Study: College students more narcissistic

Jeanwah

PJ_Saluki wrote:

I just think it's funny to hear people talk about "these kids nowadays" as if we were all that much different in the eyes of generations older than us. The Flower Children of the 60s became the "Me Generation" of the 70s. Then we had the Yuppies of the 80s to Gen X-ers to Gen Y-ers. The stuff of this article is just an excuse to start laying blame on someone else for how the world will be in 20 years.

Former generations had parents that were much more strict and respect-oriented than parents nowadays. I grew up in an era where adults were always respected, there were more consequences for our actions, teachers were feared, and you were an adult and moved out of the house at around 18 years old. This generation, with kids living with their parents into their 20s and don't necessarily work to support themselves proves that it's different now.

OutOfBreath

soulsinging wrote:

well, there's a whole host of problems there. the parents are narcissistic too... divorcing as soon as they find a hotter piece of ass elsewhere, caring less for their families than for getting promoted at work, etc. they learn as much from the examples their parents set as by being bought off... these kids aren't taught the world revolves around them, they're being paid off to stop making demands on their parents' precious time and fun.

Not to let all the air out of this one, but interpreting divorce statistics as "anyone leaving for some hotter piece of ass" is frankly misleading. We expect more of our relationships and our lives, and we are freed of the massive social pressure to stay together no matter how bad it gets. But the marriage rates should show that we WANT to commit and have the good married life, we even marry several times to try and nail it. For there to be divorce, there must be marriage in the first place. Why marry if we're all hedonistic narcissists?

As for people caring more for career than family, you'd be amazed how few really thinks that. All the studies I have seen points at just about anyone puts friends and family over a bigger pay-check. Maybe not the most ambitious ones, but a large majority. When asked what they would like they all say "more time with the family".

What this seems to be about is what is called the individualization of society. It is the flipside of the increased personal freedoms we now enjoy. Also, we are bombarded with the idea that we have to be individuals, and the whole economy now caters to the single materialistic person. On the bright side, we have much more tolerance, a lot less repressive social controls and the opportunity to make the most for ourselves.

What goes on is a change on a societal scale. Alot of the collectivism, solidarity and community aspects are eroding, or merely changing. It has been/is a change, with good and bad sides. And the wailers are a dime a dozen on this.

As for me, I think we can start re-emphasizing the collectivistic sides of society to weigh against the irresponsible individualism. (I am a socialist after all) But that our children is fucked, and can't do anything and so on, I think that's mere grouching. Our kids are built for the society we have made for them. They have no experience of what was before, and know only this. This is how social systems evolve and develop over time.

It is possible not to be a complete pessimist about this. Btw the piece at the start didn't give so much information about the survey as it was portraying people writing books about evrything going to hell being worried about things going to hell. With some apparent backing in a survey.

Peace
Dan

dkst0426

Why are we surprised? The past 2 decades worth of children have been coddled all through childhood, and it's still happening.

soulsinging

OutOfBreath wrote:

As for people caring more for career than family, you'd be amazed how few really thinks that. All the studies I have seen points at just about anyone puts friends and family over a bigger pay-check. Maybe not the most ambitious ones, but a large majority. When asked what they would like they all say "more time with the family".

then why don't they have that? they could get it, but choose not to. and of course people are going to put friends and family over more, cos most people dont like their jobs or feel social pressure not to seem cold-hearted. yet the fact remains, these same people undoubtedly work overtime with or without pay in the vain hope of promotion, will take on added responsibilities, etc etc. they will bend over backwards for their bosses out of fear of losing the job or being passed over for promotion, but will not bend over backwards to spend time with their families. by the time they get out of work, they're so burned out they cannot spend quality time with the kids and just want to be left alone to recover.

this might not make sense to you becos ive no doubt norway has stricter worker regulations. but the stats dont lie... here in america people spend more time working than ever before, less time with family than ever before, and they are also more miserable and depressed and unhappy than they ever have been before. maybe it's not all their fault, to a large extent, they've become pawns desperate to please bosses lest they get fired. but the bottom line is most are not willing to take a pay cut to transition into a lower stress field becos they want a certain standard of living.

im convinced many people only marry out of habit or family pressure. and remarry becos they feel they have to or becos they fear being lonely once they retire. to an extent higher divorce is a good sign that people no longer stay in unhappy unions out of obligation, but i think the fact that it is up to over 50% now shows that it simply means people go into marriage wanting to believe it will work but not being sure and figuring there's always a way out if needed. i think more troubling is infidelity rates. it shows that people simply aren't willing to be committed to their families. whatever your theories about marriage, statistics show kids are most stable when raised by 2 parents who complement each other (support and discipline). the fact that people are all too happy to fuck around outside of marriage and jeopardize the marriage shows that their own sexual desires take precedence over what's best for their kids. it's why im having serious doubt about my own desire to marry and start a family... im not sure im cut out for it.

