Re: Re: The demise of guys?

[Guest guest]

helen_foisy wrote:

> Wow , Two good videos.

[ snip ]

>

> I enjoyed watching Philip Zimbardo's presentation. LOTS of " food for

> thought " there. I will be looking forward to seeing Bill's comments

> on this one. ASD's aren't mentioned but it makes you go " hmmmmm. "

[ snip ]

You called? To little avail, I'm afraid.

I was disappointed by Zimbardo - his " take " IMO was way too

simplistic. Maybe that's what happens with complex subjects when

squeezed into the limited time that TED provides. But also I think he

was more than a little off the mark.

Viravaidya's presentation (also cited by ) was only a little

longer(?) and *far* more informative (and more entertaining) under

similar restrictions.

>

>

[ snip ]

>> Philip Zimbardo: The demise of guys?

>> http://www.ted.com/talks/zimchallenge.html

[ snip ]

- Bill, ...AS, ...opinionated

--

WD " Bill " Loughman - Berkeley, California USA

http://home.earthlink.net/~wdloughman/wdl.htm

[Guest guest]

helen_foisy wrote:

> Hi Bill, Not a rebuttal, but would like you to expand a bit if you

> could. Anything you say is well worth considering.

Aw, Helen, you're sweet.

> Now, wasn't

> talking about ASDs and I suppose to some extent yes it was

> simplified, I'll assume this was a heavily edited video .. a lot of

> folks won't watch something that's longer than that because they

> don't have time. The video's title was to grab attention, and I

> thought the point of the whole video was to get folks thinking and

> talking and asking, are today's youth, young men in particular, more

> disconnected from their peers than in the past?

Agreed. As required, I *did* think about it. ...Came to a different

conclusion.

Not " more disconnected " , necessarily. *Differently* connected, often.

That can be an improvement for some; an occasion of discomfort for others.

>

> If the stats Zimbardo cited about hours spent online are even half

> true .. holy smokes.

Got *that* right -- no question.

But the simple raw numbers were cherry-picked, meant to imply

something alarming. The alarming implications *aren't all*, or always,

found in Real Life.

> There certainly was nothing like that back in

> our day. We had to do things like go out to movies, go bowling,

> swimming, skating, fly kites, play pick up games of baseball or broom

> ball, basketball, dodgeball (I think that one's been banned now) go

> to dances and we all walked and/or rode the bus across the city

> together.

All of that still would/could be available today, IF the economics of

running our cities (and schools, playgrounds, clubhouses, etc etc etc,

plus staff) were different. NB: I reference USA cities here.

[ snip ]

> But it seems

> to me, just my opinion, that feeling like part of a tribe, a

> community, is important and that's what is lacking for today's kids,

> so they seek these things online.

Yes - exactly so.

> Nor would I suggest video games and

> Facebook are *causing* social ills.

AH-hah! But they *are*. Without them (*all* the " social " apps and

facilities), any number of Bad Things would not have happened --

*couldn't* have happened.

> However, I do think that over

> reliance on them is a symptom of something that's missing in their

> lives that they need.

Yes. *Over* reliance: I see it in my own kids, and their kids...

[ snip ]

>

>> [ snip ]

>> You called? To little avail, I'm afraid. I was disappointed by

>> Zimbardo - his " take " IMO was way too simplistic. Maybe that's

>> what happens with complex subjects when squeezed into the limited

>> time that TED provides. But also I think he was more than a little

>> off the mark.

- Bill, ...AS

--

WD " Bill " Loughman - Berkeley, California USA

http://home.earthlink.net/~wdloughman/wdl.htm

[Guest guest]

> Now, wasn't talking about ASDs and I suppose to some extent yes it was

simplified, I'll assume this was a heavily edited video .. a lot of folks won't

watch something that's longer than that because they don't have time. The

video's title was to grab attention, and I thought the point of the whole video

was to get folks thinking and talking and asking, are today's youth, young men

in particular, more disconnected from their peers than in the past?

I agree, Helen. The video seemed to be an excerpt from a longer

lecture. I didn't like the title much, as it seemed to be an attention

grabber that doesn't really address the topic.

Yes, by the standards of a previous generation, young men probably have

more *opportunities* to be disconnected from their peers than in the

past. Whether those opportunities will become an addiction is another

matter though.

Lots of young people raised in the digital generation lead very balanced

lives and are developing life skills in many areas. For them, online

entertainment is just a part of their life, not a substitute for

relating in the real world. It's all about balance and parental

supervision.

> There certainly was nothing like that back in our day. We had to do things

like go out to movies, go bowling, swimming, skating, fly kites, play pick up

games of baseball or broom ball, basketball, dodgeball (I think that one's been

banned now) go to dances and we all walked and/or rode the bus across the city

together. It was safe to ride the bus back then! I've heard stories of

neighbour's kids being mugged and beaten on city busses and there seems to be

nothing anyone can do about it so everyone drives their kids now. So much for

exercise, so much for the environment. And yes, we girls skipped rope, sometimes

we got the boys to join us too, LOL. We would ride our bicycles in big groups of

15 - 20 kids, 20 miles into the hills to go to our favourite swimming hole. That

sounds so .. Norman Rockwellesque today. *wistful sighs*

I'm not so sure, Helen. Just because it's familiar and nostalgic

doesn't make it better. It seems that every generation has some version

of the old refrain, " Those kids today! " , followed by a long list of ways

in which the current generation has gone to the dogs. lol

Yes, there were a lot more *unstructured* opportunities to socialize and

be physically active while we were growing up. Our sources of

entertainment and extracurricular activities were far more limited, so

we had to play outside with whomever was available. In some ways, we

benefited... in others, not so much.

