Hacker News Reader

Comment by vinay427 | Hacker News Reader

While I would also be interested in more data about conformity (or otherwise) today, when I look at statistics like lower drug use, etc. I don't see conformism. I see better critical thinking skills and perhaps more developed prevention programs in schools. I'd also be interested in looking at the rate of these actions under the care of parents who engage in them on a regular basis, to really identify whether there is a difference between positive social choices and conformism.

View on HN

I see "pacified".

At a glance, it seems nice. Less hard drugs, less pregnancy.... But in the big picture, I'm not sure I want a generation full of wimps. It sounds like the beginning of enslavement to me.

Plus, what about soft drugs and prescription drugs? You can't tell me those numbers are down. Two other things that frequently lead to pacification!

>Less hard drugs, less pregnancy.... But in the big picture, I'm not sure I want a generation full of wimps. It sounds like the beginning of enslavement to me.

What? How does enslavement follow from lower rates of teen pregnancy? Perhaps it just mean higher usage rates of contraceptives, which is backed by evidence. It might also imply that young women are choosing to be more independent.

I worded the post poorly. I was saying that those things are great, but the overall thesis is one of pacified teens who are too fat, lazy, and unmotivated to go do interesting things.

For some, those interesting things are sex drugs and rock'n'roll, which you'll all agree are bad. For others, those interesting things translate to youth leadership, contact sports, and other things that make boys into men.

All I see when I am with American kids is a whole bunch of iGaming on iDevices and SnapChatting under the watchful eye of overprotective soccer moms who are doping them up with garbage food and SSRIs.

Good luck with all that in 20-40 years if China, Russia, or the Muslim world decide to make aggressive battle-tested men.

> For some, those interesting things are sex drugs and rock'n'roll, which you'll all agree are bad. For others, those interesting things translate to youth leadership, contact sports, and other things that make boys into men.

Sex, drugs and rock'n'roll are purely hedonistic. I don't know how you can see them helping build positive qualities.

I figure the next generation is always going to be different, whether it's more conservative or more liberal, or that they use weird apps on their iDevices. You have to make your peace with that.

Trying to paint everyone of a generation with the same brush is lazy just an excuse to be resentful.

Fortunately the gamers will make excellent drone pilots and the computer nerds will build interesting weapons systems.

I highly doubt WWIII is going to hinge on the personalities of the infantry, if it even has infantry.

Good luck with all that in 20-40 years if China, Russia, or the Muslim world decide to make aggressive battle-tested men.

Because we should be training our children for the impending apocalypse at all times?

I've argued for a long time that America is in a privileged position where we can literally see our own future: Japan

I haven't spent that much time around teenagers in about ten years. Those that I knew then were rarely fat or unmotivated. The kids I see on the bus, including those going to what suspect is a mediocre high school, appear reasonably fit.

The soccer moms may be big on medication, but I think that garbage food is for a different economic stratum.

Agreed. If anything, the poverty that comes with drugs and early pregnancy is closer to economic enslavement.

>I'm not sure I want a generation full of wimps.

If that's what you call wimps, yes, I want a generation full of wimps.

Agreed. I'm pretty sure you can have integrity, individuality, and leadership traits without a James Dean attitude.

So more drugs means less wimps which is better in your opinion? You think teens taking drugs is a positive?

I definitely missed a connective thought in that comment. I am not saying hard drugs are good. I am saying the movement to soft and prescription drugs is just another form of weakness.

To me, (and this will grab more downvotes), the alarming part of that data is the idea that "less fighting" is good. There are certain behaviors that I feel are good for teenagers. Teens not fighting = teens not being teens, for whatever reason that may be.

I don't see why teens not fighting would mean teens are "not being teens".

Also what do you mean by fighting?

I don't perceive 'teens' to be being particularly passive? (Though, for around 3 more months the term applies to me, so that might change my perspective.)

Seems like survivorship bias to me. Just because kids used to fight, and turned out OK doesn't mean that fighting was a necessary part of their success.

assuming by "soft drugs" you mean cannabis: rates of cannabis use have gone down in the UK.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...

Have you ever experienced someone close to you having a hard core drug addiction to heroin or meth or something similar?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com