VictoryGin

Jeanwah wrote:

And part of the problem is their parents. How do you expect your kids to be responsible and decent adults when they're raised being convinced that the world revolves around them?

Have you read this ?

http://nymag.com/news/features/27840/index.html?imw=Y

Truthmonger

soulsinging wrote:

you brought up gender when you said the problem was "feminizing" our kids.

Sorry, you got the wrong guy.

VictoryGin

soulsinging wrote:

then why don't they have that? they could get it, but choose not to. and of course people are going to put friends and family over more, cos most people dont like their jobs or feel social pressure not to seem cold-hearted. yet the fact remains, these same people undoubtedly work overtime with or without pay in the vain hope of promotion, will take on added responsibilities, etc etc. they will bend over backwards for their bosses out of fear of losing the job or being passed over for promotion, but will not bend over backwards to spend time with their families. by the time they get out of work, they're so burned out they cannot spend quality time with the kids and just want to be left alone to recover.

this might not make sense to you becos ive no doubt norway has stricter worker regulations. but the stats dont lie... here in america people spend more time working than ever before, less time with family than ever before, and they are also more miserable and depressed and unhappy than they ever have been before. maybe it's not all their fault, to a large extent, they've become pawns desperate to please bosses lest they get fired. but the bottom line is most are not willing to take a pay cut to transition into a lower stress field becos they want a certain standard of living.

Have you read The Two Income Trap? Or Obama's Audacity of Hope? He cites from that book in his chapter on family. Over the last 30 years the average earnings for American men have grown less than 1 percent when adjusted for inflation. The cost of everything else has steadily risen. Mom's paycheck keeps people in the middle class--not rising to the upper class and buying luxury items. With all of the added costs of education, safe neighborhoods, etc., the average 2 income home has less discrectionary income and is less financially secure than their single counterpart 30 years ago.

It's not about promotions and luxury items for the average family--it's about paying for education and living in a safe neighborhood and staying middle class.

soulsinging

VictoryGin wrote:

Have you read The Two Income Trap? Or Obama's Audacity of Hope? He cites from that book in his chapter on family. Over the last 30 years the average earnings for American men have grown less than 1 percent when adjusted for inflation. The cost of everything else has steadily risen. Mom's paycheck keeps people in the middle class--not rising to the upper class and buying luxury items. With all of the added costs of education, safe neighborhoods, etc., the average 2 income home has less discrectionary income and is less financially secure than their single counterpart 30 years ago.

It's not about promotions and luxury items for the average family--it's about paying for education and living in a safe neighborhood and staying middle class.

safe neighborhoods, good schools, and middle class is still a standard of living

VictoryGin

soulsinging wrote:

safe neighborhoods, good schools, and middle class is still a standard of living

yeah--but a standard of maintaining. a standard of living right above poverty. you may not have meant it this way, but when i read your post i got the feeling that people are working overtime in order just to advance their careers, and i read 'standard of living' in more of a higher standard kind of way, like buying luxury sedans and ipods and sevens. but that's not the case, and like i said you may have not meant that, but we have a serious problem in this nation regarding the balance of work and family. and most people want to spend time with family and friends, but can't because they'll be sent to less safe neighborhoods where usually the schools are quite subpar. and surely they want to eat regular meals.

JOEJOEJOE

In my opinion, rich kids are realizing at an earlier age that they have certain advantages, and as a result, they expect everything to be in their favor all of the time. Of course, the wealthy have advantages, but there is such thing as humility!

I live in Beverly Hills, and it amazes me how many 16 year olds are driving around in BMWs. Back in my day, our first cars were junky, but it taught us to work hard to get something better down the line. It's great that parents can afford nice cars for the kids, but it seems to deter the kids from building character, etc.

Its like being on a date where you know there will be sex at the end...you may not act different then if you felt the need to woo the other person!

I also think that reality shows have made "instant celebrities" out of people, and as a result, more people want to take the fast track to success in life, even if they didn't work for it.

It all comes down to substance & form.......people are more concerned about the form of something, compared to the actual substance!

