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.
As I mentioned before, I too live in the now and look forward to the future.
I think you, as most others, are missing the point because you see this issue through the microcosm of your lifespan.
Simple math and logic - mankind and relationships have been around for millenniums. Technology has been around for a couple of generations. The exponential growth in technologies effect on relationships is mind blowing when comparing to our existence. What has occurred in 20 or so years with making the world a smaller place is but a second compared to humans existence. So what happens after 2 or 3 seconds. I'd lay odds that in the next 20 years none of us can fathom how relationships evolve intertwined with technologies advancement. I'm not talking science fiction in the movies - it's real. I went to college in 1978 and computers were the size of a floor in a house. Now the technology you wear makes those computers nothing more than a calculator. Texting, Facebook, Skype - words, voice, and visual connections have been added to those "simpler" times of real dates and the telephone. And all in a few handfuls of years.
Ok? I guess I agree with you on these points, but we don't agree on the conclusion, which is fine.
I can't analyze tech outside of my lifespan. I don't think it would be right to make assumptions about 1978 when I wasn't alive then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTheFisherman
I would point out, though, that women's overall happiness has declined steadily over the time period of gaining the rights that you correctly note they were sometimes denied in the past.
if that fact is even true, that's correlation, not causation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTheFisherman
Which, one would surely have to admit was easier to come by in the era that OP is wistful for than it is today.
Hah, you really think people were more loyal back then? No, people still cheated, especially men, because it was ok if they did, whereas women who were cheated were considered horrible. Just because not as many divorces happened doesn't mean people were more loyal.
Regarding the OP, I just still think hoping for the past is useless since you can't do anything about it.
Ok? I guess I agree with you on these points, but we don't agree on the conclusion, which is fine.
I can't analyze tech outside of my lifespan. I don't think it would be right to make assumptions about 1978 when I wasn't alive then.
if that fact is even true, that's correlation, not causation.
Hah, you really think people were more loyal back then? No, people still cheated, especially men, because it was ok if they did, whereas women who were cheated were considered horrible. Just because not as many divorces happened doesn't mean people were more loyal.
Regarding the OP, I just still think hoping for the past is useless since you can't do anything about it.
I assure you that it is true. And I didn't imply any causation, it just seems odd and interesting to me. Why would women's overall life satisfaction decrease as they have steadily gained more opportunity? Even more puzzling is that men's happiness has paradoxically increased, even as they've been knocked off the patriarchal pedestal and seen what were the bread and butter jobs get shipped overseas while they're economic opportunities stagnate or steadily decline.
It does, but then id also say atleast youve had a little more experience into what life was like before all this tecnological soup so youve known something not as suffercating, i was born in the 80's and remember even how free life felt when people didnt have panic attacks or feel lost because they didnt have their phone on them.
The past has gone but when you step outside of today for a minute & see where the worlds headed, i dint think theres gonna be very much to embrace on a human substantial level.
You need to find a different crowd to hang with. I don't know anyone who does this. It's not about a different time being better. It's about finding the right crowd. You haven't found it yet. Keep looking. It sounds like you're looking for love in the wrong places, too. I don't run into many IRL who are all about what I do for them. It's more real. If you're on OLD, get off. Liberate yourself from overdependence on technology.
...Why would women's overall life satisfaction decrease as they have steadily gained more opportunity? Even more puzzling is that men's happiness has paradoxically increased...
Yes, I do think people were far more loyal in the past. I have a hard time believing the anyone would think otherwise.
I'd opine that "in the past", the combination of having fewer options and greater pressures resulted in relationships being more rooted, more stable and lasting. That does not imply volitional preference towards loyalty, or greater moral rectitude.
So yes, there's definitely a modern poverty-of-riches. It results from societal and technological changes, rather than from evolution of human nature (for the better or for the worse). Loyalty in the past stemmed from basic needs and realities. It was more imposed, as it were, than organically engendered.
The data (if indeed it's reliable data) on happiness surprises me. I would have surmised that happiness would have declined for both genders, but especially for men. The reason is that we're happy in relation to our present life vs. presumed possibilities. The sparser those possibilities, the more we accept our present lot, and happier we allow ourselves to be.
I'd opine that "in the past", the combination of having fewer options and greater pressures resulted in relationships being more rooted, more stable and lasting. That does not imply volitional preference towards loyalty, or greater moral rectitude.