As a child, I would have loved to have access to many of the

extracurricular activities available to today's kids (e.g., a variety of

martial arts and dance), yet those things just weren't available outside

the major urban areas. And if there had been an internet while I was

growing up, I would have had access to all sorts of knowledge and

opportunities for connection with like minded people, instead of being

stuck with the kids in my neighborhood.

I also think the media has frightened parents to the extent where they

are now raising their kids in a bubble. Yet kids have been getting beat

up on city buses for decades... it's nothing new. Nor are child

molesters that prey on children. The horrors that befall kids are just

more visible now and in-your-face, thanks to a media that distorts risk

and sensationalizes everything for the sake of ratings.

> AS or NS I think there was more opportunity for kids to learn the social game,

learn about life, support each other more in the past than today.

I'm not convinced. I think the mechanisms are merely different. And

it's only natural for us to prefer the mechanisms with which we are most

familiar.

Yet those who are familiar with the norms of their own generation

probably prefer those mechanisms, as they just can't relate to our

experiences at all.

It's not a matter of which way is better... it's just a different life,

with a different set of challenges.

Best,

~CJ

[Guest guest]

> Not " more disconnected " , necessarily. *Differently* connected, often.

> That can be an improvement for some; an occasion of discomfort for

> others.

Well said, Bill.

> Without them (*all* the " social " apps and facilities), any number of

> Bad Things would not have happened -- *couldn't* have happened.

Nor would any of the Good Things made possible by all of the social apps

and facilities. I know that I have benefited greatly by the expanded

opportunity for connection that these resources allow.

Best,

~CJ

[Guest guest]

> CJ, If those activities were available when we were kids, we would have still

needed an adult to transport us (or some means to transport ourselves) and a

means to pay for it. Which would be well and good if you had parents that could

do that, but what if you did not? Then we would be even further behind the curve

than our peers, which is what happens now for those whose parents who can't

afford it, and/or single working parent on shift work, or are mentally ill or

otherwise unavailable to ferry their kids to these activities. The registration

fee even if " low " is still substantial for those on a fixed income, and then

everyone has to fund raise which often these distressed families are not in a

position to do. Those kids, AS or NS, are more socially deprived than they ever

were.

Socioeconomic level definitely plays a role in access to opportunities,

both then and now. This is a separate issue from the original

discussion though, IMO.

But since you raised the topic....

As a kid, the only access that I had to extracurricular activities were

those offered through school and my local parks department. They were

free to participants, or so low-cost (maybe a buck or two) that pretty

much anyone could participate. No child was turned away, as someone was

always willing to 'comp' them in. We didn't have the variety of

activities that are available to kids now, which is the point that I was

trying to make in my earlier post.

My childhood friends whose parents could afford private lessons of some

sort were similarly limited in their options. Their choices were mostly

music lessons, ballet, tap dancing, and a very rudimentary gymnastics

program called " acrobatics " . I remember accompanying my friends to

their dance classes on occasion, wishing so much that my mom could

afford lessons for me too.

Other than that, there was scouting and Little League (boys only). I

place these activities in a separate category because they aren't

exactly private lessons, yet they do require some financial investment

(e.g., uniforms, hobby supplies, travel expenses) that people on a

limited budget (like my family) could not afford.

> Yes there are some very over-protective helicopter parents, yes, we hear about

the bad things faster now, and yes, there have always been pedophiles and other

dangers, but the reality is, kids don't have the same protection from peers,

siblings, community etc. that they used to back in our day. They also don't get

to build connections and trust with older people in the community, neighbours,

and so on, as today's society is quite mobile. We are all strangers now.

Yes, the increased mobility of society does make 'traditional'

connections a lot harder to form, in the sense that each connection will

probably have a shorter shelf-life than what we experienced while

growing up.

As to the issue of protection, I'm not sure that the past was an

improvement over the present. I suspect the amount of protection was

largely dependent on individual circumstances, not the era.

I know that I certainly didn't have the sort of protections to which you

refer in the small town where I grew up. There were no bully awareness

programs in schools, few (if any) resources for children dealing with

sexual and/or substance abuse, and a whole lot of ignorance and taboos,

especially regarding the importance of speaking out and the long-term

effects of growing up with such stressors. Not that the present era is

a utopia, just that there is more awareness of these issues and more

access to supports.

>

> Well the kids I've talked with like their toys but have said they wish they

had the freedoms that we did when we were growing up. In some very large

metropolitan communities, you aren't allowed to play soccer in the parks unless

it's an organized activity (read: has insurance) they've ripped out all the

playground equipment because of lawsuits, there are so many " rules " to protect

people from their own stupidity that did not exist when we were kids. Some of

the things we did, while not illegal, could have been dangerous I suppose but

now kids don't learn until much later, when they are out drunk with their

friends and decide to try some of the dumb things we did when we were ten years

old, like, experiments with gravity like jumping out of a small tree or

something like that...

Now, this I can agree with, Helen. Certain freedoms that you and I took

for granted as kids have become severely restricted. It's definitely a

more litigious society.

>

> Well we shall have to agree to disagree then, but I do like having this

dialogue with you CJ, you make your points well.

>

Likewise, Helen. Actually, I suspect that we agree on more of this

stuff than not -- we're just coming at the problem from different

angles, that's all.

Best,

~CJ