What's the root cause of this generation's...douchey-ness?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Squidmanlolz**

caledoneus wrote:
Admittedly, this whole conversation is based on a fairly wide generalization that the current "generations" are more "douchey" (to quote the OP) than former ones. And while it by the nature of a genralization it is not true of all Gen x, Y, or Zers, there is a reason we use generalizations... they tend to work. The modern generation is more needy, techno-dependent, and lazy than say, the generation that won WW2.... generally speaking...

and if you disagree... watch the jersey shore... that is what we call exhibit D (for dumb)

Living on the Jersey Shore, IRL, I can tell you that that sort of behavior doesn't exist en masse. That behavior does not define any generation nor the region. It is the select few who behave as such that we are weighed against and that is completely unfair.

**Fafnir**

caledoneus wrote:
Admittedly, this whole conversation is based on a fairly wide generalization that the current "generations" are more "douchey" (to quote the OP) than former ones. And while it by the nature of a genralization it is not true of all Gen x, Y, or Zers, there is a reason we use generalizations... they tend to work. The modern generation is more needy, techno-dependent, and lazy than say, the generation that won WW2.... generally speaking...

and if you disagree... watch the jersey shore... that is what we call exhibit D (for dumb)

Except this generation is known for being busier and working harder for less payoff than the generations before it.

**Seaward**

Fafnir wrote:

Except this generation is known for being busier and working harder for less payoff than the generations before it.

Not by choice.

Just a lil' Wikifun:

Jean Twenge, the author of the 2006 book Generation Me, considers Millennials along with younger Gen Xers to be part of what she calls "Generation Me". Twenge attributes confidence and tolerance to the Millennials but also a sense of entitlement and narcissism based on personality surveys that showed increasing narcissism among Millennials compared to preceding generations when they were teens and in their twenties. She questions the predictions of Strauss & Howe that this generation will come out civic-minded, citing the fact that when the War on Iraq began military enlistments went down instead.

Surveys by the University of Michigan's Monitoring the Future study of high school seniors (conducted continuously since 1975) and the American Freshman survey, conducted by UCLA's Higher Education Research Institute of entering college students since 1966 showed the proportion of students who said being wealthy was very important to them increased from 45% for Baby Boomers (surveyed between 1967 and 1985) to 70% for Gen X and 75% for Millennials. The percentage who said it was important to keep up to date with political affairs fell, from 50% for Boomers to 39% for Gen X and 35% for Millennials.

"Developing a meaningful philosophy of life" decreased the most, across generations, from 73% for Boomers to 45% for Millennials. "Becoming involved in programs to clean up the environment" dropped from 33% for Boomers to 21% for Millennials.

**Steve steveson**

Seaward wrote:
Fafnir wrote:

Except this generation is known for being busier and working harder for less payoff than the generations before it.

Not by choice.

Yes, but you could use the same to dismiss people who fought in WW2. We, now, are working harder, being paid less, and being told we have to sort out allot of the crap previous generations have left (The economy, the environment, housing shortages, etc.) with real solutions rather than quick fixes that will go wrong in the future.

It's no wonder people are no longer keeping up to date with politics and feel the need to make more money. Politics is fethed and large chunks of politicians are only out for there own gain. If Watergate happened today it would probably barely make page 2 of the papers and would result in little more than an embarrassed apology. On top of this most mainstream politics is drifting closer and closer to the point that you need a microscope and name badges to tell the difference half the time. The only reason the party not in power disagrees is on principal of partisan politics rather than having alternative views. This dose nothing more than keep the system bogged down and pointless. People see no need to keep up with politics now. As for money, as we see a greater divide between rich and poor people will see it as important to be rich. They see poor as being on the edge. It has always been the way that people want to be better off, it is just that the "better off" group is growing smaller and richer all the time.

**Fafnir**

Just a little something that might give you an idea where some of the animosity might come from, considering the attitudes that the elder generation has. Hilariously so.

http://www.quickmeme.com/Old-Economy-Steven/?upcoming

**AegisGrimm**

The current generation that's in school right now is the way it is because everything has an excuse now. Everything is waved away as "not their fault", even by their parents.

