“What happened? “We don’t actually know what the causes are at this point,” Dr. Konrath said. But the authors speculate a millennial mixture of video games, social media, reality TV and hyper-competition have left young people self-involved, shallow and unfettered in their individualism and ambition.”
I was reading this article and found that quote particularly disturbing and contradictory. Here’s why:
The claim that college kids are increasingly lazy (hence the references to video game playing, social media, and reality tv) is contradictory with the claim that they have unfettered ambition (which means they aren’t lazy).
More importantly, the NYT seeks to tag the unempathetic as individualists (AKA libertarians). But this doesn’t make sense. The lazy, unempathetic college student who flunks out then expects “society” - a collective - to provide for said college kid is not an individualist. He/she is a collectivist. He/she wants a handout from others. That is unempathetic and collectivist.
Furthermore, the new college kids voted almost unanimously for Obama, a collectivist, largely because they liked his policies such as “government” paying for their medical care (giving them free stuff that was stolen from older people). In other words, they voted for a collectivist for non-empathic reasons (they didn’t empathize with the taxpayers getting stolen from, or those who wanted to have free choice in their medical decisions). Hence, the claim that college kids are increasingly individualistic is demonstrated to be false by looking at their typically ‘political left’/statist voting record.
So, the theory that college kids are increasingly individualistic and non-empathic is likely half true. They may well be losing empathy, but this would be a sign that are increasingly collectivist, wanting handouts to finance their lazy lifestyle. On the other hand. the individualist represents the highest of empathy - the person who wishes to produce for himself, not leech off others and deny them free choice.
What do you think? More anti-freedom bias at the NYT?
I would add that there is no philosophy more conducive to empathy than individualism. Seeing people as members of groups rather than as individuals allows one to rationalize horrible atrocities. All good war propaganda makes the other side out to be inhumane savages and brutes, little more than animals not worthy of respect (and certainly not worthy of empathy). It is collectivism, not individualism that destroys empathy. Granted, adhering to the non-aggression principle does not require that one be empathetic, but it is certainly easier to empathize with your fellow man when initiating force against him is automatically excluded as an option in every human interaction.
I should add that statism (a manifestation of collectivism) crushes empathy. The “the government will take care of it” mentality leads people to stand by and do nothing as an old man is mugged or young lady is raped. A faith in government welfare to provide for those incapable of providing for themselves leads to a general spirit of apathy.
Abolishing compulsory social insurance would logically lead to a tremendous increase in the number of empathetic and charitable acts people engage in.
The authors clearly don’t understand the term ‘individualism’. There are no degrees of individualism. You are either an individualist or you are not.
But that is hardly surprising.
I should add that statism (a manifestation of collectivism) crushes empathy. The “the government will take care of it” mentality leads people to stand by and do nothing as an old man is mugged or young lady is raped. A faith in government welfare to provide for those incapable of providing for themselves leads to a general spirit of apathy.
Yes, I was thinking about this, and will posit my own hypothesis that a decrease in ‘empathy’ (though, the method used by the researchers in the article is ridiculous. Could it possibly be that the survey takers interpret the questions differently than older survey takers? Why is a critical discussion of the method absent in the article?) may directly correlate to the rise in the social democratic state.
“What happened? “We don’t actually know what the causes are at this point,” Dr. Konrath said. But the authors speculate a millennial mixture of video games, social media, reality TV and hyper-competition have left young people self-involved, shallow and unfettered in their individualism and ambition.”
Them lazy kids with there video games! How dare they create there own youth culture!
Supposedly having a best friend isn’t good for the morale of students. “Every friend should be equal!!!” says the New York Times. There is no way I’m sending my kids to public school when I’m older. Now I understand why my parents used to be so picky as to which school I attended when I was younger.