21st Century Boy

[Jack of Hearts]

Well, this post is about a human issue.There's nothing on TV right now so stay here and practice conversation.

Ok, first go here and watch Phillip Zimbardo's mini TED talk 'The Demise of Guys' ("http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMJgZ4s2E3w) (less than five minutes long).

After that, answer this: what do you think of Zimbardo's raised issues? Is masculinity in trouble? What does the 21st century look like for men?




EDIT: And listen to this while you reply: T Rex (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ylww2dOW7fg)








J

[MystyrMystyry]

It's up to the individual to do masculine things and find masculine things to do. Trouble is how many easier diversions there are between say, building a speedboat, and reading a book. Increasing amounts will opt for seeing what others have on display at the annual marine show, and settle down with a book or library thereof, for their personal amusement.

There's a lot to be said about standing back and knowing that you've created something involving a number of different skills which ultimately has a purpose - but there's also a lot to be said for not doing it if it doesn't interest you (though giving up before you start because it looks too hard isn't one of them)

I think the biggest problem though is life/career choices - and not many who may have great potential in, for example, the military or going to Mars, would really want to do it.

Gary Conelly (the Wing Man) has found an excellent hobby/vocation - and something I'd love to do, but I probably never will because there's a certain amount of fearless foolhardiness involved which I honestly just don't possess right now. Maybe when I'm older and finished with my Earthly pursuits I'll give it a go.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/04/11/stuntman-gary-connery-parachute-helicopter-henley_n_1417727.html

[Jack of Hearts]

It's up to the individual to do masculine things and find masculine things to do. Trouble is how many easier diversions there are between say, building a speedboat, and reading a book. Increasing amounts will opt for seeing what others have on display at the annual marine show, and settle down with a book or library thereof, for their personal amusement.

But what about the fact that boys are dropping out of school much faster than girls (and getting worse GPA's), and what of the discrepancy between men and women in bachelor's degrees and graduate programs (10 percent difference between both) and presumably growing? As far as reading and being 'good at it' (reading comprehension, verbal analytic skills), men are on a downward slope according to Zimbardo (the SATs in America are a standardized test that measures these).

The point is, without the technical know-how, our theoretical man won't be building a speedboat or reading books with any sophistication. Women will be doing both with relative ease, though. Men will be watching TV and gaming.


There's a lot to be said about standing back and knowing that you've created something involving a number of different skills which ultimately has a purpose - but there's also a lot to be said for not doing it if it doesn't interest you (though giving up before you start because it looks too hard isn't one of them).

Definitely. But if you're rolling in your own squalor and ignorance, you probably aren't doing the kind of self-reflection necessary to find what really interests you (it's only disguised as a simple question).


I think the biggest problem though is life/career choices - and not many who may have great potential in, for example, the military or going to Mars, would really want to do it.

That's what Plato thought. Anybody who would make a great leader wouldn't want to be a leader in the first place- so society has to make them do it. But we digress.



Gary Conelly (the Wing Man) has found an excellent hobby/vocation - and something I'd love to do, but I probably never will because there's a certain amount of fearless foolhardiness involved which I honestly just don't possess right now. Maybe when I'm older and finished with my Earthly pursuits I'll give it a go.

And what should you, presumably a young, healthy man being doing with your time on earth? What should most be doing? What is the present state of men your age?


Thanks for replying, MystyrMystyry. Hopefully you have more to say. Hopefully you haven't had an accident (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60662&highlight=accident) lately.







J

[Charles Darnay]

I think there are two separate issues addressed in this video - the gap in boys/girls academic performances and the social isolation factor. I don't think there is a direct connection between these two.

Academic performances. The mainstream educational system that once favoured the more "masculine" abilities (John Dewey's method of exploration) has been replaced with a more mass-produced form of schooling. Concentration, multi-tasking, and retention are now the essential skills, and girls are traditionally better at these. The typically higher energies of boys are now problematic because a teacher has 30+ kids to deal with and cannot tolerate running around and screaming.

The social isolation factor is interesting, and I cannot claim to have any expertise. But I don't think this one is male exclusive. I think both men and women are becoming increasingly worse at the one-on-one face-to-face interaction. And you could blame on the usual suspects for this.

[Jack of Hearts]

Hi Charles. It's been a long time since we've had an exchange. Hopefully you're still writing.


