. For example, the degradation might be so minute, or we may have started from such lofty heights, or the society has become more resilient to the degradation. It is possible, and therefore no contradiction. ...just unlikely.

bryanrasmussen 5y ago

>civilization ought to have collapsed several times over. uhm, didn't it?

fogihujy 5y ago
Yeah. A few times before the 8th century BC aswell.
nindalf 5y ago
To the point where we abandoned civilisation and became Hunter gatherers en masse? No. There have been ups and downs for individual kingdoms and empires but civilisation as a whole did alright since the 8th century BC, Socrates’ concerns about kids these days notwithstanding.
- coldtea 5y ago
  >To the point where we abandoned civilisation and became Hunter gatherers en masse To the point of the fall or Athens and Greek empires, the fall of the hellenistic kingdoms, the fall of Rome, all the way to WWI and WWII, and that's just confined to the Western side of the world...
  - XorNot 5y ago
    The fall of Rome was not "the collapse of civilization" and the Roman empire as a political entity never quite ceased existing seeing as how it continued in one form or another all the way up to the modern day by virtue of Istanbul still existing.

watwut 5y ago

> When successive generations complain about "kids these days", there is a contradiction. There is absolutely no contradiction, because in fact they are complaining about different things. Sometimes they are complaining about kids being more violent then they used to be. Other times they are complaining about kids being more rude, more passive, more drinking. Then they complain about kids dont more sport, less sport, reading too much, not reading enough. If you abstract it away to "kids are bad", then yes, it sounds as if the complain was constantly the same. But that abstraction is manipulative. > Tellingly, no one ever says "kids these days are much better behaved than we were as kids", even when it's empirically true. I have in fact said that multiple times. The "no one ever says" part is not true either. Yes, people are more likely to comment on negatives that affect them then on positives. That is true about literally anything, including software updates. And that still does not imply that every complain about bad software update should be shut down.

coldtea 5y ago

>When successive generations complain about "kids these days", there is a contradiction. Not really. It's totally logically consistent if things are going downhill with each successive generation. (In fact, it would still be consistent if different things were going downhill, Gen 2 worse on X compared to Gen 1, and Gen 3 worse on Y compared to Gen 2, and so on). Whether that's the case it's another matter. >It's possible that there is a constant decrease in standards, such that every generation is worse than the one before it. Exactly. >But I doubt it. I wouldn't be so sure. Note also that since there are no permanent eternal standards standing outside of history, each generation only has to be worse by the standards of its previous generation, for the accusation to be true...

rsync 5y ago

"It's possible that there is a constant decrease in standards, such that every generation is worse than the one before it. But I doubt it." On the contrary, that has been my interpretation of these signals since I first started hearing them. All living things (cats, societies, lizards, civilizations) are born, have an adolescence of growth and development, then decay and die. So there must be some brief period in the adolescence of a civilization where "kids these days" cannot be applied. Society is growing, developing and integrating. After that brief period it may then, indeed, be possible for each successive generation to correctly identify and decry the decay of their (society/civilization).

bean5 5y ago

>kids these days in the UK drink less than their parents did at that age, but they don't get any credit for it Illegal narcotics would like a word.