from the world's big
The 'kids these days' effect: Why adults have criticized kids for millennia
When it comes to remembering the kids of your generation, don't always trust your memory.
- Since at least 624 BCE, adults have been complaining about the "kids these days."
- A recent study examined the "kids these days" effect, finding two broad mechanisms that seem to contribute to adults' negative perception of kids.
- Interestingly, adults seem to maintain their biases about the younger generations even when they're made aware of those biases.
Got a problem with the "kids these days?" If so, then you're one of the millions of adults across many cultures who have been criticizing kids for their supposedly worsening tastes and habits for millennia, since at least 624 BCE. Of course, not all of these generations can be right about their superiority. So, why do adults tend to denigrate the younger generations?
A recent paper published in Science Advances suggests two main reasons: It's easy for us to notice other people's shortcomings in areas in which we excel, and our memories of youth aren't always accurate.
In a suite of studies, the researchers asked a sample of Americans to rate themselves and today's kids in three measures: intelligence, respect for elders, and reading. The results first showed that when people give themselves a high rating in a certain trait, they're more likely to rate kids low for that same trait.
Excel and denigrate
The authors wrote: "Authoritarian people especially think youth are less respectful of their elders, intelligent people especially think youth are less intelligent, well-read people especially think youth enjoy reading less."
But this effect was trait-specific, meaning that a well-read adult wasn't necessarily more likely to also believe that kids were less respectful of their elders. The authors also noted that the tendency for intelligent adults to think today's kids are less intelligent was especially interesting, considering that average IQ scores have been going up for decades. However, on average, adults in the study believed that today's kids are about as smart as previous generations.
So, if excelling at something makes people more likely to think that today's kids are bad at it, why don't they apply that same bias to the kids of their own generation? The reason has to do with our biased memories, and the ways we project our current selves onto the past.
"Excelling on a dimension also leads people to project back to both themselves and their peers in the past, believing, for example, "because I like to read now everyone liked to read when I was a child," the researchers wrote.
With faulty memories, we tend to be more generous to kids of our own generation.
"We are imposing our current self on the past," John Protzko, a postdoctoral researcher at UC Santa Barbara and coauthor of the paper, told Discover. "We're sort of idealizing kids of the past."
Correcting the bias
People seem to maintain their negative biases about today's kids even when they're made aware of these biases. But, interestingly, there does seem to be a way to soften bias among adults who don't mind their rose-tinted glasses: Gaslight them.
In one of the studies in the recent paper, the researchers asked adults to complete a test to see how well-read they were. But the participants were given false feedback: some were told they scored in the bottom third of the national population, some in the top third. After the participants were (falsely) told they scored low on the reading test, they were more likely to regard today's kids more favorably.
"These things aren't necessarily happening consciously," Protzko told Phys.org. "It's a memory tic—you take what you presently are and you impose that on your memories," he said, "It's why the 'decline' seems so obvious to us. We have little objective evidence about what children were like, and certainly no personal objective evidence. All we have is our memory to rely on, and the biases that come with it."
Ever since we've had the technology, we've looked to the stars in search of alien life. It's assumed that we're looking because we want to find other life in the universe, but what if we're looking to make sure there isn't any?
Here's an equation, and a rather distressing one at that: N = R* × fP × ne × f1 × fi × fc × L. It's the Drake equation, and it describes the number of alien civilizations in our galaxy with whom we might be able to communicate. Its terms correspond to values such as the fraction of stars with planets, the fraction of planets on which life could emerge, the fraction of planets that can support intelligent life, and so on. Using conservative estimates, the minimum result of this equation is 20. There ought to be 20 intelligent alien civilizations in the Milky Way that we can contact and who can contact us. But there aren't any.
Frequent shopping for single items adds to our carbon footprint.
- A new study shows e-commerce sites like Amazon leave larger greenhouse gas footprints than retail stores.
- Ordering online from retail stores has an even smaller footprint than going to the store yourself.
- Greening efforts by major e-commerce sites won't curb wasteful consumer habits. Consolidating online orders can make a difference.
A pile of recycled cardboard sits on the ground at Recology's Recycle Central on January 4, 2018 in San Francisco, California.
Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images<p>A large part of the reason is speed. In a competitive market, pure players use the equation, <em>speed + convenience</em>, to drive adoption. This is especially relevant to the "last mile" GHG footprint: the distance between the distribution center and the consumer.</p><p>Interestingly, the smallest GHG footprint occurs when you order directly from a physical store—even smaller than going there yourself. Pure players, such as Amazon, are the greatest offenders. Variables like geographic location matter; the team looked at shopping in the UK, the US, China, and the Netherlands. </p><p>Sadegh Shahmohammadi, a PhD student at the Netherlands' Radboud University and corresponding author of the paper, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/26/tech/greenhouse-gas-emissions-retail/index.html" target="_blank">says</a> the above "pattern holds true in countries where people mostly drive. It really depends on the country and consumer behavior there."</p><p>The researchers write that this year-and-a-half long study pushes back on previous research that claims online shopping to be better in terms of GHG footprints.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"They have, however, compared the GHG emissions per shopping event and did not consider the link between the retail channels and the basket size, which leads to a different conclusion than that of the current study."</p><p>Online retail is where convenience trumps environment: people tend to order one item at a time when shopping on pure player sites, whereas they stock up on multiple items when visiting a store. Consumers will sometimes order a number of separate items over the course of a week rather than making one trip to purchase everything they need. </p><p>While greening efforts by online retailers are important, until a shift in consumer attitude changes, the current carbon footprint will be a hard obstacle to overcome. Amazon is trying to have it both ways—carbon-free and convenience addicted—and the math isn't adding up. If you need to order things, do it online, but try to consolidate your purchases as much as possible.</p><p>--</p><p><em>Stay in touch with Derek on <a href="http://www.twitter.com/derekberes" target="_blank">Twitter</a>, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/DerekBeresdotcom" target="_blank">Facebook</a> and <a href="https://derekberes.substack.com/" target="_blank">Substack</a>. His next book is</em> "<em>Hero's Dose: The Case For Psychedelics in Ritual and Therapy."</em></p>
Chronic irregular sleep in children was associated with psychotic experiences in adolescence, according to a recent study out of the University of Birmingham's School of Psychology.