Why Millenials Can't 'Grow Up'

Post Reply New Topic

There lot there, so for now, I am just going to address the "Life is unfair" question. Yes, sometimes life is fair, but due to my general pessimism I kind of look at it in a similar way as I would a broken clock being right twice a day. It is bound to happen sometimes, although not as predictably as the clock example. If I say the broken clock sometimes tells time, correctly, in a strict sense that would be true, but it is simpler to just say it does not tell time correctly.

To me, "Life is unfair," works the same way. Sometimes life metes out justice, but you cannot rely on it. You have to be prepared for the very real possibility that this will not happen. If it happens enough, you can take it as the default. Some people have differing views on this, based on religion or general outlook on life, but when I look at life historically and globally I would say that it is a fair point to say unfairness is the default.

Okay, let's use the clock example which is pretty good. It's like you're telling me to not change the batteries(if it is battery operated), not to fix the clock yourself, get it fixed or get it replaced at all. Why would one let the clock sit there? The reason I'm being told to let it sit there is because nothing can be done to fix it. We must accept the broken clock as is. Why?

Like this clock example, the real reason the real world is the real world is because of people's very acceptance. To me, the acceptance is not the effect. Acceptance is the cause. Our very acceptance of this "real world" makes the "real world" possible. People thought ancient Rome would last for ever? Where is it now? When it comes to human beings and their beliefs they're transitory, permeable and illusory.

This is one of those times that beliefs can affect, shape and keep in place certain realities which is really a social construct. These beliefs metaphorically take a life of their own and keep things the way it is. Our collective thoughts, beliefs and assumptions shape the essence of our social reality that we're living in.

Yes, it is this way. Things are the way they are. These are facts and are only as true as we allow them to be.

Why do they have to be this way? If the milk is spoiled why not throw away and replace the milk? If one has spilled the milk why not clean it up?

Interesting. I am an INFP, which is probably why I am much more comfortable with logical inconsistencies than you are.

From my perspective, you have an unusual cognitive style. On the one hand, you are exceedingly logical and want everything to be able to be logically quantified and put in it's proper "place." If something cannot be consistently logically "placed" in the same place each and every time it is evaluated, it causes you a notable deal of cognitive discomfort. On the other hand--and to me interestingly on an equal hand--you tend toward being philosophical. Often, from a philosophical standpoint, there are no absolutes and disparate states and beliefs exist simultaneously, and many people with a more philosophical cognitive style are quite comfortable with the ambiguity. Because of your equal need for logic, however, the ambiguity causes distress. I find from my experience that most people have a clear preference for one over the other, although most people have some degree of both "logical" and "philosophical" thought. I think your unusual equal mix causes many of the things you identify as being problematic. I view it as being much like the fact that I do not have a dominant brain hemisphere as measured by neuropsychological testing. It would seem that this would be advantageous in theory, but in reality it is not. The neuropsych I spoke with said that it is like my two hemispheres are constantly warring over who will be in control, rather than having a clear dominant which can be a strength. It leads to no "cooperation."

Not related to this conversation, you might find the work of Robert Cialdini interesting. He has done research on the supposed human trait of preference for consistent responding. In reality, not all people have this preference. It varies like many other human traits. I would predict you have a high preference for consistent responding. I have a low need. My undergrad research, though never officially published, found level of PFC (preference for consistent responding) to be predictive of human perceptions of ambiguous scenarios. I cannot tell more, lest I inadvertently cough up my identity But I do think you would find his work interesting. The scale used in his original research (I believe it is the original) can be found here: http://osil.psy.ua.edu/~Rosanna/Soc_Inf/week9/PFC.pdf

I predict that you will be shocked that I would not answer the questions the way you did (supposing my prediction that you have a high PFC is correct). In fact, I think you will find the fact that everyone would not answer them similarly to the way you do to be very thought provoking. It may provide you with valuable insight into the way your mind works and how it might be different to others, at least in this dimension. It actually explained a lot to me. My entire family, save my youngest sister, has high PFC. My sister and I have always been the black sheep. This is a big part of the reason why.

I agree, in theory.

The thing is in real life you can't just fight everything that is unfair. For one thing, there are too many unfair things int he world and if you divide your effort into what approaches an infinite number of unfair things, your effort is worth nothing.

In the context of autistic children, they have even less power and ability to effect change than we do, so often the answer is to tell them to sit tight. There are fights that are their size to fight---standing up for bullied friends and that kind of thing. However, in most cases even if their perceptions are right, (sometimes they aren't--and their theory of mind issues are an obstacle to knowing what is fair) and the cause is a righteous one, they would be effectively throwing rocks at an army.

When my son had issues in school, his method of "fighting the system" was ineffective and just got him into trouble, even when he was right. (Like my simplifying fraction example, that I have cited in posts, before) Children have to know when to call in the cavalry (Mommy or Daddy) to do the fighting for them. Sometimes the fight is too big for any one person, but regardless, my son is not the warrior you want to send into the fight.