So yes, there's definitely a modern poverty-of-riches. It results from societal and technological changes, rather than from evolution of human nature (for the better or for the worse). Loyalty in the past stemmed from basic needs and realities. It was more imposed, as it were, than organically engendered.
The data (if indeed it's reliable data) on happiness surprises me. I would have surmised that happiness would have declined for both genders, but especially for men. The reason is that we're happy in relation to our present life vs. presumed possibilities. The sparser those possibilities, the more we accept our present lot, and happier we allow ourselves to be.
Wow, great post. Even if, as you say, that loyalty of the past was more out of need than out of personal principle, was it not still loyalty all the same?
Is it the evolution of human nature, or is it really human nature as it's been for all time, simply unleashed from many of the societally-imposed cultural and moral pathways that used to guide it?
I share your hypothesis that seeing the wide world around us and all the possibilities could serve to make people less happy. But then the interesting question is why hasn't men's overall life satisfaction declined in a commensurate manner?
I share your hypothesis that seeing the wide world around us and all the possibilities could serve to make people less happy. But then the interesting question is why hasn't men's overall life satisfaction declined in a commensurate manner?
That's a good question indeed. A comprehensive picture is yet to be formed. One study by itself is inconclusive.
It's also possible that misplaced notions of masculinity (or machismo) preclude men from admitting being unhappy. It's "unmanly" to grouse or to bemoan an unjust fate, or to somehow lament a present that's inferior to a distant past. So women are simply being more honest in reporting their emotions, while men are prevaricating.
Obviously, men as a cohort are not monolithic; neither are women. Just as some women are disenchanted with feminism, presumably some men are glad to avoid the traditional pressures of patriarchal roles; just ask recent escapees from predominantly Muslim or Hindu societies, where arranged-marriages are the norm. Many of these men are only too eager to embrace the Western notions of dating. Contrariwise, there are Western men who would much prefer living in such "traditional" societies. The dynamic is most interesting in graduate school, where fellows from India or the Middle East come into close contact with Americans and Europeans. Many of the Indians are thrilled to immerse themselves in American society, while not a few of the Americans are at least hypothetically enamored of getting a professorship at one of the India Institute of Technology campuses after getting their PhD... and it's not, shall we say, because of the money, the professional opportunities, the local cuisine or the level of public sanitation. Those men, I would think, are amongst the portion who in the aforementioned survey would be less-happy.
Status:
"Just livin' day by day"
(set 25 days ago)
Location: USA
3,166 posts, read 3,360,802 times
Reputation: 5382
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeCollege
What year was it that everything was so great, exactly?
1979. . The year I was born into the world. lol
All kidding aside, the more you live in the present and accept changes as they come, the happier you'll be. There are some people well into their 70's, 80's, 90's and even 100's who know how to use a cellphone and even have facebook.
Each generation will have their own set of problems. Back in the 60's African-Americans fought for equality, now these days, LGBT are fighting for theirs and overcoming discrimination. That and the legalization of Marijuana.
As far as relationships goes, it's is much more acceptable now to leave an unhappy marriage/relationship than 40yrs. ago. Just because a couple has been married 30, 40, 50+ doesn't mean it was mostly a happy one. Some couples are very good at putting on a front to what really is going behind closed doors
I assure you that it is true. And I didn't imply any causation, it just seems odd and interesting to me. Why would women's overall life satisfaction decrease as they have steadily gained more opportunity? Even more puzzling is that men's happiness has paradoxically increased, even as they've been knocked off the patriarchal pedestal and seen what were the bread and butter jobs get shipped overseas while they're economic opportunities stagnate or steadily decline.
Yes, I do think people were far more loyal in the past. I have a hard time believing the anyone would think otherwise.
I have no idea how this study determined that women are "sadder" now, but I can only assume it has to do with diagnoses of depression. (I also question the validity of this study since it seems to be really reliant on correlational evidence, but this isn't a method discussion)
People are far more likely to admit they are depressed nowadays and more women report being depressed than men. Men don't admit it as much or get an official diagnosis. It's like wondering why there has been a rise in autism. It's all about the diagnosis.
What past are we really talking about anyway? I agree that people were more loyal in like 1850. But if we're talking about post-1950s, then no way.
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.
. The year I was born into the world. lol