I think there are two separate issues addressed in this video - the gap in boys/girls academic performances and the social isolation factor. I don't think there is a direct connection between these two.

Having been ruined by higher learning, this reader disagrees. From his perspective, education is socialization. To what degree is open to question. But aren't you a high school teacher? You should have some amazing perspective on that.

(This is of course barring special cases such as autism or things along those lines- but who's failing and and who's passing the most classes in high school? This reader is going to be that the most socially well-adjusted students will have better grades in most instances as a correlation. If there's data/studies that suggest the opposite, or even just defeat this estimation, this reader needs to seem them right away).


Academic performances. The mainstream educational system that once favoured the more "masculine" abilities (John Dewey's method of exploration) has been replaced with a more mass-produced form of schooling. Concentration, multi-tasking, and retention are now the essential skills, and girls are traditionally better at these. The typically higher energies of boys are now problematic because a teacher has 30+ kids to deal with and cannot tolerate running around and screaming.

So is it implied then that education in North America is mostly geared toward femininity? Why isn't masculinity more accounted for? Is it not as conducive to learning?

As for overcrowding- not sure about Canada, but education in the United States is broken in this way. We ought to be honoring teachers; it ought to be an honored profession. We also ought to be holding them to the highest standards.


The social isolation factor is interesting, and I cannot claim to have any expertise. But I don't think this one is male exclusive. I think both men and women are becoming increasingly worse at the one-on-one face-to-face interaction. And you could blame on the usual suspects for this.

Probably not male exclusive, but definitely male dominant in this reader's opinion/experience. Whaddya think, Charles?







J

[Silas Thorne]

Very interesting topic, Jack. One thing that I have been thinking about is the current pace of technological change and whether we are built for it psychologically. We (as a species) probably aren't.
I'll have a good think about this topic though, and come back later.

[Charles Darnay]

Hi Charles. It's been a long time since we've had an exchange. Hopefully you're still writing.

I am.



From his perspective, education is socialization.

This certainly was true at a time, but I don't believe it is anymore, or not to the same extent. There was a time where other students were your only diversion in school, and you had to be crafty in order to get a good conversation in during class. Today there are so many ways to be at school without being there. School is no longer the primary factor in a child's life: it is now just an obstacle to (x).

[Jack of Hearts]

Well socialization is fairly vague as a term. Really in this reader's desired context he means the process by which a person is conditioned to exist in a given culture.

That's a bit of a tangent but respond if you want...

This reader is concerned about the present state if masculinity in America himself. There's no going back to those comfy gender roles- they're blurred to say the least. But masculinity still exists and how does it need to be expressed? If Zimbardo's data is accurate, in what way are we failing it?

How can we save ourselves, boys?



J

[Polednice]

The initial statistics are interesting, but they only tell one half of the story. It's also the case that more men than women are favoured in academia with professorships and publications, men on average are paid more for the same jobs, and men are less likely to be clinically depressed.

There is a normal distribution here (aka bell-curve), and the speaker was disingenuous to show only the side that puts males in a bad light. The real phenomenon is that more women cluster around the middle ground, while men have more outliers in both the good and bad parts of the spectrum.

The connections with video gaming and the internet were not worth listening to at all - he provided no evidence for a causal connection.

[Jack of Hearts]

The initial statistics are interesting, but they only tell one half of the story. It's also the case that more men than women are favoured in academia with professorships and publications, men on average are paid more for the same jobs...

Maybe there are statistics to back this up, but this reader is mostly curious to see the ones that support the notion of gender bias in academia. Not that proving or disproving the claim really matters.


and men are less likely to be clinically depressed.

Or just less likely to put themselves in a context to be diagnosed as clinically depressed? Thisclaim is relevant because in that interpretation it suggests that many men may be unwillingly or unable to seek the help they need. That seems to deserve consideration in light of the classic notions of masculinity.




There is a normal distribution here (aka bell-curve), and the speaker was disingenuous to show only the side that puts males in a bad light.

Meaningless. Any set of data begins to approximate the normal distribution given that you keep inputing more data.


The real phenomenon is that more women cluster around the middle ground, while men have more outliers in both the good and bad parts of the spectrum.

One presumes you're just using the concepts in statistics illustratively to communicate your point. Which is fine and this reader is tracking you well- but that's a mighty claim you made there.


