Say what, Boston Globe?
I came back to this ad-infested hell-hole to respond to an article recently posted to the Boston Globe. I may be getting old enough to no longer be in "this generation" (which is never defined), but age-ism still bugs me deeply.
The original article, entitled "8 reasons why this is the dumbest generation," is at this location if you are interested, though I will copy the statements here, as well.
1. They make excellent "Jaywalking" targets.
There are so many things wrong with this statement that it's not even funny. Jay Leno has many times stated that it takes many many segments to find the "perfect idiot." There has never been a generation where "Jaywalking" would be difficult. If I had a time machine, I guarantee you that I could go back 30, 40, or even 50 years (when was this golden age, anyway?) and find a complete idiot walking around the streets. You simply cannot judge a generation by a segment designed to highlight stupidity.
2. They don't read books -- and don't want to, either.
This is the only somewhat valid point that exists. Interest in books may have gone down on average. I don't have the statistics (and this wonderful reporter of course didn't provide any references), but it wouldn't surprise me. Of course, a surprising number of my friends have degrees or are going to school for literary degrees, but I'll be the first to admit that my friends are not the norm.
3. They can't spell.
The author would get more points if he didn't use an image of an MSN conversation as "proof." I'm torn on the actual importance of this claim (assuming that it's true). The ability to spell implies intelligence, but does not prove it at all. Further, spelling in an instant messenger conversation is not at all important. Its entire purpose is to convey meaning quickly.
I may be projecting myself onto others here, but I see a gradient with regard to spelling importance. If I am writing a scholarly paper for a prestigious publication, I am going to run it throrgh a spell-checker, and have some of my English-major friends look it over. If I am asking a coworker a quick question on IM, I'm probably not even going to correct a typo. It's simply not important. Again, if he cited some statistics on scores on standardized literacy tests or something, I might agree. But he's citing poor spelling on instant messenger as proof that this generation is the dumbest ever. The logic simply does not follow.
4. They get ridiculed for original thought, good writing.
Again, no basis for this tenuous claim. From my experiences in high-school, assuming I'm not too old to be the subject of this paper, there is almost, but not quite a basis for this claim. The stereotypical jocks might have ridiculed the "smart kids," but none of them seemed to care. They formed their own groups, were never really lacking for friends, and amongst the people they interacted with original thought and good writing were held in high esteem.
You know, sort of like cliques have worked throughout all of human history. I assure you that it was the same in the authors generation.
5. Grand Theft Auto IV
Because a video game had a bigger opening weekend than movies, cds, or books this generation is somehow winding up in remedial reading and writing classes in college. The wording used is tricky. One could even say disingenuous. The wording seems to imply that the entire segment is supported by a study written up in another story by the Globe. Following the link shows that it's a report on how many people make it to college and take remedial classes. The supporting link doesn't support the main premise at all -- that video games are somehow responsible. In effect, there is no supporting link at all, only the illusion of one.
It's a shame, I thought for a moment that there would be actual journalism performed.
6. They don't store the information.
This writing is so tenuous that I have to reproduce it in full here. I simply cannot understand what the author is trying to say. This is superior intellect at work!
"For digital immigrants, people who are 40 years old who spent their college time in the library acquiring information, the Internet is really a miraculous source of knowledge,'' Bauerlein says. "Digital natives, however, go to the Internet not to store knowledge in their minds, but to retrieve material and pass it along. The Internet is just a delivery system.''
Another commenter suggested that the author means to say that this generation looks things up on, for instance, Google, and does not retain the information, instead preferring to look it up the next time it is needed. Assuming this is the case, I agree with the author. By and large, that is how this generation seems to operate. My question is -- why is this a bad thing? There has always been a divide between true intelligence and "book learning." What you are getting at is the "book learning" side.
I will use an example from my example domain: computer programming. It won't get too geeky, though. I do not remember every possible code in PHP (the language most commonly used in my work). There are just too many. I remember the ones that I use most often. This has not impacted my job performance whatsoever. I know the ones that I use often. The others I find when I need them.
The point is that I know how to find it. The ability to know what I am missing and how to find it (largely the first part) is the hallmark of true intelligence. The unintelligent hit a problem and stop. The intelligent hit a problem and systematically work around it.
And to further the point, the "better" generations operated in exactly this same way. Did my programmer ancestors memorize every minute feature of their languages? No. They used reference books where I use the Internet. It's the same method, only the Internet is usually faster. Unlike the author, however, I won't presume to call my ancestors dumb, they simply did not have the tools that we do today.
7. Because their teachers didn't tell them so.
Apparently we are dumb because our teachers (and parents) coddled us and allowed us to grow up to be dumb. There really isn't a way to argue with this one. It's a supposed cause, not evidence that can be disputed.
8. Because they're young.
Like #7, this one isn't anything that can be argued with. We are young, compared to the author. How is that proof of anything? Apparently they author cannot tell the difference between evidence (1-6) and rationale (7-8). These should have been two distinct lists. Or better, they should have never been published by anyone that dares call themselves a journalist.
Edit: I am in the target audience, after looking at the first page more closely, as this generation is defined as "under 30." Also the journalist isn't as bad as I originally though, as he's writing about an English professors new book, not necessarily speaking for himself. I still stand by my statements above, only they are largely directed at the professor. I feel sorry for his students.
