|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Jan 11, 2017 7:58:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jan 11, 2017 14:10:14 GMT -5
I try to avoid buying too quickly into "snowflake generation" bromides, because I am aware that every generation thinks the next one is too coddled, too soft, too entitled, compared to their own bootstrap-pulling selves, etc.
But I think the last few generations, and the next few coming, really are different compared to the many generations before them. Technology and global civilization now changes more in one generation than it did in centuries previously. The problems really are different, and in some cases, bigger. For example, some of those problems, while perhaps remote, really do represent extinction-level events.
And at the same time, there is a part of me (maybe the part that wants to yell about kids on my lawn) that thinks this younger generation "so full of emotional problems" really is too coddled, too soft, too entitled.
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Jan 11, 2017 18:11:20 GMT -5
I question what the study intends to do and, more importantly, when to stop. The age group(s) aren't defined. If the idea is to offer support throughout school then the realization that support will end upon graduation must be addressed up front. Otherwise I foresee many young people going back cold turkey, which seems like just asking for trouble.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jan 12, 2017 2:39:23 GMT -5
Hmm. It's all kind of interesting to me because it's plausible to me that this is just reflective of how adolescents feel anyway but also plausible that it could be an outcome of the current snowflake culture. The research is kind of mixed on whether or not helicopter parenting is or is not a thing and whether it retards the emotional development and autonomy of their kids. But, from what I've read (it's related to my research area but only indirectly, so I'm not as well-versed on it), it seems to lean slightly to this being the direct result of current child-rearing practices and the victimhood culture of the far-left. If our youth are taught that everything inconsequential is really a form of violence or aggression (i.e., so-called microaggressions ) and that they should feel threatened by the innocuous, then it's reasonable to assume that this will create very emotionally immature, fragile children whose emotional responses will be overexaggerated every time they are "triggered." www.nytimes.com/2015/12/27/opinion/sunday/the-real-victims-of-victimhood.htmlI'm only being half-snarky here. I think it's potentially a legitimate issue. I would need to see the actual report to draw an informed conclusion. I also wonder if there's longitudinal data showing whether or not this is a significant increase or trend or if it isn't much different than past generations of kids. If 48% of kids are freaked out by life today, but so were 48% of kids 20 years ago and 20 years before that, then this would be a non-issue and just part of growing up. But, they don't link to the study or really provide any information on it in order for me to study it for myself. Boo.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Jan 12, 2017 6:03:35 GMT -5
Take any population. Force them into a specific regimen 6+ hours a day, sitting while listening to authority figures drone on about how the world works, rather than encouraging them to learn for themselves. Assume the entire population is homogenous, that they all learn the same way, and at the same rate of speed, and organize them by calendar age group, paying no attention whatsoever to the differing ways of learning and different rates of learning natural to a diverse population.
Call the ones who can't stand the tedium "developmentally challenged" and load them up with drugs so they'll shut up, sit down, and obey their betters.
Encourage groupthink while calling it "critical thinking" but smack down anybody mentally coloring outside the lines quickly, before their seditious ideas spread.
Remove any vestige of authority from those actually interacting with the population, and instead hand that authority to some centralized group of people who will never interact with the population they're authorized to control.
Implement "zero tolerance" policies so that no dissent from accepted behavior or speech will be tolerated, forcing the members of the population who feel any reason to dissent to swallow their discontent, lest they be judged dangerous somehow.
Give every person who kowtows appropriately a participation trophy, but make sure any recognized victors realize they owe their success to things outside their control, not to their own dedication and willingness to go the extra mile.
Make sure that every individual understands that there are two sets of rules, and two types of justice, one for the authorities and one for everyone else, and make sure they see those two sets of rules enforced every single day.
Make sure no one's opinions are challenged, however factually ignorant they might be. Facts are malleable, after all, and depend on the place and time of their interpretation to find the "real truth" behind the facts.
Allow anyone at any time to shut down serious discourse by claiming they've been "microaggressed" against, and make sure any "privileged" individuals recognize their position, and that their "opinions" are worthless by virtue of their privilege, even when those "opinions" would have been called "facts" a short time before.
