Your trajectory is just so different depending on your first job and I think everyone is acutely aware but no one wants to talk about it.
Your trajectory is just so different depending on your first job and I think everyone is acutely aware but no one wants to talk about it.
From the article:
>“It suggests that something is seriously wrong in the lives of young people and that whatever went wrong seemed to happen around 2012, or 2013,” said study coauthor Jean Twenge. She noted that this was around the time smartphones became common and social media moved from being optional to mandatory among youngsters.
>The study wasn’t designed to determine the causes of the increases in mental health issues among college students, though the authors speculate about a variety of possibilities. Smartphone use, for example, has been associated with poorer sleep quality and fewer face-to-face interactions, both of which are deemed essential for mental health, the researchers write in the Journal of Adolescent Health.
I can't help but wonder if the effect of this would've been magnified if were younger, less prepared to deal with it, and just now entering college instead of being half a decade out of college.
Back in college I thought it was the grown up thing to do to read the news everyday. Fast forward ten years and I’ve finally realized how much frustration and misery the news (Twitter) was bringing into my life.
As of a week and a half ago, I’m now completely off of the news. I deleted the news app, blocked Twitter and FB from Safari, and avoid other news sites. The outcome has been remarkable! My wife continues to remark how much less irritable I’ve become and how much less stressed I seem. I use HN to stay current on industry news, but I can honestly say I don’t miss that other stuff.
To anyone reading this that is hooked on news consumption - try cutting it from your life! It is a life-changing experience.
Almost 10 years ago, I conducted an experiment. I watched an hour of CNN's every night but it was never that night's coverage. It was from exactly two weeks ago.
It was amazing how much "breaking news!" was irrelevant or just outright wrong, how many large trend predictions were wrong, and how many "[person] will do X" were wrong. While the predictions could have been portrayed as opinions, they were presented as facts and the obvious next steps or conclusions.
I realized pretty quickly that avoiding CNN kept out the blatantly wrong information so even if I didn't replace it with anything, I was net ahead.
A few years ago, I discovered this article and realized that some portion of it was probably on purpose:
https://aeon.co/essays/how-the-internet-flips-elections-and-...
That's because you were not getting news. You were getting social media. It amazes me that comments here don't distinguish between these. Facebook, twitter, google news, hackernews etc. are not news. They may all use or perhaps disseminate "news" but they are not sources of news.
Information is wrong, irrelevant, intentionally aggrevating, or all of the above. Sometimes more so, sometimes less, but very nearly always.
I'd started buring out on a noncommercial radio news habit by the late 2010s. Yes, that corresponded with an increased use of social media -- mostly Google+ and Reddit, and not Facebook or Twitter. My social life was entirely offline, I've long had the view that the Internet is for acquiring and discussing information, but not personal details.
I began reading more books and articles. And finding that what was revealed through those was that much of what is encountered through news, journalism, and broadcast ... just misses massive amounts of relevant information. You spend so much time caught up in the malinformed focus on the present that you lose any sense of connection with earlier periods and thought, much of which informs the now.
And the notion isn't new, it's an age-old criticism of the press. Neil Postman wrote of this in Amusing Ourselves to Death (1987) (https://www.worldcat.org/title/amusing-ourselves-to-death/oc...). I.F. Stone and George Seldes both made a life's work of this, from the 1920s through the 1980s. There's an excellent Stone interview online: https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=qV3gO3zxQ1g
And a trailer for "Tell the Truth and Run", about George Seldes: https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=xBJ7hDVvAI0
The book Commercialism and Journalism details the problem. In 1909. It's one of those great "things really haven't changed all that much" insights: https://archive.org/details/commercialismjou00holt
There are exceptions; there always are. But they are the exception, and the bulk of news really isn't worth bothering about. The stuff that is worth bothering about ... generally doesn't make the news.
It's hard to miss the larger stories -- they intrude into discussions and conversations. If that story is something I perceive as not useful to know or engage with I'll state as much. This includes most crime and political stories, to the extent those focus on crisis de jour, immediate and personal impacts, horse race, or some orange running its mouth off.
