“Of course, there are still vestiges of 2000s theocracy-inflected religious conservatism on the right…”
It’s a small matter, but I think people consistently mischaracterize the Religious Right era, and misunderstand the word “theocracy.” I was there in some of the 2000s, working for a well known Christian organization, and I can confirm that there were very few people - and none in positions of power or influence - who wanted the state to be run by religious authorities based on their interpretation of God’s law. But some commentators are determined to find the theocrat behind every tree.
Looking at that first set of graphs — the plunge in conscientiousness, substantial drops in agreeableness and extroversion, coupled with the spike in neuroticism, paints a picture of a generation that is having a real problem engaging in the world.
We can't just use technology to hide from reality, though it seems many are trying. I used to make my kids knock on the neighbors' doors and learn how to show up and be counted, when it mattered. Like other Millennials (and now Gen Z), they hated it, but I insisted they had learn how to be a participative member of society, and not just a lurker.
To be clear, I'm not saying these younger generations like being so deficient in social skills. I suppose no one ever taught them, since it was more convenient to shuffle them off to day care or distract them with a screen. As a result, it seems they almost assume they're expected to ignore adults.
Well, knocking on doors was just one example of the general idea of showing up and interacting with adults. With nine kids, the occasion arose from time to time, to go ask about a sibling coming home, to return an item or misdelivered package, or whatever. I didn't mean sending them around the neighborhood selling stuff!!
The benefits of conscientiousness are one of the reasons why I think a some of the recommendations for how to deal with the boy crisis in education, like moving away from homework, might be counterproductive in the long run. Yes, girls might be more naturally conscientious than boys, but the fact that it is on the decline indicates that it is also a trait that can be inculcated, and having an education system that does so would benefit everyone.
Thing is we know what works in schools and we’ve known for over 100 years. We can’t do it however for two reasons: 1) Our education professionals are not really up to the task (has anyone ever gone to a university where the education majors were the “smart kids”?) and 2) any system that really reveals the extent of human inequality is politically not feasible. On point 2, the amount of time and money we spend papering this over is staggering, you can illustrate this with home schoolers. Amateurs with a few books on a shoestring tend to get wildly better results.
While I'm a fan of homeschooling, let's not pretend that homeschooling parents don't have a lot of advantages over public school teachers:
1. They know their students from the get-go
2. They're dealing with way fewer students
3. They're usually not having to deal with kids whose life circumstances make teaching them a challenge at best and impossible at worst
4. They're not having to deal with psycho parents
5. They're not having to deal with administrators who haven't set foot in a classroom in decades, if ever, but think they know how to run one
6. They don't have to deal with policies based on the ideas of educational theorists who haven't set foot in a classroom since they were student teachers.
Who’s pretending? Actually knowing your own children and caring about them outweighs on average literal millions in expertise and equipment and that’s amazing. Kind of what I mean, we even have techniques that bring tutoring style results to large classrooms but like I said we can’t use them. The facade of human equality is so dear to us we’re sacrificing our children and eventually our civilization to it.
I recall a few months ago someone from Europe was in these comments making the argument that our system of homework in the US doesn't do anything to aid conscientiousness. They apparently don't have that system in Europe -- homework is voluntary and doesn't contribute to your grade. I personally hate our system's emphasis on homework, so I'll admit I have a bias towards the view that moving away from homework is fine.
If you wanted to boost conscientiousness through a change to public education, my first thought is to do what they do in Japan: make the kids responsible for cleaning and trash pickup on a daily basis to keep their schools functioning.
It'd be interesting to experiment with it, particularly since boys seem to account for a disproportionate share of the "I enjoy learning but I hate homework" group, who would get the most relative advantage by an emphasis on exams.
I'm open to that argument--I hated doing homework as a kid, and I would prefer to keep school at school rather than have it spill over into home life and cut into kids' free time, which is probably contributing to the rise in neuroticism--and I also like your idea, if for no other reason than it might teach kids that there is no work that is "beneath" them.
But either way, inculcating conscientiousness is something schools should try to do, even if that might be "girl-coded." And schools should also encourage kids to be willing to take risks, something usually seen as "boy-coded." Have to think about how to do that one right, though.
High in neuroticism, low in conscientiousness, and low in agreeableness is one of the worst combinations somebody can have. They perceive the world as threatening and they struggle with impulsivity, which makes them hate the world even more, and are resistant to people trying to help them. They are caught in a cycle where their negative emotions fuel impulsive actions, which in turn create negative consequences (damaged relationships, job loss), further validating their pessimistic and hostile worldview and feeding their neuroticism.
