I searched for a catchy title. The other title would have been do the younger generations have too strong opinions without doing the necessary research to come to a profound conclusion.
I think this STEM professor hated me for the fact I always had strong opinions without knowing anything. My behavior is kind of pathological and the only thing that helps is reading more to become really educated. Or sometimes as in this forum I make the disclaimer that I am only a layman. I mean we are at a suicide forum and not a meeting of scholars at Harvard. (Maybe that is too exaggerated.) He hit a nerve for sure in my case. Since that I started to read way more scientifical articles to inform me.
I read the claim that the younger generation is too lazy (or put in different words) from many intellectuals. The young people have strong opinions but lack the empirical research. I heard that from Jordan Peterson, David Foster Wallace alluded to that I think, Noam Chomsky etc. with Noam Chomsky I am not sure. It might be the case that he was used as counterexample how well some people inform themselves before sharing their opinion.
I could imagine there are a lot of pro and contra arguments for this hypothesis. Moreover I think such claims are not really new. Older generations often complained about the young people and their lack of values, hard work etc.
My first thought is the fridaysforfuture, extinction rebellion movement.The fridaysforfuture teenagers skip school and protest instead. But there is a paradox for this answer. Yes these young people have a strong opinion, yes these people skip school and education seems to be for them less important than the protest. Though it is also a fact that their demands are supported by the vast majority of serious climate scientists. Their concern is fully reasonable considering the empirical evidences. Though these people probably have less skills to argument for their concern and might have a harder time to reach powerful positons where they could change something substantively. Side-note: I was a conservative as teenager but I think even as lefty I would not have skipped school for those protests. I am very conscientious and I am kind of a free-rider. I am a lot into politics but I stay away from demonstrations. Maybe due to the fact I have social anxiety and I feel pretty irrelevant in my current situation. I have a hard time to survive I think my voice does not really matter. However of course I vote at elections. I think the climate movement example is pretty good proof that there is no black-white answer.
I could imagine that the following fuels the development of building strong opinions: I think the internet and the attention economy behind it is responsible partially. Who really reads long essays of a good looking and talented young guy in the basement of his mom on suicide forums if he could at the same watch live decapitations of the Mexican mafia or watch porn you never really thought such things would really exist. Silly jokes aside. Due to the globalization and the internet connectivity everything is so fast. The pacing of our daily lives has changed. Our smartphones are the best invention against boredom. If you are waiting at your doctor why not messaging your friends or share some photos with silly platitudes you found on instagram. The media and social media have changed our lives. In my country there are some outlets which fight each other who has the fastest livetickers and fastest notifications. Of course there lies the danger that fake news get spread though money over truth. I think I read that such a concept rather backfires. Many outlets fought to have the most shocking titles and pictures on social media. In many cases this backfires as we see with VICE. There seems to be the tendency that citizens search for an anchor which can lead them through this mess the current media landscape is. So trustworthiness is more important than catchy yellow press alike stories. Though I am not sure whether this really is the reality.
On social media like Twitter fast, short, pointed and exaggerated posts get the most attention. I read fake news spread several times faster on social media than true reportings. There is also the development that truth is subjective for many people. We cannot find compromises about the reality. The polarization increases and it becomes even true that social media platforms come into existence dedicated for one political group. There is the postmodern influence that truth becomes subjective and dependent on the consumer. Besides attention is often linked to money and power. And the most shocking content gets the most clicks (often). Some do this clickbait with better some with less quality. Andre Tate's success is dependent on that.
I have the feeling I have not hit the nail yet. But I might end it here. I go to sleep earlier. And yesterday it helped.
I cannot give a reliable answer to the question of the title. I don't know studies I can only share some ideas about plausible theories on it.
What do you think?
I think this STEM professor hated me for the fact I always had strong opinions without knowing anything. My behavior is kind of pathological and the only thing that helps is reading more to become really educated. Or sometimes as in this forum I make the disclaimer that I am only a layman. I mean we are at a suicide forum and not a meeting of scholars at Harvard. (Maybe that is too exaggerated.) He hit a nerve for sure in my case. Since that I started to read way more scientifical articles to inform me.
I read the claim that the younger generation is too lazy (or put in different words) from many intellectuals. The young people have strong opinions but lack the empirical research. I heard that from Jordan Peterson, David Foster Wallace alluded to that I think, Noam Chomsky etc. with Noam Chomsky I am not sure. It might be the case that he was used as counterexample how well some people inform themselves before sharing their opinion.
I could imagine there are a lot of pro and contra arguments for this hypothesis. Moreover I think such claims are not really new. Older generations often complained about the young people and their lack of values, hard work etc.
My first thought is the fridaysforfuture, extinction rebellion movement.The fridaysforfuture teenagers skip school and protest instead. But there is a paradox for this answer. Yes these young people have a strong opinion, yes these people skip school and education seems to be for them less important than the protest. Though it is also a fact that their demands are supported by the vast majority of serious climate scientists. Their concern is fully reasonable considering the empirical evidences. Though these people probably have less skills to argument for their concern and might have a harder time to reach powerful positons where they could change something substantively. Side-note: I was a conservative as teenager but I think even as lefty I would not have skipped school for those protests. I am very conscientious and I am kind of a free-rider. I am a lot into politics but I stay away from demonstrations. Maybe due to the fact I have social anxiety and I feel pretty irrelevant in my current situation. I have a hard time to survive I think my voice does not really matter. However of course I vote at elections. I think the climate movement example is pretty good proof that there is no black-white answer.
I could imagine that the following fuels the development of building strong opinions: I think the internet and the attention economy behind it is responsible partially. Who really reads long essays of a good looking and talented young guy in the basement of his mom on suicide forums if he could at the same watch live decapitations of the Mexican mafia or watch porn you never really thought such things would really exist. Silly jokes aside. Due to the globalization and the internet connectivity everything is so fast. The pacing of our daily lives has changed. Our smartphones are the best invention against boredom. If you are waiting at your doctor why not messaging your friends or share some photos with silly platitudes you found on instagram. The media and social media have changed our lives. In my country there are some outlets which fight each other who has the fastest livetickers and fastest notifications. Of course there lies the danger that fake news get spread though money over truth. I think I read that such a concept rather backfires. Many outlets fought to have the most shocking titles and pictures on social media. In many cases this backfires as we see with VICE. There seems to be the tendency that citizens search for an anchor which can lead them through this mess the current media landscape is. So trustworthiness is more important than catchy yellow press alike stories. Though I am not sure whether this really is the reality.
On social media like Twitter fast, short, pointed and exaggerated posts get the most attention. I read fake news spread several times faster on social media than true reportings. There is also the development that truth is subjective for many people. We cannot find compromises about the reality. The polarization increases and it becomes even true that social media platforms come into existence dedicated for one political group. There is the postmodern influence that truth becomes subjective and dependent on the consumer. Besides attention is often linked to money and power. And the most shocking content gets the most clicks (often). Some do this clickbait with better some with less quality. Andre Tate's success is dependent on that.
I have the feeling I have not hit the nail yet. But I might end it here. I go to sleep earlier. And yesterday it helped.
I cannot give a reliable answer to the question of the title. I don't know studies I can only share some ideas about plausible theories on it.
What do you think?
Last edited:
Did you see my DM?