I'm more interested in deeper undercurrents. My guiding question over the past seven or eight years has been "what are the Big Problems". And information that doesn't address this isn't particularly interesting.
Specific major stories are. I've been following hurricane Dorian, for example, though my entry point to that wasn't news, but the https://earth.nullschool.org weather visualiser, which shows interesting phenomena. And Dorian showed up initially as a minor swirl just off the coast of Venezuela, then developed rapidly. Then it started turning up in news mentions.
I occasionally catch On the Media's weekly deep-dive into major stories of the week, or longer. That's about the right frequency for me to catch up on news, and it's no longer every week.
Mostly I'm looking at larger themes and patterns that repeat through history. Models, frames, context. Philosophy, history, systems theory, cybernetics.
Focusing exclusively on the new and now takes away from that.
The partisan politics, the faux outrage, the hyped up drama, it’s what drives clicks and ad $ and it’s awful for our mental health.
I don't care that I'm out of the loop on a lot of the national soap opera. The loop is pretty dumb usually and not worth wasting much time on. I loooove reading about local transit projects, housing development, and other local matters on the other hand. That stuff I actually use in my life.
I also only use RSS for content, which really saves me time.
I think a lot of people could stand taking a step back from the national drama and studying local issues more closely.
Nobody has the emotional capacity to handle the anger of every cause from every person they’ve ever met. I saw one meme come through claiming that choosing to stay out of politics was a sign of “privilege” but immediately realized that it’s the exact opposite. Until this new world we lived in happened, every person I’ve ever met didn’t have the ability to broadcast their politics to me unless I saw them in person...and we chose to talk about it one on one like civilized adults.
Following these story lines inspires a lot more hope and respect for my community than any national headline that probably won't affect my life at all.
There's people dying in Yemen from a war that the US is supporting. There are serious debates occurring about the future of the economy which will have massive repercussions. Climate change poses a threat to the stability of civilization. We're coming to a crossroads with government surveillance issues.
It is deeply annoying when I see that people just tune out. You don't need to obsess over the latest 24 hour news cycle, but it's important not to be a personal isolationist for the good of society.
Your money can do a lot more - see the NRA.
I remember a generation that grew up with nightmares of nuclear war, Three Mile Island and child kidnappings. Lot of good all that did.
The US has been screwing the Yemen’s of the world for over a century, and the best the todays alt-left can do is tweet about it and watch Chomsky - if they tune RT in.
As this study shows, this is just another generation where the world is all black and white and the news reflects that - in a 280 characters.
I’d suggest what I did - watch/listen/read foreign media for your world and domestic news if you’re really interested. At least you know the bias. Anyone getting their news from US sources is the real definition of an isolationist.
- That assumes the situation is presented without an agenda or - at minimum - a disclosed agenda.
- That the coverage is an accurate - and preferably complete - summary of the situation.
- And that it's clear which details are facts vs assumptions vs conjecture vs conclusions vs whatever.
Unfortunately, we have few of those things at best. There are many ways to be informed, the current media is not a good, useful, or productive way to do that on just about any topic.
People don't read the news to be informed (otherwise they wouldn't tolerate the ridiculously low journalistic standards of today). They consume news because it gives them stuff to talk about with other people. Whether or not the stories are true is irrelevant, as long as everyone hears the same stories. The psychological cost of these stories is, however, unaccounted for.
I think it's still a sign of being sheltered one needs to learn about bad things happening to them on the news.
People who are actually affected (as opposed to sheltered), e.g. latino immigrants under Trump, learn about bad shit in real life and/or have relationships with their community where such things are communicated much faster than they hit the media.
Even if someone in the community stop following all media, they will still learn whatever's important. It's the fully isolated and sheltered people who only learn about things from media coverage.