Now tell me how ONLY half of that population is going to end up with emotional problems. I think that figure is way low.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jan 12, 2017 12:22:23 GMT -5
Take any population. Force them into a specific regimen 6+ hours a day I stopped right here because a few words in, I knew it would be another rant about why public schools are the root of all evil and wouldn't actually address the thread topic.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jan 12, 2017 21:48:00 GMT -5
Take any population. Force them into a specific regimen 6+ hours a day, sitting while listening to authority figures drone on about how the world works, rather than encouraging them to learn for themselves. Assume the entire population is homogenous, that they all learn the same way, and at the same rate of speed, and organize them by calendar age group, paying no attention whatsoever to the differing ways of learning and different rates of learning natural to a diverse population. I'm gonna push back on that just a bit. The entire population is not homogeneous, of course. However, the idea that most of us don't all learn the same way is fallacious and is a false narrative that really needs to stop being peddled. Our brains, in most cases, are all designed roughly the same and operate in roughly the same ways. Hell, the entire fields of medicine and behavioral sciences are based on the fact that humans tend to function and behave in roughly similar fashion. So, yeah, phenomena don't apply to 100% of the population - every man, woman, and child on earth - but they apply to most of us (a supermajority, in many cases). With the exception of the small minority of people who experience learning disabilities or related cognitive dysfunction, the cognitive mechanisms and processes by which our brains learn information are the same for everyone. Person A's brain does not perceive, encode, store, and retrieve information differently than Person B or Person C. The false idea that "everyone learns differently" is strongly rooted (if not completely based on) the bullshit myth of "Learning Styles Theory," has been completely debunked in the strongest of terms. In fact, the last study I read about it (from July issue of the journal of Teaching of Psychology), suggested that researchers time would be better served (i.e., not completely wasted) by focusing on studying pretty much anything else. The idea that it is advantageous for kids to be "encouraged to learn for themselves" has little evidentiary support. Montessori schools use this approach and there is little evidence to suggest that they are more effective than traditional classroom instruction. One reason may be because young children lack the physical brain development to have even a fundamental sense of impulse control and serious goal-directed behavior. At that age, structured instruction is actually better for them than letting them run free to "explore, discover, and learn" on their own. Also, there are already avenues for people to learn for themselves; they can take online classes. Unfortunately, students taking online classes tend to retain less information than in-class students, report that they feel the didn't learn much, and surveys show that they actually prefer in-class instruction to online instruction. So much for learning for themselves. On a related note, I have to roll my eyes every time I see someone like Bernie Sanders or some random Facebook vid claims that school systems in places like Sweden are so much better than the US because "reasons." It seems to be the hip new thing for ultra liberals to shit all over the US as if this country is some sort of backwoods garbage dump of Reconstruction-era stupidity and inequity. It's not a position that is rooted in rationality or reality and the claims that traditional, in-class education is "bad" are not rooted in evidence. So, while there are definitely issues with our sad state of public education, I think they're mostly due to political and ideological bullshit, and not because traditional instruction is innately ineffective or because kids are being brainwashed by some totalitarian regime. I'll partly agree that, while ADHD is a very real condition, it is often over-diagnosed by grossly underqualified people (like pediatricians) and used as an excuse to avoid actually having to find effective ways to engage students who might be more high strung than other students or simply bored. However, to insinuate that the school system is full of virtuous, plucky upstarts who are standing up to authority figures to fight back against moral and intellectual oppression, and the totalitarian schools are simply slapping labels on large numbers of students and pumping them full of drugs just to silence these little freedom fighters and make them more compliant is a ludicrous, fact-free assertion. Most of the time that a student is being disruptive, it's not because he/she possesses a keen mind and razor-sharp intellect that allows him/her to see right through the communist bullshit. As many classrooms as I've been in, both as a teacher and a researcher, I can tell you with confidence that it's actually because the kid is an asshole or actually does have dysfunctional issues which require treatment. I've also never encountered a time where groupthink was encouraged and masked as critical thinking. On the contrary, critical thinking isn't focused on nearly enough and, when positive initiatives like Common Core try to correct that, the political and ideological bullshit rears its ugly head to prevent critical thinking at all costs. The problem isn't that the government tries to ensure that students all think the same way. The problem is that, in many cases, the government acts in ways that prevent students from thinking at all.
|
|