Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Last night in the city, a group of vagrants aged 15-20 years old attacked a Chinese man while he was on his way to work. They then proceeded to loot a nearby Chinese grocery taking liquor and canned food before setting fire to the building. The group then proceeded to a Chinese laundry where they attacked the women working inside. Police finally responded and disbanded the group with force.
....San Francisco; July 23, 1877
An Asian woman was attacked and brutally beaten by a group of local teens after she was widely accused in the neighborhood of only having married a white man in order to secure citizenship in violation of the Marriage Regulation Act.
....Los Angeles; May 2nd, 1901
A local band of boys has been arrested after luring a wealthy Manhattan couple into an alley, assaulting and robbing them. The boys ranged in age from 11 to 16 years and were affiliated with a local gang in the Five Points.
It discusses the theories of Strauss and Howe who are historians and separate generations and time periods into cycles. Part of the key to the theory is not that the "times make the person" but that the "persons perception defines the times". They also attempt to debunk the theory that your kids are the anti-thesis to you. Essentially they postulate that what makes and defines a generation is their response to the ideals and attitudes of the generation in power (40-60 years old) when they come of age (20-40 years old). So, Gen-X was defined as a response to the Boomers, even if a Gen-X person could have a Lost, Boomer or even a Gen-X parent.
You may find it very interesting as they also define what the past, current and future generations are and their place within the "cycle". Their work is also why people are so optimistic about the current young adult generation the Millenials (born 1982-2000). They are predicted to be another "Hero" generation akin to the GI Generation and should be the ones who "redefine" America.
Here are the generations as defined by S&H:
Homelanders (born 2000+) are Artists.
Millenials (born 1982-2000) are Heros.
Gen-X (born 1961-1981) are Nomads.
Baby Boomers (born 1943-1960) are Prophets.
Silent Generation (born 1925-1942) are Artists.
GI Generation (born 1901-1924) are Heros.
Lost Generation (born 1883-1900) are Nomads.
Missionary Generation (born 1860-1882) are Prophets.
It discusses the theories of Strauss and Howe who are historians and separate generations and time periods into cycles. Part of the key to the theory is not that the "times make the person" but that the "persons perception defines the times". They also attempt to debunk the theory that your kids are the anti-thesis to you. Essentially they postulate that what makes and defines a generation is their response to the ideals and attitudes of the generation in power (40-60 years old) when they come of age (20-40 years old). So, Gen-X was defined as a response to the Boomers, even if a Gen-X person could have a Lost, Boomer or even a Gen-X parent.
You may find it very interesting as they also define what the past, current and future generations are and their place within the "cycle". Their work is also why people are so optimistic about the current young adult generation the Millenials (born 1982-2000). They are predicted to be another "Hero" generation akin to the GI Generation and should be the ones who "redefine" America.
Here are the generations as defined by S&H:
Homelanders (born 2000+) are Artists.
Millenials (born 1982-2000) are Heros.
Gen-X (born 1961-1981) are Nomads.
Baby Boomers (born 1943-1960) are Prophets.
Silent Generation (born 1925-1942) are Artists.
GI Generation (born 1901-1924) are Heros.
Lost Generation (born 1883-1900) are Nomads.
Missionary Generation (born 1860-1882) are Prophets.
I'm a nomad? All the others sound much more respectable.
I know there are cycles among generations, and I can understand the Millennials' being heroes. They are the generation who will land (or are landing) neck-deep in this economic mess we're in. This country is in need of some seriously hard work and sacrifice to get back on track. We've been here before.
I'm a nomad? All the others sound much more respectable.
I know, right? There really is no "bad" generation, it's just a name. If you click on the link, the first post explains what each of the eras and generation archetypes are. I don't really like that name either, but when you read what role they play, it's actually kind of nice and fits in well with Gen-X.
This is why it is important to UNDERSTAND statistics. Crime rate absolutely correlates with abortion, but correlation is not causation.
Sort of key.
But the correlation is a fact the EXACT SAME WAY the violent crime rate has decreased is a FACT. No INTERPRETING necessary. It is necessary because it is important to know WHY it is down. Societal? Abortion? Police Department efficiency? We are talking about kids today these days. So if anyone cites stats today to say kids are better or worse is saying that the stats are interpreted. I did not cite abortion to prove either way. I cited it to show that there are different stats that people cite to support both sides of the issue as discussion.