>There's people dying in Yemen from a war that the US is supporting. There are serious debates occurring about the future of the economy which will have massive repercussions. Climate change poses a threat to the stability of civilization. We're coming to a crossroads with government surveillance issues.
Those things are a 10,000 ft view of the news, and everybody that's even partially in society will know about them. You don't need to follow news and social media to know about them and do something about them.
In fact you can directly join an organization about each of them or a party that does what you think is best on all of those, and push it further to your ideas. You don't need to follow what passes as news for that.
In fact if you watch the mainstream news, you'll get a skewed view of all of those issues, with left and right either agreeing (e.g. in warmongering), or playing disagreement theater (e.g. in climate change, the right wants nothing do, the left wants "green new deal", that is to make money off of the climate, with nothing done. The something that needs to be done, of course, being beyond the pale to discuss: slowing down the economy, cutting down on consumption, and so on).
If someone's mental health is impaired by exposure to the news, a period of detox is necessary. Consuming more of it won't help them or the rest of the world while they're in that state, and indeed will likely do more harm by perpetuating the cycle.
A person in such a state would be far better off taking some time to improve their ability to discern between useful news and trash, and to become more able to use their knowledge of the news to inspire positive action.
I read local news from the local paper on local issues, because I'd rather be informed about what happens in my city than the gritty details of the constant horrors that I am personally powerless to affect on the other side of the world.
How do I stop Exxon? How do I stop Raytheon? I already vote straight D. But reading local news taught me about how some of my neighbors are actively helping people in crisis in one of the wealthiest cities on earth. It taught me about how my community leaders are combating climate change. It also taught me how I could get involved in driving local change.
Local news presents issues that I actually have agency to affect. There are pressing issues all over the world at once, so why not focus on the issues in your back yard?
[1] - https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/may/03/how-the-news-to...
---
A major problem with the news is that it thrives on the negative, and you will never run out of bad news. And so it creates a rather severely distorted representation of society. How safe, worldwide, do you think the Earth is today? Is it getting safer or less safe? By approximately how much...? Many people would be completely unable to answer these questions because they focus on nothing but the negative, and so never receive any sort of perspective on the positive.
For instance today we live in what is, by many orders of magnitude, the safest time in our species entire existence. And I mean this worldwide. We literally cannot conceive of how bad things were in the past. For instance during WW2 about 3% of the world was killed. Scaled to today's population that's about 231 million people. Since we suck at intuiting really big numbers let's put that in terms of 9/11s, as it was considered a practically unprecedented scale of destruction given our sweet luxuries of modern times. 2,996 people died there, including the 19 attackers. WW2 had the equivalent of a 9/11 scale event happen every single day for, literally, 211 years.
If your family each has a child, on average, when they're 30. Then your great great great great great grandchildren would all have grown up in a world where every single day of their lives - from birth to death, there was a 9/11 scale event happening. Now compress all of that death and suffering into 6 years!! This is why I'm completely serious that we cannot even conceive of how bad things were in the past. And that's just 3%. The reason I picked it was not it's magnitude, but it's relative recency. The Mongol Hordes wiped out as much as 10% of humanity using little more than arrows and swords, the black death killed about 20% of the world's population, and so on.
---
This doesn't mean you shouldn't care about or should not get involved with contemporary issues. But I do think it's important to put things in perspective. And nearly all issues that we find of critical importance today are, relative to anytime in our species' long past, not that important. It's like from today's perspective if we could look into the future and saw them arguing, vehemently and very seriously, about whether pine or oak should be the normal for city beautification efforts. That seems quite silly from our perspective, yet if you go back in the past nearly all of our issues would seem similar to them.