He has communication issues and can't make the type of argument a parent can make, nor does he have the standing (adulthood) to do so and be taken seriously. If he says anything contrary, he is "insubordinate," if I say that like in my prior example, that requiring a child to earn the privilege to simplify fractions with good behavior is the most asinine thing I have ever heard, well, they can't say much, to me about that, can they? They can either explain their logic or change the subject.

That is the kind of thing that requires a touch of pragmatism and strategy. Do you sacrifice the pawn in futility, or do you send in the queen? You have to prepare them to be able to discern what is worth fighting and what is not, and how to do so intelligently.

What you say makes sense here. I accept what you're logically saying. One would have to have an infinite amount of resources and time to do this. We're just finite beings.

I would like to offer you up two men to what I am about to say and they're Jesus Christ and Socrates. It is just food for thought. Even if you do not believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God he laid down something that was cumulative. What he did changed the world and the thinking in 2 millennia. Socrates helped lay down the foundations of western civilization and the rule of law with his philosophy.

Sometimes change can take centuries, thousands of years or millions of years. Think of the ideas behind Chaos Theory. Individually, you're right though.




I will have to agree with you for the most part. There are exceptions though. We did lose the war in Vietnam even though we had a more powerful army than they did.



Actually, you're right. One has to know when to fight and retreat. It is based upon Sun Tzu's The Art of War.



You're right. I still do not understand this whole idea of earning the privilege to simplify fractions with good behavior. It makes no logical sense. To me, it seems like they were trying to get him to submit even if he was submitting to a lie. I will agree though there are times that one may have to live to fight another day and/or bring in reinforcements. I have tried to reason their thinking out and it makes no sense. Wouldn't they want honesty from their students? Why force a student to put an answer down that is dishonest and false? I don't get it. I can't get my head around this one.



I agree, you're right. I will admit, even as an adult I have difficulty with this.

You're right. I am very uncomfortable with logical inconsistencies. On the other hand, I have came to a similar conclusion that Kurt Gödel came to. There is no system that is consistent yet complete. Inconsistencies will exist somewhere.



This is difficult for me to explain. It is because when you state "there are no absolutes and disparate states and beliefs exist simultaneously" because of Gödel's incompleteness theorems logically I have to deduce that this is true. To me, what you said is an absolute in itself and therefore would be inconsistent. To try to complete it, I have come to the conclusion that some absolutes exist within the confines of their subsets and these subsets can be interwoven together to make more subsets so on for infinity. Because of my desire for consistency and because of the logic set forth by Kurt Gödel and realizing it is true I have to open myself up to new experiences based upon inconsistencies that will crop up from time to time since inconsistencies are a part of the system. Think of it in this fashion. The earth is a 3-d spherical object. Imagine that one goes so far north he goes south.




It is an awesome study and I just got done reading it but the study has a flaw. He seems to assume that openness to experiences and desire for consistency is mutually exclusive. I can assure you it is not. Why can't the openness for new experiences be the thing that helps bring about consistency in a dynamic way? I am open to checking my previous assumptions with new data coming in and if it is fallacious I will accept the new data so I can have internal consistency. The thing is if it makes no sense I discard it. I don't understand why the teacher of ASDMommyASDKid's child was so adamant in him in putting down a false answer. I tried to analyze this in more ways than one and there is no way that I could accept this either. In fact, it upsets me a lot to this day. To me, it seems like her child was mind-raped with double-think.




Why would one not want consistent beliefs and consistent responses? How are you comfortable with accepting inconsistency without trying to remedy it?

I guess the answer is because I am not predisposed to be bothered by it. It's not like I crave inconsistency or anything, and I'm happy when things are tidy and consistent, but I do notice I don't seem to be as bothered by inconsistency as many people are. And sometimes something "feels" consistent to me, even though it objectively or logically appears inconsistent, and others view it as inconsistent. But I am not bothered by it.

And I wouldn't say I "don't want" consistent beliefs and consistent responses. I'd more likely say that it doesn't bother me very much if I have inconsistent ones.

Though this is not always true. Sometimes it (inconsistency) bothers me.

I don't understand though. How would you not be bothered it by it as much? If you encounter a belief system like the American belief system that has inconsistencies how do you follow it? How would it be logically be possible to follow?



How are you able to live your life and effectively follow the moral and social code of our society if it has inconsistencies to it?



When does it bother you? Are there particular types of inconsistencies?

It does make me wonder this. What is the ratio of those people who have a low preference for consistency verses a high preference for consistency?

I can make a hypothesis right now.

In America, the preference for consistency gravitates towards the lower end. One possible example is the workplace. They have a high demand for flexibility. I bet part of being flexible or open to new experiences is to expect and embrace inconsistencies.

