Reddit reviews iGen: Why Today's Super-Connected Kids Are Growing Up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy--and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood--and What That Means for the Rest of Us

Law student checking-in. A valley girl in my 1L crim law class thought that a husband kissing his sleeping wife on her cheek was sexual assault because she couldn't affirmatively consent while asleep.

Many current law students were born on or after 1995. According to Jean Twenge, this is the cut-off year for "iGen," a new generation of ultra-fragile, cotton ball-coddled servile authoritarian crybullies.

One semester while at a legal clinic, we held a plenary discussion about "what does justice mean to you?" Students were sorted in to groups of 4-5. Every group answered some variant of

>"Justice means social justice. It means recognizing historical wrongdoings, including those perpetuated by the legal system. It means creating alternative legal systems for victims like indigenous people (i.e., lighter sentencing than for everyone else). It means fighting for more equality, we don't have nearly enough equality."

I was the only student to point out that justice doesn't need a modifier. Justice is good enough on its own. It's gotten us this far. My group members disagreed. I was the only person to define justice as procedural fairness + treating like cases alike.

I study at a top 10 law school.

https://www.amazon.com/iGen-Super-Connected-Rebellious-Happy-Adulthood/dp/1501151983

You should actually read the sources you link (also, you shouldn't post media reposts and post the actual original source). From the WaPo source that source pulled this info from:

>Jean Twenge, professor of psychology at San Diego State University and author of iGen: Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids Are Growing Up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy — and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood, said in an interview that growing sexlessness among America’s 20-somethings is primarily attributable to partnering up later in life.
>
>“There are more people in their twenties who don’t have a live-in partner,” she said. “So under those circumstances I think less sex is going to happen."

This is about the gender sex gap from the same WaPo source:

>There are several potential explanations for this, Twenge said. Labor force participation among young men has fallen, particularly in the aftermath of the last recession. Researchers also see a “connection between labor force participation and stable relationships,” she said.

and

> Young men also are more likely to be living with their parents than young women: In 2014, for instance, 35 percent of men age 18 to 34 were living in their parents’ home, compared with 29 percent of women in that age group. At the risk of stating the obvious, “when you’re living at home it’s probably harder to bring sexual partners into your bedroom,” Twenge said.

So you didn't need to ask me any questions about why things are. You just needed to read your own sources.

There's a book that I think probably speaks to the nature of young people not committing very many crimes. It's titled "iGen: Why Today's Super-Connected Kids Are Growing Up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy--and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood--and What That Means for the Rest of Us" and can be found here:
https://smile.amazon.com/dp/1501151983/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_7KX6AbPEFYH95

And the author has the audacity to charge$40 for the book.

It is, though I've also seen talk of wanting to give them a formal name, and a suggested name is "iGen." I see this book mentioned everywhere.

Facebook has a disproportionate effect on teen's happiness. While the underlying issues of high school are still present technology has exacerbated the issue.

Here's a book supporting this with lots of research; https://www.amazon.com/iGen-Super-Connected-Rebellious-Happy-Adulthood/dp/1501151983

The implication is not that fundamentals have changed however the way in which they express themselves creates new behavior. Technology certainly impacts behavior. The capacity for trading at a larger scale than the entirety of goods available at a village market of products from all over the planet guarantees this. Here's another example. If we compare say a local bookstore to Amazon. Both are booksellers of course and they both have a selection available. However, since the local bookstore relies on a limited amount of physical space and Amazon has large warehouses of books a local bookstore cannot reasonably compete with Amazon on a inventory available basis. Scaling is obviously a large factor in business and economies of scale are a thing. Scaling also typically gets complicated by the new larger structure and unforeseen issues crop up, that were not present in the original system.

The mating market is quite different now than it has been in the past and technology certainly plays a role in that. Say we have a pretty girl walking about her daily life and we assume she gets hit on by men 5 times a day. That's 35 times per week, or 1820 per year. (I imagine that 5x a day is high, and substantially varies between regions and cultures, but just for a number.) Now, that same woman on a dating app may be messaged 70x per day or more. Essentially getting double the prior weekly per day. This obviously will have an effect on behavior. Also, consider that the barrier to entry is substantially lowered in online interaction. No longer does a man need to actually physically approach a woman and speak to her, but can simply copy paste messages. This substantially alters the sort of men that a woman would be contacted by. There are many more examples, but suffice it to say that technology absolutely alters participants behavior and economies of scale do exist and also alter behavior in sometimes surprising ways.

American sociologist, studying Americans; confirms this:

https://www.amazon.com/iGen-Super-Connected-Rebellious-Happy-Adulthood/dp/1501151983

I am in your camp and I believe the book iGen sums things up pretty well. Being connected all the time 24/7 does not make people happier or better. Being disconnected and actually figuring out how to deal with humans is much better for all of us. While I live in the world of tech every day I do not embrace it with a death grip and believe it has its limits.

I am in IT and there are days I can go 18hr on my computer and I have had employee whom I manage who have refused to ever come into the office because they believe they are "connected" via slack only. I use board games to disconnect and I play board games with my team and have a few in the office just to get people off the damn computer and other mobile devices. I found out a lot more from our board game interactions than from conversations on Slack and Email.

I once did an experiment where everyone had to hand in their mobile phones for a day and people were having massive anxiety attacks to the point of three people being physically ill for not having their phones for a few hours. It is ridiculous that we have come to this level of anxiety. Then again police dept get 911 calls when Facebook goes down so I should not be surprised.

VR and AR will have their place and I suspect that generation Z will even prefer this to actually face to face interaction. There are people who are still on Half-life and would wish that was their life 24/7. All technology however has a cost which is more than money alone. It will be interesting to see how everything evolves over time.