And I think always focusing on the negative is not good for peoples' mental health. Not just psychological but also their intellectual health. In times past people would get bored and find creative ways to fill that time. In modern times now if you're bored you can click on any news site and there will be numerous new negative article you can obsess about. And your view of the world suggests that not only can you do this, but you should do this as a civic responsibility. Just look at the NYTimes right now. On their front page:
- That Beloved Hospital? It's driving Up Health Care Costs
- My Parents Broke The Rules of the Church Out Of Love
- No One Threatens the Environment Like Donald Trump
- No, Your Kid Shouldn't Get a Gold Star for Reading
- Dogs Will Fix Our Broken Democracy
You'd think this was some cherry picked selection over an extended period of time. No, those are all literally on the front page of the NYTimes at the exact moment of this post. And it seems every single one of those articles was written within the past 24 hours. Nonstop 24/7 negative news on demand. That's what news has become. And I would say that doing without that nonsense is not only not irresponsible, but far healthier both individually and socially.
It is frustrating to see these issues blamed on "smartphones" at large and not particular usages (Instagram, Tinder, Twitter stand out). I suspect if everyone used their smartphones to read e-books, lookup recipes, text their friends and family, or even just play video games there wouldn't be such a problem.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/201183/forecast-of-smart...
I'm certain such arguments were probably made at the advent of radio, television, and other mass media. 'But this time its different!' No, really. The big difference now is that, even as an adult, I could browse YouTube for hours without ever getting bored. Television, radio, and all previous forms of entertainment were all much more limited in their dynamics and content, even with a gazillion channels, meaning boredom was inevitable and often sooner rather than later.
Alongside what's mentioned from this article, there is also now evidence of decreasing IQ in developed nations. And yes, that is after controlling for immigration and other obvious potential confounding factors. [1] This started in the mid 90s, just about the time the internet explosion started making boredom quickly become a thing of the past. What we're seeing in modern times: decreasing IQ, decreasing testosterone, decreasing fertility, increasing obesity, increasing depression, increasing anxiety. It's hard not to see a connection between these and the end of boredom.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#Possible_end_of_p...
I think it's also nice to have your words weighed against themselves rather than against your reputation. When well regarded people are inclined to agree with you because of that, rather than the quality of your words. When a pariah, vice versa. It's also interesting to give misleading hints to ones identity and see how, if at all, that affects response. For instance this account is named rjf72. I expect nearly everybody that noticed that would then assume my first initials are RJF and my birthday is 1972. It's actually just a neutral reference to Robert James Fischer 1972 - the year Bobby Fischer defeated Boris Spassky to become world champ. Granted I suppose that outs me as enjoying the great game, though. That part is true.
Want to be safe? Sit quietly and say only socially approved things.
Statements like these reveal so much implicit values/philosophy.
Viewing life - success, output, fulfillment etc - through lenses like this is the issue IMO.
That is certainly where my financial anxieties lie.
You need to be making way above average in at least 50% of the country to afford those things (yes, many people that can't afford those things still do them, but it will bite them in the ass later).
People like stability. People, on average, have less stability these days.
It's super great for exploitation though. Start companies people! Probably no better time, at least outside the tech industry, workers are cheap.
I wonder whether it's just the price of progress, of increasing complexity in human organization? As heartbreaking as it is, could it be any different?
Not if all those 401(k), IRA, and defined benefit pension funds want fat ROIs.
There is something quite humorous about people working hard to earn money to invest, and then those same investments causing them to work even harder to meet their ROIs.
I would not have guessed this, given the size of the average person's 401(k). My guess was much smaller. Not sure if I'm worried or relieved to be wrong about that.
Well...now you have to work harder to make those 8% returns come true. And the savers get screwed too because people (aka government) will opt to pump up the value of equities to make sure the 8% nominal return comes true at the expense of sacrificing the value of the currency.
Having met people on streets, I can tell you not everyone thinks like this. It's mostly the audience of this site who are high achievers and focused individuals, they need some way to gauge meaningfulness of their lives and this is how they chose to do it.
I've one friend who only plants trees and another friend who is always creating RC vehicles and uploading videos of his experiments on YouTube. They are happy.
Getting a job as a barista isn't tough in this economy, but if you have a law degree from a school that isn't from the top 40 your odds of doing any law work are getting much slimmer; I've met several such people stuck in low paying jobs.