Another example is Parents are having to be told to be consistent with their children. The nature of these parents tend towards a lower preference for consistency.

This would have to be tested though. I wonder overall what the millennial preference for consistency is?

I'm trying to think of a good example to walk you through it, and I cannot think of one that would not spark debates about completely unrelated things.

I cannot recall the details of Cialdini's research, but in my study, I do recall that the distribution of scores was fairly "normal" in that most subjects clustered around the middle of the scale with fewer and fewer going out to the ends. So, like many human traits, most people pile up at the mean, with fewer people at the ends. So at least based on my data, your thought that Americans would tend to skew toward being on the low end of the scale was unfounded. I had a fairly decent sample size. The initial sample contained well over 300 subjects. Diverse in terms of many demographics, but all college students.

I think I need to go back and re-read the study because I don't recall the measure being related to openness to new experiences, per se. But rather the degree to which people make interpretations of new information/experiences based on past information/experiences. So, for example, if you (high PFC) and I (low PFC) both were approached by a person on the street who asked us to make a video testimony to be sent to the school board that states we believe that teaching philosophy in high school is important, this model would predict that if we both agreed to make a video testimony, you would be more likely than I would be to respond to a subsequent request to donate $100 to the high school's philosophy program. For you, because you have already publicly said you find it important, you would feel compelled to donate, because that action is consistent with your prior attestation that you said it was important. For me, the fact that I already said I thought it was important would hold little relevance to my decision to donate the money. I would be completely comfortable with saying I felt it was important, but then not paying any money for it. But you might be more willing to try skydiving than I am. It's not that you are less open to new experiences than I am. In fact, theoretically, if you made an assertion that you were MORE open to new experiences than I am, and I made the assertion that I am more open to new experiences than you, if we were given the opportunity to do something new, this theory would posit that you would be more likely to try the new activity, because you would need to be consistent with your assertion that you are more open to new experiences. I, on the other hand, would feel comfortable saying I am more open to new experiences, and then sitting back and watching as you try something new that I will not try.

To confuse you even more I am quite consistent with my kids. I would hazard to guess that my son has a relatively high PFC and my daughter a lower PFC. If I do something that has the appearance of inconsistency, he immediately needs to process it to understand how it all fits together, even when the inconsistency benefits him, whereas she does not, providing the inconsistency benefits her. For example, if I tell them the consequence for action A is X, and he does A, but I do not enact X, he points it out and makes me explain why. But if she does A and I do not enact X, she keeps her mouth shut and hopes I don't notice that I didn't not dole out the appropriate consequence. But in general she is more rigid than he is. He's actually a pretty laid back kid. Pretty much goes with the flow. She needs to know what the flow is going to be in order to go with it.

Aren't humans interesting?! !?!?!?

[quote="cubedemon6073"][quote]

I would like to offer you up two men to what I am about to say and they're Jesus Christ and Socrates. It is just food for thought. Even if you do not believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God he laid down something that was cumulative. What he did changed the world and the thinking in 2 millennia. Socrates helped lay down the foundations of western civilization and the rule of law with his philosophy.

Sometimes change can take centuries, thousands of years or millions of years. Think of the ideas behind Chaos Theory. Individually, you're right though.

...


You're right. I still do not understand this whole idea of earning the privilege to simplify fractions with good behavior. It makes no logical sense. To me, it seems like they were trying to get him to submit even if he was submitting to a lie. I will agree though there are times that one may have to live to fight another day and/or bring in reinforcements. I have tried to reason their thinking out and it makes no sense. Wouldn't they want honesty from their students? Why force a student to put an answer down that is dishonest and false? I don't get it. I can't get my head around this one.

[quote]

I am not a religious person, so my response to the first part will reflect that. Taking Jesus as an historical figure, the New Testament was written well after his death, and compiled and edited by others. Others determined what books would be included/excluded, and others interpreted how these works would be followed.

There are numerous denominations of Christianity that have fought wars, not just with "infidels" but with each other. How much of what was done in Christ's name would have been endorsed by Christ, himself? So there is influence, yes, of course, but how much of this influence is his and how much of it is from subsequent institutions? So even if you can exact change, and your words reach through time, how pure will it be? Maybe it will inspire people to do that opposite of what you intended. It does not mean not to try, just that you cannot predict what will happen


As far as the second bit, it reminded me of the Star Trek Next Gen (I do not know if you watched this) episode where Captain Picard is captured by a Cardassian sadistic torturer who keeps trying to get him to tell him the wrong number of lights he sees as a prelude to getting the real information he wants. It is about compliance.

The only legitimate issue was that he needed to circle the answer in a set that did not include the simplified version. Getting him to circle the equivalent but unsimplified fraction after writing the real answer was just going to take a little time. He would have done it, eventually. He did it for me, when I gently coaxed him to. That particular idiot wanted compliance over everything and that was why she decided it was a hill to die on. Given that she would have been a key person on his IEP committee for another 4 years, at least, was one of the reasons we yanked our son out of that district.