VictoryGin

soulsinging wrote:

safe neighborhoods, good schools, and middle class is still a standard of living

here's some great info i just found about the two income trap:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2004/11/10_400.html?welcome=true

soulsinging

VictoryGin wrote:

yeah--but a standard of maintaining. a standard of living right above poverty. you may not have meant it this way, but when i read your post i got the feeling that people are working overtime in order just to advance their careers, and i read 'standard of living' in more of a higher standard kind of way, like buying luxury sedans and ipods and sevens. but that's not the case, and like i said you may have not meant that, but we have a serious problem in this nation regarding the balance of work and family. and most people want to spend time with family and friends, but can't because they'll be sent to less safe neighborhoods where usually the schools are quite subpar. and surely they want to eat regular meals.

i think both are at work. a lot of those families ARE buying the designer clothes and ipods for their kids, whereas they could work less, do without those, and still have the nice neighborhood and regular meals if they did without the spoiling of the kids and the lexus instead of the vw. the kids arent making it easier... they're telling the parents that's what they want. but at some point, the parents ahve to be parents, not benefators.

VictoryGin

soulsinging wrote:

i think both are at work. a lot of those families ARE buying the designer clothes and ipods for their kids, whereas they could work less, do without those, and still have the nice neighborhood and regular meals if they did without the spoiling of the kids and the lexus instead of the vw. the kids arent making it easier... they're telling the parents that's what they want. but at some point, the parents ahve to be parents, not benefators.

but the point is those in the middle class aren't buying those things. they're not spoiling the kids. their money is going to housing, education, and health care. and by ignoring those issues--the root of the problem--it's just going to get worse.

soulsinging

VictoryGin wrote:

here's some great info i just found about the two income trap:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2004/11/10_400.html?welcome=true

im sorry but a woollen suit and leather shoes for sunday school pales in comparison to what our kids are spending today on ipods, computers, extra tv's in the room, concert tickets, third cars, the extra insurance... im sorry but no way. i dont doubt people have less discretionary income than ever, but i also dont doubt we're buying way more for our kids than ever before or than is necessary. these people living in the suburbs for better schools, yeah housing and education and whatnot costs more than ever, but these kids are also getting a ton of perks as listed above. furthermore some of the schooling includes things like testing classes to add act points, private tutors, resume builders, etc. i think both things are happening.

OutOfBreath

soulsinging wrote:

then why don't they have that? they could get it, but choose not to. and of course people are going to put friends and family over more, cos most people dont like their jobs or feel social pressure not to seem cold-hearted. yet the fact remains, these same people undoubtedly work overtime with or without pay in the vain hope of promotion, will take on added responsibilities, etc etc. they will bend over backwards for their bosses out of fear of losing the job or being passed over for promotion, but will not bend over backwards to spend time with their families. by the time they get out of work, they're so burned out they cannot spend quality time with the kids and just want to be left alone to recover.

I dont know what stats you are referring to, but I take your word for that. But the question is who is working more? I know the US has a considerable low-wage low-skill economy where people have to have several jobs to avoid poverty. Seeing as these are quite numerous, an increase in their activity would certainly show the average jump considerably. Then it's not coz they are career-grubbing materialists, but to provide for their family, they have to work as much as that. And about people taking on a lot, it's too cheap to blame that on career-grubbing as well. People generally want to help out and be of use. That is good for their self-image, and may get them favours back in the long term. Also probably good for the career, but that doesnt have to be the motivation.

I'm not saying that there aren't people like you portray. I just question if the entire reason behind this is mere selfishness.

this might not make sense to you becos ive no doubt norway has stricter worker regulations. but the stats dont lie... here in america people spend more time working than ever before, less time with family than ever before, and they are also more miserable and depressed and unhappy than they ever have been before. maybe it's not all their fault, to a large extent, they've become pawns desperate to please bosses lest they get fired. but the bottom line is most are not willing to take a pay cut to transition into a lower stress field becos they want a certain standard of living.

We may have a bit stricter at that. And the tendency is that there really arent low-stress jobs anymore. And money is important for providing for one's family, and people have an idea of the standard of living they want and feel they need. It's complicated, but I feel it's way too easy blaming it on people's selfishness. Also consider that if one is going to try to make a happy family, one must be happy oneself. That may entail a certain standard of living, and a certain level of self-realization.

im convinced many people only marry out of habit or family pressure. and remarry becos they feel they have to or becos they fear being lonely once they retire. to an extent higher divorce is a good sign that people no longer stay in unhappy unions out of obligation, but i think the fact that it is up to over 50% now shows that it simply means people go into marriage wanting to believe it will work but not being sure and figuring there's always a way out if needed. i think more troubling is infidelity rates. it shows that people simply aren't willing to be committed to their families. whatever your theories about marriage, statistics show kids are most stable when raised by 2 parents who complement each other (support and discipline). the fact that people are all too happy to fuck around outside of marriage and jeopardize the marriage shows that their own sexual desires take precedence over what's best for their kids. it's why im having serious doubt about my own desire to marry and start a family... im not sure im cut out for it.