The original article, entitled "8 reasons why this is the dumbest generation," is at this location if you are interested, though I will copy the statements here, as well.
1. They make excellent "Jaywalking" targets.
There are so many things wrong with this statement that it's not even funny. Jay Leno has many times stated that it takes many many segments to find the "perfect idiot." There has never been a generation where "Jaywalking" would be difficult. If I had a time machine, I guarantee you that I could go back 30, 40, or even 50 years (when was this golden age, anyway?) and find a complete idiot walking around the streets. You simply cannot judge a generation by a segment designed to highlight stupidity.
2. They don't read books -- and don't want to, either.
This is the only somewhat valid point that exists. Interest in books may have gone down on average. I don't have the statistics (and this wonderful reporter of course didn't provide any references), but it wouldn't surprise me. Of course, a surprising number of my friends have degrees or are going to school for literary degrees, but I'll be the first to admit that my friends are not the norm.
3. They can't spell.
The author would get more points if he didn't use an image of an MSN conversation as "proof." I'm torn on the actual importance of this claim (assuming that it's true). The ability to spell implies intelligence, but does not prove it at all. Further, spelling in an instant messenger conversation is not at all important. Its entire purpose is to convey meaning quickly.
I may be projecting myself onto others here, but I see a gradient with regard to spelling importance. If I am writing a scholarly paper for a prestigious publication, I am going to run it throrgh a spell-checker, and have some of my English-major friends look it over. If I am asking a coworker a quick question on IM, I'm probably not even going to correct a typo. It's simply not important. Again, if he cited some statistics on scores on standardized literacy tests or something, I might agree. But he's citing poor spelling on instant messenger as proof that this generation is the dumbest ever. The logic simply does not follow.
4. They get ridiculed for original thought, good writing.
Again, no basis for this tenuous claim. From my experiences in high-school, assuming I'm not too old to be the subject of this paper, there is almost, but not quite a basis for this claim. The stereotypical jocks might have ridiculed the "smart kids," but none of them seemed to care. They formed their own groups, were never really lacking for friends, and amongst the people they interacted with original thought and good writing were held in high esteem.
You know, sort of like cliques have worked throughout all of human history. I assure you that it was the same in the authors generation.
5. Grand Theft Auto IV
Because a video game had a bigger opening weekend than movies, cds, or books this generation is somehow winding up in remedial reading and writing classes in college. The wording used is tricky. One could even say disingenuous. The wording seems to imply that the entire segment is supported by a study written up in another story by the Globe. Following the link shows that it's a report on how many people make it to college and take remedial classes. The supporting link doesn't support the main premise at all -- that video games are somehow responsible. In effect, there is no supporting link at all, only the illusion of one.
It's a shame, I thought for a moment that there would be actual journalism performed.
6. They don't store the information.
This writing is so tenuous that I have to reproduce it in full here. I simply cannot understand what the author is trying to say. This is superior intellect at work!
"For digital immigrants, people who are 40 years old who spent their college time in the library acquiring information, the Internet is really a miraculous source of knowledge,'' Bauerlein says. "Digital natives, however, go to the Internet not to store knowledge in their minds, but to retrieve material and pass it along. The Internet is just a delivery system.''
Another commenter suggested that the author means to say that this generation looks things up on, for instance, Google, and does not retain the information, instead preferring to look it up the next time it is needed. Assuming this is the case, I agree with the author. By and large, that is how this generation seems to operate. My question is -- why is this a bad thing? There has always been a divide between true intelligence and "book learning." What you are getting at is the "book learning" side.
I will use an example from my example domain: computer programming. It won't get too geeky, though. I do not remember every possible code in PHP (the language most commonly used in my work). There are just too many. I remember the ones that I use most often. This has not impacted my job performance whatsoever. I know the ones that I use often. The others I find when I need them.
The point is that I know how to find it. The ability to know what I am missing and how to find it (largely the first part) is the hallmark of true intelligence. The unintelligent hit a problem and stop. The intelligent hit a problem and systematically work around it.
And to further the point, the "better" generations operated in exactly this same way. Did my programmer ancestors memorize every minute feature of their languages? No. They used reference books where I use the Internet. It's the same method, only the Internet is usually faster. Unlike the author, however, I won't presume to call my ancestors dumb, they simply did not have the tools that we do today.
7. Because their teachers didn't tell them so.
Apparently we are dumb because our teachers (and parents) coddled us and allowed us to grow up to be dumb. There really isn't a way to argue with this one. It's a supposed cause, not evidence that can be disputed.
8. Because they're young.
Like #7, this one isn't anything that can be argued with. We are young, compared to the author. How is that proof of anything? Apparently they author cannot tell the difference between evidence (1-6) and rationale (7-8). These should have been two distinct lists. Or better, they should have never been published by anyone that dares call themselves a journalist.
Edit: I am in the target audience, after looking at the first page more closely, as this generation is defined as "under 30." Also the journalist isn't as bad as I originally though, as he's writing about an English professors new book, not necessarily speaking for himself. I still stand by my statements above, only they are largely directed at the professor. I feel sorry for his students.