Anyway, that is way off topic. The point is, is that I am not at all saying not to do what you can do to influence and change the world for the better. I am only saying that it has to be thought out. Sometimes if what you are asked is just stupid (not morally wrong, but just stupid), you have to do it for pragmatic reasons (like not getting fired at work.)

I was looking at it from the historical perspective as well.



It does seem like you're correct unfortunately.




I have seen this episode. I never understood the purpose of why this torturer kept trying to get him to tell him the wrong number of lights. I appreciate you explaining this. It never made logical sense until you gave me the explanation. I did enjoy this episode but my favorite is the Darmok episode.



I would do it but it would be difficult for me to do it as well. This is a problem for me as well. Why put an answer that is not correct? It is similar to morality? I would do it but it would cause inner conflict for me. Why does compliance matter more than objective truth? It makes no sense to me.


This is very interesting. I was in church one time with my wife and the pastor said that one can be right and still be foolish. He was giving his sermon. I did not grasp this because I thought all foolishness was considered wrong and all wisdom was right. He meant right and wrong in the moral sense.

Based upon what he says these are the combinations I can derive. One can be

a. Wise and Right
b. Foolish and Right
c. Wise and Wrong
d. Foolish and Wrong

How is b and c possible? Let me try to take a stab at it. Does it mean that logic and morality can be all on my side yet may not show sound and good judgment at this particular moment in time to act within the logic and/or morality? If my reasoning is off base will you please show me? You can pm me if you want to keep this on topic.

A general example of being foolish and right would be if someone were factually correct over an insignificant issue and they forced the issue and repeatedly asserted they were correct at the expense of an important relationship. You are "right" (factually correct), but "foolish" (because you cost yourself an important relationship over an insignificant issue).

In the person's mind the issue is very significant. Who defines what is significant and what is not or is it just relative? Imagine you roll a snowball down a hill and as it rolls it collects more and more snow and becomes large enough destroy someone's home. An issue may be insignificant in the present time but may become very significant in the future. Isn't an ounce of prevention worth more than a pound of cure.

You're right though it can cost an important relationship.

Yes, practicality is important but what I see as a nation is we're heading in a dark direction. We are going the other extreme. Not only can reality shape our ideas but why can't our ideas that we hold and that we cling on to shape reality as well?

I do agree that one does have to be practical if one is to try to institute change. What I fear is practicality held above all else and even morality and rationality will be sacrificed to it. By holding practicality in the highest esteem that we in the USA are doing, I fear we are becoming stagnant in our ideas. I fear we are becoming a form of a mediocrity.

Practicality is good to a certain extent but extreme practicality is just as bad as extreme idealism.

If your description of my profile is true it is no wonder I have been frustrated in my attempts to get others to perceive what I am perceiving and to re-think all of this and change course. I have feelings of frustration and futility with this.

It is similar to the Y2k problem. We barely adverted a major catastrophe. This was because of a decision made in the 50's or the 60's. It involved using a 2-digit field instead of a 4-digit field. They put it off until tomorrow. They said to let them handle it. The problem is people forgot about it until one woman noticed this and did a test. The problem is tomorrow will eventually come.

If I come across as rude or forceful I do apologize. I have had this discussion with other Aspies and NTs. Let's just say it has been a very frustrating experience for me and I feel frustrated.

Last edited by cubedemon6073 on 05 Dec 2013, 1:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I did not say that in the person's mind the issue is very significant. I said it was insignificant.... Sometimes you have to just accept things the way they are presented....Maybe something like how many presidents had blue eyes, or on what date did they declare pluto is not a planet, or whether or not The Beatles were better than Elvis. None of those things are worth losing a friendship over, and losing a friendship over something like that--or even just damaging it--just to be "right"-- is foolish.

No, of course not. Most definitely not. Which is why I am going to drop this right now. Even though I don't know you in person I think you're a good online acquaintance if I am using the accurate term and I find value in our discussions and you're very intelligent. Finally, I have learned from you and I am going to meditate on all of this. Besides I am hungry anyway and I have been putting business card information from various vendors into our spreadsheet for the past 2 hours. So, it's lunch time

Just to be sure...you are in no way in danger of losing our online acquaintance.

Sometimes you do read far too much into things. And I feel I can openly accuse you of that because it is an accusation that has been handed out to me on quite a few occasions! Learning to take things at face value sometimes is a valuable life lesson, especially since--IMHO--most people take things at face value most of the time. The tendency to overthink things, albeit natural to you or I, is exhausting to most people. I have had more than one person close to me grow absolutely exasperated. It's a very helpful tendency in other circumstances, so I guess the trick is to learn to moderate when you do it.