Just last night during RPG night, my friend's son was being a little monster, and was sent out of the room by his dad. Not because he wasn't listening to his dad when he kept telling the kid "no", but it was blamed entirely on me- "You have to go out in the living room, buddy. Uncle Cris can't deal with you being loud right now".

The other problem of kids? "Go easy on them- it's not their fault, it's just their ADD acting up and that's something they can't control."

**Monster Rain**

I was watching Idiocracy again today.

I think I have discovered the answer to the OP.

**caledoneus**

Idocracy is a geat movie... lol

**azazel the cat**

I can't quite find anywhere in the thread that "this generation" was defined. Speaking as someone from "Gen X", I suspect that the present-tense term of "this generation" doesn't include me. But just for my clarity, which generation is the OP speaking of?

Or is this just a collective rose-coloured-glasses-for-your-own-youth thread?

**LoneLictor**

caledoneus wrote:...there is a reason we use generalizations... they tend to work.

From this one sentence, I can tell you are a wealthy white, able-bodied male, and in the age group from 15 to 21.

**Seaward**

LoneLictor wrote:

From this one sentence, I can tell you are a wealthy white, able-bodied male, and in the age group from 15 to 21.

From this one sentence, I can tell you have or are pursuing a BA rather than a BS.

**sebster**

At some point in time people decided it was a good idea to start slicing up demographics into these strange little sections like baby boomer, gen X and gen Y, and then start talking about these little sections as though being born between 1980 and 2000 meant you behave a certain way, different to people born in 1979 or 2001. Ultimately I have no fething clue why we do this. It's really stupid.

If you want evidence of how stupid this is, look at pretty much every marketing effort that focused on appealing to gen X. It's all really superficial, inane nonsense. This is because the idea of slicing up history in to generations of like minded groups is really superficial, inane nonsense.

**Fafnir**

Are you implying that marketing managed to get things wrong?

**dogma**

Seaward wrote:

From this one sentence, I can tell you have or are pursuing a BA rather than a BS.

I didn't know that the pursuit of a BS involved the inability to study matters related to the "arts".

LoneLictor wrote:
caledoneus wrote:...there is a reason we use generalizations... they tend to work.

From this one sentence, I can tell you are a wealthy white, able-bodied male, and in the age group from 15 to 21.

That isn't a sentence.

Generalizations do work, but not because they are right.

They are rathe easy, though.

**Frazzled**

AegisGrimm wrote:
The current generation that's in school right now is the way it is because everything has an excuse now. Everything is waved away as "not their fault", even by their parents.

Just last night during RPG night, my friend's son was being a little monster, and was sent out of the room by his dad. Not because he wasn't listening to his dad when he kept telling the kid "no", but it was blamed entirely on me- "You have to go out in the living room, buddy. Uncle Cris can't deal with you being loud right now".

The other problem of kids? "Go easy on them- it's not their fault, it's just their ADD acting up and that's something they can't control."

Frazzled to kids: "you're being loud"
Kids: "Remember we decide which old people home you go to when you retire."
Frazzled: "Er...have some chocolate ice cream."
Frazzled to TBone: "You're being loud"
TBone: Pees on foot. "BARK!"
No respect.

**Monster Rain**

sebster wrote:
At some point in time people decided it was a good idea to start slicing up demographics into these strange little sections like baby boomer, gen X and gen Y, and then start talking about these little sections as though being born between 1980 and 2000 meant you behave a certain way, different to people born in 1979 or 2001. Ultimately I have no fething clue why we do this. It's really stupid.

If you want evidence of how stupid this is, look at pretty much every marketing effort that focused on appealing to gen X. It's all really superficial, inane nonsense. This is because the idea of slicing up history in to generations of like minded groups is really superficial, inane nonsense.

There's actually a fair amount of research that goes into determining generational trends.

It shouldn't need to be explained that there's a difference between "this segment tends to act this way" and "[i]every single person born between these years will be like this".

Before you accuse me of making a straw man, read very closely your quoted post.

**caledoneus**

LoneLictor wrote:
caledoneus wrote:...there is a reason we use generalizations... they tend to work.

From this one sentence, I can tell you are a wealthy white, able-bodied male, and in the age group from 15 to 21.

Well, for one thing.... thats a generalization dbag.

