I visited a university recently and brought up IRC in a conversation. Some students did not know what it was and some said “that’s for old people”. So, that’s the genz perception. I wonder to what extent that’s true… what proportion of IRC users on the notable networks are genz.
I have doubts, because it seems there are still snot nose trolls demonstrating that children are still around. But it would be interesting to have some reliable stats.
Nonsense. It is not part of the human condition to be short-sighted and looking for a short-term accomplishment at the expense of long-term gains.
If a GUI tool enables you to accomplish a task today faster than learning a more powerful CLI tool, of course time savings diminishes the more frequent the task is needed. A hand-saw will fall a one-off tree faster than it takes you to learn how to use a chainsaw. But if you invest the time to learn the chainsaw your gains pay off after 2—4 trees.
That’s gen z. It’s an aversion to learning and groking a deep understanding. Older people learn how to invest in building knowledge that solves a series of problems quicker over the long haul.
Indeed that’s the deficeit. A loss of experimentation. A loss of curiosity and intrinsic interest in the subject matter.
There are some ppl w/the gen z mindset in my generation, who just want to get their ticket punched and get paid. Who took the job for the money and have no passion for self-improvement. But the ratio is nowhere near equal across generations.
Surveys show that around 50 yrs ago around 80% students prioritized developing a meaningful philosophy of life above making money. College freshmen have been surveyed every year since then. Gradually, those numbers have completely inverted.
Sure, but again, imagine you are a logger in Montana in the 1940s (or whenever practical handheld chainsaws were invented). You may spend all day sharpening your crosscut - but learning a chainsaw would require ordering one from the general store, waiting weeks or months for it to ship, learning to use it - all for a benefit that you only know of from the copy in the catalogue. If you’ve never seen anyone use a chainsaw before, or vouch for their effectiveness, it would be easy to dismiss as a fad.
Not my experience at all with Gen Z, nor with older people. In fact, it is often the opposite - younger people are more interested in learning new things, while the older ones are stuck in their ways and resistant to change.
Likely this has something to do with the increased cost of college and lack of economic security. It’s easy to be a hippie when you have a trust fund backing you up, and it is easy to talk about your “meaningful philosophy of life” when you graduate with little or no debt to a nearly guarenteed good paying job.
Easy to dismiss only if you don’t have a passion for the art to begin with.
Emphasis mine. Indeed, gen Z are quickly biased to require a mechanism or paradigm to be “new”. The false mantra “latest and greatest” works wonders on people. Gen z resists taking on more knowledge in general. They look for shortcuts every step of the way. Using LaTeX to write a paper is a non-starter for them.
There are shitty changes and there are good changes. Gen X and older do not inherently resist change. They resist BAD change. And there is a lot of it lately coupled with widespread enshitification of most of the world. Of course we resist downgrades. It’s a weak minded concession and detriment not to.
Discord is not a good change. It shifts power back to the corporates.
No, because that’s not the context of the question. The survey is directed at those already in university to investigate their outlook.
University is inherently a tool to obtain a meaningful philosophy of life. If you are not confused about the means and the ends, obviously attending university is valued highly by those in pursuit of a meaningful philosophy of life, which includes the means to do so. But when you prioritise money /above/ that, then money is no longer just a means to get there. It’s something higher – the means has overtaken the ends in priority.
Seriously, dude, take a step back and realize what a “kids these days” take this is.
It is well established science that differences between the generations are largely overstated. Typically, “generational” differences are actually just differences between age groups. Comparing 20 year olds to 40 year olds in 2020 isn’t an apt comparison - we need to compare 20 year olds in 2020 vs in 2000. And when we do that, many differences disappear.
What differences remain tend to be driven by environmental factors, or are statistical artifacts. For example, it has been said that these days, the bachelors is the new high school diploma - you can barely get any job that is upwardly mobile without one. Which means a lot of average or below average people are pursuing them. So it may be more apt to compare bachelors students in the past to masters students in the present.
You, on the other hand, seem to be lumping whole generations together and ascribing the differences to some kind of moral decay. Which, oh my god, is the most “get off my lawn” take ever. Seriously, you are acting the cliche.
tf are you talking about? Yes, students in university are more concerned about their economic future these days…? This seems like a straightforward fact.
Yeah, and I sometimes use the battery on my cordless drill as a hammer to pound in drywall hangers. The usefulness of a tool is determined by how the user sees fit to use it. And modern young people see going to college very much as a means to an end - it has become the technical school for knowledge workers, a change which happened gradually over time, since before they were born. Really, due to economic concerns, most young people who want to pursue a meaningful philosophy of life would be better served by learning to swing a hammer and attending local intellectual discussion groups.