What are you even talking about? I cited the federal justice department, not an individual police department. And where does the justice department get their figures? Look it up.
Second, where did I make ANY claims about WHY the crime rate went down? Nowhere. Because it is impossible to know but denying that it went down is just plain ignorance. Because I mention this point does not say youi mention it. I did not deny crime went down, can you cite where I said that?
No it isn't. Personal anecdotes are NEVER accepted in real science. Seriously, where do you come up with this? Here is where you as many as others get trapped that science seem to be the only way to go for conclusions. Science can and is a good method but observation is also. Now, if you talk about science in the sense of testing if a liquid will burn your skin, there will be a very exact answer. Test it by pouring that liquid and that will prove it whether it will or not. However, when science is used on human behavior, social issues, cultural views, religious views, political views, that is another story. Why? Because human nature is not something you can study with methods like pouring liquid on the skin. So yes, crime has gone down but that does not address whether kids are more or less disciplined today or not, or whether they respect teachers more or not, well, how about crime like murder in the schools?
And try to remember you first claimed that it wasn't just your observations but that of all the people you know, so now on top of anecdotes we have hearsay. And you make claims on stats when I am sure I have read stats saying the contrary on some of the social issues. So if I see contradicting stats, I do not see anything wrong with comparing with observation. Do stats suport or not support what may be general observation. You may not agree with this but I believe it is a valid way to come up with conclusions. To me I at least try to see ALL angles. I see stats and observation. You seem to only lean on stats.
Stats make hearsay and anecdotes WORTHLESS when discuss things like CRIME RATE in general, and TEENAGE CRIME RATE in particular. Your anecdotes are MEANINGLESS compared to the actual FACTS. I have to admit that I let myself get drawn to the crime area. My original point is that kids are less disciplined, have less respect for authority, and parents. To some degree even crime. You cite stats about crime down. OK, lets go with that. Do you have the breakdown of students killing students in schools with firearms today as compared of let us say the 50s? Do you have stats how many daily ocurrences of students telling teachers "@%%$W (fornicate you)"? Tell me the data on that then I must change my views since it seems you just want to use stats.
As I said before, I believe what I believe not only on personal observation. I am involved in community service in schools, law enforcement, legal system, etc., and talking with peers that have lived back in the 50s just as I have. You disagree? That is fine with me. I just present why I conclude the way I do.
So what? Even if it were true its tiny, tiny sample size compared to that of the ENTIRE COUNTRY. How can you discount statistics in favor of anecdotes and be expected to be taken serious when you are talking about a sample size that is orders of magnitude smaller than the sample set that is from the department of justice???? Again, and I repeat over and over. I do not discuotn stats. I see them and if there contradicting ones or do not specifically cover a point, then I do not just stay in a tunnel vision mode. Because crime stats say crime is down, do they say kids are less or more discplined? No, not in my opinion.
So what? I am teacher, I am sure I see more teenage behavior than you do, and have the exact same number of anecdotes. Guess what my anecdotes do not matter at all either. For the exact same reason. How old are you? Were you a student in the 50s? If so, then I may be more inclined to question my conclusion. I would see where you lived, big city or small? Because stats (maybe you like I know cite a stat) seem to say crime is higher in big cities. In other words if you did not live as long as I have to compare discipline then and now, then I believe my conclusion may be more accurate to some degree. I am not saying that because I am older than you I am am automatically right, simply that I have more personal experience on that and to me this can have some weight.
That is nice. Again, meaningless compared to the data set that is the ENTIRE COUNTRY. The data you cite is crime down. In the entire country? Does that mean that it is down in every city, county, state? Not necessarily. Stats simply have an average, or mean, or medium. But as I said, my point has to do with general discipline and how kids today tend to be more messed up. Being messed up dies not mean they commit more or less seriouse crimes. Now, the crime may be down overall as you say. OK, let us go with that. What is the crime data by age groups? Now, can you compare that with the same age group in the 50s? What do they show?
If you some how pretended that hearsay was even on the same level as an anecdote it DOESN"T MATTER. Every person you have met, and all of the people they have met, in your entire lifetime is a tiny fraction of the number of people in the country. Still too small a sample size to draw any sort of meaningful conclusion. I won't repeat what I wrote about. That is covered above regarding stats combined with observation.