In my father's day a cashier could buy a home in a nice neighborhood (like the bay area) and live comfortably; in large portions of the country that same position now pays poverty wages and homelessness is a constant threat. Life's pretty miserable if you're constantly worried about having a roof over your head or enough food to eat.
> if you have a law degree from a school that isn't from the top 40 your odds of doing any law work are getting much slimmer.
You need to back up this claim. I don't doubt that that you have met people stuck in low paying jobs. But if you're trying to claim that it'd been getting harder to find well paying jobs while the unemployment rate has hit record lows, you're going to need to back up this claim. I was in college during the recession, and my older classmates that graduated in the early 2010s had a much tougher time than I (graduated mid 2010s) did finding a job.
The observation that this pattern of depression and anxiety has risen at the same time that the economy has improved significantly is a strong indicator that the ability to get a job is not the culprit here.
Saying "I just want to live in a nice neighborhood (like the Bay Area)", is like saying "I just want to drive a decent car (like a Lamborghini)."
The Bay Area is absolutely nothing like the vast majority of America, and should be the absolute last place you'd look if your goal is to live a low-stress middle-class life.
The reality is that the median home in America costs $125 per square foot. I don't know how old your father is, but let's say 1973 as the benchmark. The median home then was 1500 square feet. An equivalent home would cost $187 thousand in today's market.
I don't know about cashier, but the average electrician makes $55,000 per year. More than enough to easily afford the $1000/month mortgage needed for the 1973 home your father bought.
Right now there's a desperate shortage of electricians and anyone with a high school diploma and a work ethic can easily move into that career. Nor are we talking about homes in burned out cities or isolated rural communities. Just check listings for Omaha, NE for example. Omaha has one of the strongest job markets in the US, with the third lowest unemployment rate in the country. Plenty of homes at that price with that size can be found in the center of the Omaha metro.
The typical HN audience is massively distorted when it comes to this. By and large the average HN reader lives in one of America's ultra-high-priced metros like the Bay Area, NYC or DC. The average HN reader isn't anything even remotely approaching a middle-class American life.
They're competing in cut-throat winner-take-all games to obtain ultra-prestigious positions at elite startups, FAANGs or Wall Street firms. I'd strongly suspect that the average HN reader making $100k a year "feels" poor, even though that's the top quartile of Americans. (And much higher than that adjusted for the average age of HN.) My guess is that many HNers making $500k+ a year still don't even "feel rich", despite being in the top 1% of Americans.
The point is that the perception of economic conditions found on HN probably tells us about as much about everyday Americans, as the court of Versaille would tell us about the lives of 18th century French peasants.
[1] https://www.realtor.com/advice/buy/average-price-per-square-... [2] http://www.aei.org/publication/new-us-homes-today-are-1000-s... [3] https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/electrician
Under-employment is closer, but still fails to account those that have given up hope entirely or who haven't been employed before (but should be working).
The claim that it's harder to get a job out of university today than it was a decade ago is very dubious.
Even at the best schools (especially at the best?) it is a lot about family/friend relationships, corruption (ymmv by field).
That's an interesting point as opposed to the over-observed fragility of modern college students.
There's probably something to be learned from the different school and employment bottlenecks in Japan.
University education in Japan is almost entirely a signaling exercise, and passing the entry exams for prestigious universities is mainly proof that one is willing to work extremely hard to fulfill social expectations.
Oh, and Japan also has a bit of a college affordability problem too.
Overall the Japanese system is not something to emulate.
It harkens back to the old Chinese system of civil service examinations (copied somewhat in Korea at least), which were extremely intense and basically the gateway to your future prospects
Certainly not in STEM. But other college graduates aren't faring that much worse either. So if competition is a stress factor in this, then it can't be explained by market forces.
Is it? I would guess that it's much, much easier than 50 years ago or 100 years ago (it's still hard, obviously). It's open to a much wider range of persons. Denying this is intellectually dishonest.