And for another, the only parts you got right there are white male... not rich, not able-bodied, and certianly not 15-21

**Jihadin**

And for another, the only parts you got right there are white male... not rich, not able-bodied, and certianly not 15-21

I'm not rich financialy but I am well off...just seems I can't spell today....though I am rich in friends, material gains, and a great wife who shares quite a bit of the same attitude I have

Clarify you being "not able bodied". I will be drawing VA disability at 70% but yet I can still get around...don't ask me to run...starting in Aug

I'm 42. Yet the group I work with has at the lowest age 18 and up. I "Da Leader". I can ask my 18 year old PFC to complete a task and I trust him to complete the task within my satisfaction even without back checking him. I care not for Gen X, Y, Z, O, or whatthehelleverleeterwereon. I just need you to complete the mission I set before you

Better yet.....If we're Partying in the Latrine and you see me on my knee's with a sponge cleaning out a commode with toilet bowl cleaner bare handed. Would you hop in the next stall and clean it out like me?

**sebster**

Fafnir wrote:
Are you implying that marketing managed to get things wrong?

I was thinking of that exact image

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:
There's actually a fair amount of research that goes into determining generational trends.

It shouldn't need to be explained that there's a difference between "this segment tends to act this way" and "[i]every single person born between these years will be like this".

Before you accuse me of making a straw man, read very closely your quoted post.

Sure, there's a lot of research. And that research has produced absolutely nothing of value from what I can see, because the original concept just doesn't work.

Basically, the results of these generational trends are so vague that they basically end up 'working' like Myers-Briggs - the results are so vague that they end up describing everyone, and people go looking for the results they expect to see.

**AlmightyWalrus**

I think the reason why my generation is so "douchey" is because OP assumes that his generation is right, which means that everyone else is wrong. It's a staggering level of hubris really.

I'm so going to whine about the state of young people in another 20 or so years though, it's in human nature.

**KalashnikovMarine**

You'd be douchey too if you were inheriting the incredible tax burden for taking care of you wrinkly old farts.

**azazel the cat**

I think I should be more of a douche sometimes.

**caledoneus**

Lol...

**sebster**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'm so going to whine about the state of young people in another 20 or so years though, it's in human nature.

As well you should. Young people are really annoying

The question is whether you conclude 'ah yes, young people are annoying, and then they grow up" or instead decide "ah yes, young people are annoying, and this is a new state in the world that didn't exist when I was young because I never found myself annoying, therefore there must be some great generational trend that makes this new generation of young people uniquely annoying in all of history".

**Fafnir**

I'm fairly well aware that I was a complete gakker until I hit around 19. I would like to imagine most people realize that.

I'm also fairly well aware that by time I'm 44, I'll probably realize that I was a complete gakker until I hit 40.

**Seaward**

Fafnir wrote:
I'm fairly well aware that I was a complete gakker until I hit around 19. I would like to imagine most people realize that.

I'm also fairly well aware that by time I'm 44, I'll probably realize that I was a complete gakker until I hit 40.

I was gonna say.

19 year-old males aren't exactly known for being awesome.

**Fafnir**

Well, on my end, I got kind of lucky. Those internships I landed at that time demanded a lot out of me as far as my social sensibilities and sense of professionalism are concerned (well, I did do stuff before then, but it was all IT, and you barely need to be human to be IT). Made a man out of me. A lot can happen over 4 months if it's the right 4 months.

**WarAngel**

Another issue to consider is the parents. Today in a lot of case it's about being the child's friend instead of parent. As a result they get away with more, which in turn leaves them irresponsible and and lacking a sense of accountability.

**Hordini**

WarAngel wrote:
Another issue to consider is the parents. Today in a lot of case it's about being the child's friend instead of parent. As a result they get away with more, which in turn leaves them irresponsible and and lacking a sense of accountability.

I'd certainly be interested in seeing any actual studies or research on this. What qualifies as being more of the child's friend than being the parent? If you're kind to the child more often than not, does that mean you are a friend and not a parent? Or is it simply shorthand for never disciplining the child, ever. And if so, how do we know there are more parents who don't discipline their children now than there were in the past?

**Frazzled**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
You'd be douchey too if you were inheriting the incredible tax burden for taking care of you wrinkly old farts.

From the wrinkly old fart crowd all I have to say is: "Suck it!" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!" (Lights up a $100 bill given to him by social security)