The connections with video gaming and the internet were not worth listening to at all - he provided no evidence for a causal connection.

Cause and effect? Well if he would've mentioned causality in a measurable way we definitely would have a serious objection to make here.

As far as his line of reasoning, prima facie it seems relatively sound. It was:

1. Boys are playing video games
2. Implicitly they are spending a lot of time alone.
3. This time comes at the expense of time spent with other people.
4. If social interactions are essential to developing social skills and emotional health, this is the opportunity cost the boys are paying by playing videogames in solitude.

It's not ironclad but this reader doesn't see how you can dismiss it so easily.






J

[Polednice]

Maybe there are statistics to back this up, but this reader is mostly curious to see the ones that support the notion of gender bias in academia. Not that proving or disproving the claim really matters.

I'm afraid I don't have references written down to quote, but if you watch this discussion between Pinker and Spelke (http://edge.org/event/special/the-science-of-gender-and-sciencepinker-vs-spelkea-debate), you'll gain a very detailed picture of how gender relates to academics today.


Or just less likely to put themselves in a context to be diagnosed as clinically depressed? Thisclaim is relevant because in that interpretation it suggests that many men may be unwillingly or unable to seek the help they need. That seems to deserve consideration in light of the classic notions of masculinity.

It's possible. Is it enough to bring the depression to equal levels? Obviously, we can't gather the data.


Meaningless. Any set of data begins to approximate the normal distribution given that you keep inputing more data.

This simply isn't true. If it was, all statistics would be pointless. And if it is true, that just goes to show even more that the image the speaker presented must be false because it doesn't map onto a normal distribution which all data supposedly must. To argue that limiting data presents a more reliable picture is quite bizarre.


Cause and effect? Well if he would've mentioned causality in a measurable way we definitely would have a serious objection to make here.

As far as his line of reasoning, prima facie it seems relatively sound. It was:

1. Boys are playing video games
2. Implicitly they are spending a lot of time alone.
3. This time comes at the expense of time spent with other people.
4. If social interactions are essential to developing social skills and emotional health, this is the opportunity cost the boys are paying by playing videogames in solitude.

It's not ironclad but this reader doesn't see how you can dismiss it so easily.

It's not even nearly ironclad, and I think that your willingness to see the truth in the argument is blinding you slightly to the huge leaps he is making that are unjustified without further evidence. It is pure speculation, and here are just a few of the flaws:

1. The jump between 1 and 2 presumes both that gaming (and those other activities) is not balanced with social interaction, and that men who do not play games do not take part in solitary or male-only activities that take up the same amount of time. Beware of any conclusions that are supposedly "implicit" or obvious.

2. The jump between 2 and 3 presumes that gaming (et. al.) is necessarily a solitary activity when, in fact, it can be co-operative and - mother of all surprises - there is a female demographic.

3. Number 4 is a gigantic "if" dependent on the already shaky presumptions being made in the previous points, and further presumes a certain model of behavioural development which is, once again, supposedly intuitive but for which there is no data presented.

It all might be true, but I'm given no reason to take it seriously.

[Jack of Hearts]

Statistics are kind of pointless.

CLT (http://www.math.csusb.edu/faculty/stanton/probstat/clt.html)

Welcome to the twilight zone.

You attack the argument as outlined admirably. The implicit conclusion of one is based on a modern apprehension of modern gaming culture in the US. It seems fair to say that gamers, the core demographic of the culture who play videogames multiple hours per week as hobby, rarely share the experience with a friend who is physically present. Co-operative gameplay or multiplayer gameplay seems to favor being done online. So if you entertain this line of reasoning it seems we have to define solitude and ask whether or not physical presence matters.

It very well could be that these people lead balanced lives and socialize sufficiently to meet their needs. But based on this reader's perceived state of masculinity (indeed a belief was held before this
thread was created; but don't conclude from that that this reader necessarily accepts Zimbardo's argument due to 'blindless', that's not charitable to say the least) and anecdotal evidence against the claim...

Well why should this reader think most boys are living well balanced lives in that context?
Not that there's an overwhelming interest in that argument itself. Videogames, TV etc have been scandalized for years. Mostly this reader has good reason to think masculinity in America is in a sorry state.





J
AAmerica is in