Because here’s the problem all the Gen Z kids are solving - if pursuing a meaningful philosophy of life, if delving deeply into problems and looking for the best solutions, was actually the path to a comfortable material life and could be taught by the university, then we woud expect philosophy majors to graduate to comfortable jobs and be satisfied with their lives. But we see the opposite - philosophy majors have some of the highest rates of regretting their choice of major post-graduation. Why? Because it turns out that “learning how to think” - at least how the university teaches it - isn’t worth jack shit in today’s job market. They end up baristas, saddled with a mountain of debt and no way to pay it off.
Most likely what is really happening is:
This is hand waving. It’s useless for countering science to the contrary which pinpoints a specific difference. Science does not work like you think it does. Abstract social science does not defeat actual survey results.
Yes, and? This is just assigning blame. It’s fair enough to blame the adults for cultivating the money-centrism in the young. It’s interesting, yet still irrelevant to the thesis.
The science speaks for itself. This emotional plea against survey results is just a show of desperation. It’s not compelling.
You’ve lost track of your own claim, which was to say that the cost of university is /why/ the survey results are what they are. Now you are talking about economic future, which is more what the survey was getting at – the prioritisation of money post-grad and thereafter.
Lol. If that’s how science works for you, you are following some shit science. Survey results are notoriously the cheapest and shittiest way of gathering information about the world. Anyone saying that their survey results should supercede the opinion of actual experts in a field shouldn’t be taken seriously.
And those same adults would be the ones who said they were going to college for oh-so-noble reasons. Surveys are worth somewhere between jack and fucking shit in science because people can answer differently based on what they had for breakfast this morning. We could easily imagine that the difference exists because modern students are simply more self aware.
It isn’t an emotional plea. I’m pointing out your biases, which are leading you to a myopic and closed minded view of the situation. I am hoping that by pointing out that “kids these days don’t have any work ethic” is such a worn out cliche, existant aince the time of the greek philosophers, that you will take a step back and consider the fact that you are just an old man yelling at clouds.
Are you high? The cost of university is intrinsically linked to students’ economic future. If you are staring down the barrel of tens of thousands in student debt, you will be much more concerned about your economic future for entirely rational reasons.
Anyone saying that a general finding supercedes a specific finding by actual experts in a field shouldn’t be taken seriously. Anyone who proposes disregarding evidence should not be taken seriously, and certainly not more seriously than Dr.Bregman who cites the research in his talks.
If you don’t control for that, you’re doing it wrong.
We could imagine that, only if you actually study the wording of the survey and first find that it was incompetently worded to ask the questions straight, prima facie, so as to leak to the study subjects what is being studied.
The bias is evident in your emotion. You cannot counter the evidence so you look to attack the person. It’s despirate.
To be close minded is to disregard the facts. Such as claiming the evidence should be ignored because a survey was used.
You would do better to actually look at the evidence and find specific flaws, rather than rely on broad hand-waving at every level of analysis.
It’s a worn out strawman. It requires you to misquote me to make an emotional plea.
Plz don’t post when you are drunk. Surely if you were sober you could separate the cost of university from future goals and outlooks. It is in fact extrinsic motivation that is replacing intrinsic motivation.
There is no intrinsic link between the cost of university and the students’economic future. You are conflating cost with attendence. Attendence is intrinsicly linked to the students’economic future. The cost, which may or may not be paid by the student whole or in part, is extrinsic.
That concern requires being money-centric to begin with.
It is absolutely human nature to look at the short term easy route over the long term. Hell, I can’t figure out how toneasily copy and paste the line to quote post on mobile so I am just replying to ome bit because its easy.
Seealso, literally every corporation and shareholder currently obliterating the planet with tomorrow’s problems for today’s profits.
Humans come with various degrees of intelligence. The short-sighted ones do not have a monopoly on “human nature”. The trait to forecast and make very long-term decisions is very much human. But again, to varying degrees of capability depending on the individual.
Corporations cannot in the slightest be reguarded as “human”. Corps are not natural. They are an artificial construct. They are not a good source for learning about human nature. You have misunderstood the purpose of the corporation. Profitting is literally the job of the corporate machine. They do not destroy the planet due to any sort of human condition. They do so because the corporate constitution is written to profit, not protect the environment.