Generation Clashes: Are things today better, worse, or just different?

[mmahany]

I've seen the topic discussed many times on this forum.

However, the conversation generally turns to a discussion about younger generations (often viewing them in a negative light).

Rather than trust my assumptions, I'll ask the question directly:

Are things today better, worse, or just different?


I think it's a very interesting topic, but it seems very one-sided, at least on this forum.

I'd appreciate everyone's opinion supplemented with why you feel the way you do.

[oldstoat]

Every generation thinks the that the ones before are boring old farts and in due course that the ones behind are unruly young whippersnappers.

Here's (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=594WLzzb3JI) the definitive statement

Actually when I think about what I was like, I think the lot coming behind are a bit of an improvement

[mmahany]

I tend to have a similar mindset.

I think the generation clash is particularly strong today largely due to the technological advances introduced within the last 20 years.
When you think about how the internet has changed the way people have communicated for hundreds of years, it can be a bit difficult to embrace and adapt to the changes.

In the end, I believe everyone is averse to change. That’s a science rather than opinion to be honest.
It’s how people ADAPT to that change that I think causes the generation clash. Some embrace change gracefully. Others are more inclined to reject change. Then there are the few who refuse to change and actually expect others to change/adapt for them.

The internet has also changed how we receive news. We are exposed to news that 20 years ago would have otherwise gone unseen. Consequently, when you see every crime and disaster it’s easy to assume the world is a more dangerous place than it was decades ago. In many cases, the opposite is true.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

I agree with the statement that everyone is averse to change. However, and I think this is very important, it says nothing about whether the change is good or bad.

Communication is an obvious example. We can exchange information over virtually any distance at high speeds and with little effort. That's all good, right? Except it can also be argued that this increased ease and volume of information traffic is eroding the natural human forms of communicating which may involve, among other things, focussed thought, facial expressions, voice tone and body language. A lot of these are lost in the modern media transfer. I think that is a bad thing.

So, although I like advancement because it is exciting, I feel that a certain amount of caution needs to be applied to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Scrawler]

"Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority;
they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise;
they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers."

Socrates (470 - 399BC)!

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Yes, that tired old quote gets trotted out quite a bit at times like these.

The thing is that my concerns, particularly with communication, do not apply just to youth today but to increasingly large swathes of people of all ages and walks of life. As stated, I am not averse to change and innovation, rather enjoy it in fact, but I cannot comprehend that anyone would seriously believe that txt speak or email are acceptable mediums for good or meaningful communication.

Here's something I found interesting. Some of our studies examine the difficulties sight-impaired people have in pursuing their daily routines. At a recent meeting I suggested we could look at the youth of today using the same criteria. This brought puzzled reactions until I pointed out that sight-impaired people are usually physically impaired, but the youth (and older) of today are imposing sight impairment on themselves out of choice (head buried in a smartphone for example), thus potentially raising the level of physical risk in their lives and those around them.

I have also lost count of the number of times I have refused to get out of the way of someone who is paying no attention to where they are going. I am not responsible for their choices, and I have been known to pointedly remark to startled smartphone users that "Life is out here, not in there", a statement that is never received well.

Okay, bit ranty at the end there, but I do feel quite strongly about the sheer lack of engagement an increasing number of people display these days. Perhaps it was ever thus and I hadn't notice until now...

[Newjelan]

I love the youth of today and think, for the most part, my daughter's generation are wonderful, hard working, generous and articulate. I enjoy their company and perspectives. Sunday afternoon my husband and I are attending a barbecue with our daughter, her boyfriend and their friends. We're the only "oldies". I'm flattered they enjoy spending time with us and as usual, we'll have a great time.

[mmahany]

Cryptos- very well said. It's commonplace to accuse young people of burying their heads in a phone or iPad. There is truth to that, but it's certainly not isolated to young people.

On a relevant note, The city of Austin passed a "hands free" law this year that prohibits drivers from using a cell phone, gps, or similar device while the vehicle is in motion.

I think it's safe to say that almost everyone appreciates Internet, phones, and email. Think about how each of us is able to engage in this conversation and share our opinions literally at the speed of light. Think about how we can use our cell phones when our car breaks down to avoid being stranded for hours.

It's wonderful technology, but the drawback is how easy it is to abuse. I find many similar ones in other aspects of life.
To me the pen/paper versus the Internet is similar to Advil and OxyContin.