Wont argue the habit aspect of it. But it does show that people want and try to have that married, meaningful life. An even easier way would be not to marry at all, which is on the rise as well. People want to commit, and that discredits the thesis of hedonism/narcissism.

As for kids, kids have it best in a harmious home where their needs arer taken care of, and they have loving family around them. That can be found in good hetero marriages, sure. Not exclusive to it. A lot of research, particularly american, put way too much stock in that detail I think. Kids need to be taken care of and loved. Whether it's mom and dad, grandma and grandpa, mom and grandma doesnt really matter. And on the other hand, the infidelity statistic also shows the value many has on marriage as they stay married even if they have afairs or whatnot. Again I think it's too easy and distorting slapping that kind of label on people in general. And do you have a link to those statistics?

Society is more geared towards the individual for better and worse. But we remain tied to our old way of doing things socially, and we still yearn for community and finding our place. But remember the positives while going over the negatives of this development.

Peace
Dan

chopitdown

soulsinging wrote:

im sorry but a woollen suit and leather shoes for sunday school pales in comparison to what our kids are spending today on ipods, computers, extra tv's in the room, concert tickets, third cars, the extra insurance... im sorry but no way. i dont doubt people have less discretionary income than ever, but i also dont doubt we're buying way more for our kids than ever before or than is necessary. these people living in the suburbs for better schools, yeah housing and education and whatnot costs more than ever, but these kids are also getting a ton of perks as listed above. furthermore some of the schooling includes things like testing classes to add act points, private tutors, resume builders, etc. i think both things are happening.

there's a decent book called "rich dad, poor dad" and one of the ideas the author talks about is that in society we're all trying to look like we have more than we do. The main difference b/t the rich and the middle is that the middle class spends money on things to look like they have more where as the more well off spend money on things that can earn them money. Take a tv for instance. The middle class wants to look like they have more so they buy the plasma tv for 3k, b/c they INSTANTLY look like they have more. Those who are smarter will take the time to invest that 3K in something that will pay a dividend of 3k over time. So in essence they are making their money work for them to purchase things rather than working for their money to buy things.
Society is so concerned about the appearance of having plenty that we choose not to save as much and we're so afraid to look like we don't have as much as the "jones's" that we'll do anything short term to not look inadequate...move to a house we can't afford, buy ourselves / our kids things they really don't need...just so we can look good to others.

OutOfBreath

chopitdown wrote:

there's a decent book called "rich dad, poor dad" and one of the ideas the author talks about is that in society we're all trying to look like we have more than we do. The main difference b/t the rich and the middle is that the middle class spends money on things to look like they have more where as the more well off spend money on things that can earn them money. Take a tv for instance. The middle class wants to look like they have more so they buy the plasma tv for 3k, b/c they INSTANTLY look like they have more. Those who are smarter will take the time to invest that 3K in something that will pay a dividend of 3k over time. So in essence they are making their money work for them to purchase things rather than working for their money to buy things.
Society is so concerned about the appearance of having plenty that we choose not to save as much and we're so afraid to look like we don't have as much as the "jones's" that we'll do anything short term to not look inadequate...move to a house we can't afford, buy ourselves / our kids things they really don't need...just so we can look good to others.

Do they necessarily prioritize different? The rich guy probably has the money for the 3k plasma tv, AND to invest a whole bunch afterwards. But material status symbols are a driving force and has always been. "Conspicous consumption" is what it's all about.

Peace
Dan

inmytree

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

So a majority of children in America are silver spooners? That's what the numbers would suggest looking at it that way.

a duh, what....?

Jeanwah

chopitdown wrote:

Society is so concerned about the appearance of having plenty that we choose not to save as much and we're so afraid to look like we don't have as much as the "jones's" that we'll do anything short term to not look inadequate...move to a house we can't afford, buy ourselves / our kids things they really don't need...just so we can look good to others.

Sure, society is all about "having more things!" After all, that's one of the staples now of living in America, materialism. But, we've got to look past that, and have more respect for ourselves so we don't succumb to that "keeping up with the Jone's" mentality. I'm sure the materialism is a contributing factor in the ME generation, combined w/ adults' need for more "things", so it just goes back to the parents bringing the kids up right, and to look past the materialism. I have a sign in my kitchen with one of my favorite quotes..."The best things in life are not Things". Things don't make people happy...although many think it does. It just contributes to a shallow society, not to mention many living in serious debt.

macgyver06

what is the ME generation??????

this thread and these posts are making me sick.