More hearsay and anecdotes. Why you think they matter more than federal mandated crime reporting I have no idea. At best it is tiny sample of people who used to be in the Army. Now it is not only a small sample size but it isn't even a RANDOM one. Again, the same as above.
Fine, please post any statistic of a sample size similar to that of the department of justice on crime rates and we can call it a moot point. But since you haven't you should just admit you are WRONG and that despite your PERSONAL experiences, crime rate has decreased. OK, again, I am not saying crime has not decreased. I explained above.
So now we go to a common logical fallacy, appeal to authority, and authority granted by age. Sorry but holds no water. Maybe you anecdotes are more meaningful than mine but they are not more meaningful than the data set of all the reported crime in the US. Covered above, again.
Another logical fallacy, ad hominem attacks. Since you cannot support your claim instead of admitting you are wrong, you attack me personally. I am not a teenager, haven't been for over 30 years. But I am a scientist and I completely understand statistics, both their uses and their limits. No, never attacked you personnally. You have not done anthying to me for me to get personal. Perhaps you take it personal OR maybe my wording was not clear. If I come across as attacking you, not such intent so if I came across that way, my apologies.
Being a scientist is great, nothing wrong with that at all. Now, I do wonder when people make claims like "completly understand statistics". Now you seem to make a fallacious statement, appeal to authority? I am not making my claim as correct without question. I am simply stating my views on what I think kids compare today as of before. Sure, I say I lived then so I state my observations and say that stats you show do not give a breakdown in certain examples I cited on kids today and yesterday.
You have nothing to base that on beyond your own personal experience which you refuse to admit is limited. Sad.
I never refused of being limited. I know it is. Again, again, again, one more time. I do know what stats say but you did not cite a breakdown on the points I mentioned above. Take care.
I tend to agree with you a bit here. We tend to try to do so much for our kids these days that I'm not really sure if there is a sense of gratitude. More like a sense of entitlement. As parents, we try to do so much for our kids. Sometimes, I feel like I live in my car shuttling kids around to event after event. I'm a lightweight compared to my friend. Every moment of her time is spent on activities for the kids---she lives in her van. Not so sure if this is a good thing in the long run.
This is what I see in both my students and their parents. I can't tell you how many times a year I get an emai from a parent that says "I told Johnny he has to stay after school on Wednesday until all his work is caught up." It never dawns on either the parent or the student to ask if I was actually planning on staying after school on Wednesday.
We did a lab on a day that several students were pulled out for some activity. I tried to set two days to make up the lab. I ended up setting up the lab, staying for an hour for them to finish it and then tearing down the lab six times because they just can't alter their schedules.
I have no doubt both my students and their parents feel entitled. So much so they don't even consider what I might have planned. My plans don't matter. Only theirs.
I have come to the conclusion that child centered parenting is bad for kids. They don't need us to do everything for them. They don't need us to cheer them on. They don't develop strong self esteem from geting pats on the back and trophies. They get arrogant. I think we need to go the opposite route. Make them put others first. That's what my parents did. While I didn't buy into the praise to build self esteem movement, I didn't follow in my mother's footsteps and make my kids put others first. I wish I had.
This is what I see in both my students and their parents. I can't tell you how many times a year I get an emai from a parent that says "I told Johnny he has to stay after school on Wednesday until all his work is caught up." It never dawns on either the parent or the student to ask if I was actually planning on staying after school on Wednesday.
We did a lab on a day that several students were pulled out for some activity. I tried to set two days to make up the lab. I ended up setting up the lab, staying for an hour for them to finish it and then tearing down the lab six times because they just can't alter their schedules.
I have no doubt both my students and their parents feel entitled. So much so they don't even consider what I might have planned. My plans don't matter. Only theirs.
I have come to the conclusion that child centered parenting is bad for kids. They don't need us to do everything for them. They don't need us to cheer them on. They don't develop strong self esteem from geting pats on the back and trophies. They get arrogant. I think we need to go the opposite route. Make them put others first. That's what my parents did. While I didn't buy into the praise to build self esteem movement, I didn't follow in my mother's footsteps and make my kids put others first. I wish I had.
I think you would like to read the book "The Death of the Grown Up". I covers the entitlement part and how parents feed into it. Take care.
Edited: Ah, apparently I am Generation X. I thought they were born a bit later, like my sister.
Gen X is early 60's- early 80's, not beyond 1982
opps.. how did I miss that big post by NJGOAT!! So sorry
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