Advil has been widely successful at helping people combat minor pain. It's easy to find, non addictive, but it's effectiveness is limited. OxyContin provides an immediate relief of very severe pain, but it's an extremely dangerous substance and has a very high potential to become addictive.

I think many people have lost sight of the appropriate venues to communicate. There are times I need to send an email when my message is non-personal and needs immediate deliver. There are other times I need to write a hand written letter to convey a more meaningful message.

In the end, this issue itself is not isolated to young people. In fact, it's amazing how many emails I receive from very high-ranking and educated people with grammatical/spelling errors that are well beyond 40 years of age.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Absolutely!

However, it is the youth of the day (any era) that are usually the most enthusiastic early adopters of new technology (I know I was in my day!), so it is easier and more obvious to see what is happening in that group first. And I agree, I use email as much as the next person, but only when it suits a particular purpose. Where possible I prefer face time (as the NewSpeak people like to say)

[DaveBj]

The first thing that comes to mind when I think about generational clashes (which we will always have, as long as we're still having children) is this poem, which I first read decades ago when I was a child. Don't know who the author was, but [s]he was very wise.

My grandpa notes the world's worn cogs
And says we are going to the dogs!
His grandpa in his house of logs
Swore things were going to the dogs.
His dad among the Flemish bogs
Vowed things were going to the dogs.
The cave man in his queer skin togs
Said things were going to the dogs.
But this is what I wish to state
The dogs have had an awful wait.

[ThriveToScribe]

[QUOTE=mmahany;113068]I tend to have a similar mindset.

I think the generation clash is particularly strong today largely due to the technological advances introduced within the last 20 years. When you think about how the internet has changed the way people have communicated for hundreds of years, it can be a bit difficult to embrace and adapt to the changes.

This is soooo true! I enjoyed the computer and internet when it first became popular; it was new, it was fun and very informative. But now it can really get on my nerves.
It's the lack of choice: being told you have to do something "official" on a computer (does everybody even own one?) and job applications are not face to face because they can weed people out without even seeing what they might be like or have to offer by putting them on a computer for 2 hours answering multiple choice questions.
Now, Doctors want you to sign on to their "portals" so "you can view your records". Right. And they don't have to hire a person to call you or schedule a visit or even see the doctor face to face. I don't work for these people, so why do I have to do their job? :blink:
I know I'm sounding like a grouchy ol' lady but it's hard to adapt as quickly and completely as today's world insists upon because it's so quick and demanding---allowing few choices. I feel it's making people less attentive and more isolated as they're tethered to technology and often don't know or care about the other sides of being a human being. Perhaps the clash comes when there good things about technology but you have to take the other things with them.

::: hopping off my soapbox now :wave:

P.S. I feel better now. :):crazy_pilot:

[mmahany]

This is soooo true! I enjoyed the computer and internet when it first became popular; it was new, it was fun and very informative. But now it can really get on my nerves.
It's the lack of choice: being told you have to do something "official" on a computer (does everybody even own one?) and job applications are not face to face because they can weed people out without even seeing what they might be like or have to offer by putting them on a computer for 2 hours answering multiple choice questions.

Oddly enough, I see these online job applications as a positive.

While I agree they are a pain to fill out, they have created a certain level of laziness for many people. Most fill out the application, click submit, and hope they'll hear from someone. This kind of reactive approach almost guarantees you'll never get a call back.

The last time I filled one out I waited a few days and called every local contact within the company I could find (through Google). I knew that 90% of the other applicants wouldn't pick up the phone and my proactiveness immediately made me a stronger consideration than those people.

The common mistake people make is that they fill out as many online applications as they can and hope they get one callback....in this case, quantity (over quality) rarely prevails.

I knew I had nothing to lose by picking up the phone. I figured, worst case, they would ask me to stop calling and I wouldn't get an interview. Fortunately, that never happened.

I filled out three of these online applications and made 3-4 calls to each company. I only had one company not call me back (oddly enough my "safety" plan). I interviewed with the other two who both offered me the job, and ended up taking the one I wanted the most.

My point is: if your plan is to send off these applications and hope for the best, you're setting yourself up for failure. At that point, your information simply goes into an algorythm and they'll likely never know the actual person who submitted the application. However, if you're willing to pick up the phone (the old fashioned way), I'd dare to say that this new 21st century process has made it EASIER to interview because hardly anyone ever picks up the phone to call someone anymore.