I believe that high neuroticism and lower conscientiousness is one of the divides between liberals and conservatives, so I wonder how much of the lower conscientiousness phenomenon is a biproduct of the increasingly progressive politics and culture of the past 20 years. Then there is also the question of how much of this is nature - are the people who increasingly make up the younger cohort in the West from ethnic/racial backgrounds that are lower in conscientiousness? My guess is yes, although this would be something that that is probably verboten to discuss, as it's yet more ammunition against mass immigration.
I suspect that conscientiousness has dropped among people regardless of party affiliation for the past few decades, mediated largely in part from advances in digital distractions. The MAGA base doesn’t have the conscientiousness of Reagan’s base, or even Romney’s base.
“Of course, there are still vestiges of 2000s theocracy-inflected religious conservatism on the right…”
It’s a small matter, but I think people consistently mischaracterize the Religious Right era, and misunderstand the word “theocracy.” I was there in some of the 2000s, working for a well known Christian organization, and I can confirm that there were very few people - and none in positions of power or influence - who wanted the state to be run by religious authorities based on their interpretation of God’s law. But some commentators are determined to find the theocrat behind every tree.
There was a weird period during the Bush admin when people were obsessed with his supposedly setting up a theocracy.
Looking at that first set of graphs — the plunge in conscientiousness, substantial drops in agreeableness and extroversion, coupled with the spike in neuroticism, paints a picture of a generation that is having a real problem engaging in the world.
We can't just use technology to hide from reality, though it seems many are trying. I used to make my kids knock on the neighbors' doors and learn how to show up and be counted, when it mattered. Like other Millennials (and now Gen Z), they hated it, but I insisted they had learn how to be a participative member of society, and not just a lurker.
To be clear, I'm not saying these younger generations like being so deficient in social skills. I suppose no one ever taught them, since it was more convenient to shuffle them off to day care or distract them with a screen. As a result, it seems they almost assume they're expected to ignore adults.
I am curious: What did your kids do when forced to knock upon the neighbors' doors? Did they have a question to ask, something to offer?
Well, knocking on doors was just one example of the general idea of showing up and interacting with adults. With nine kids, the occasion arose from time to time, to go ask about a sibling coming home, to return an item or misdelivered package, or whatever. I didn't mean sending them around the neighborhood selling stuff!!
The benefits of conscientiousness are one of the reasons why I think a some of the recommendations for how to deal with the boy crisis in education, like moving away from homework, might be counterproductive in the long run. Yes, girls might be more naturally conscientious than boys, but the fact that it is on the decline indicates that it is also a trait that can be inculcated, and having an education system that does so would benefit everyone.
Thing is we know what works in schools and we’ve known for over 100 years. We can’t do it however for two reasons: 1) Our education professionals are not really up to the task (has anyone ever gone to a university where the education majors were the “smart kids”?) and 2) any system that really reveals the extent of human inequality is politically not feasible. On point 2, the amount of time and money we spend papering this over is staggering, you can illustrate this with home schoolers. Amateurs with a few books on a shoestring tend to get wildly better results.
While I'm a fan of homeschooling, let's not pretend that homeschooling parents don't have a lot of advantages over public school teachers:
1. They know their students from the get-go
2. They're dealing with way fewer students
3. They're usually not having to deal with kids whose life circumstances make teaching them a challenge at best and impossible at worst
4. They're not having to deal with psycho parents
5. They're not having to deal with administrators who haven't set foot in a classroom in decades, if ever, but think they know how to run one
6. They don't have to deal with policies based on the ideas of educational theorists who haven't set foot in a classroom since they were student teachers.
Who’s pretending? Actually knowing your own children and caring about them outweighs on average literal millions in expertise and equipment and that’s amazing. Kind of what I mean, we even have techniques that bring tutoring style results to large classrooms but like I said we can’t use them. The facade of human equality is so dear to us we’re sacrificing our children and eventually our civilization to it.
I recall a few months ago someone from Europe was in these comments making the argument that our system of homework in the US doesn't do anything to aid conscientiousness. They apparently don't have that system in Europe -- homework is voluntary and doesn't contribute to your grade. I personally hate our system's emphasis on homework, so I'll admit I have a bias towards the view that moving away from homework is fine.
If you wanted to boost conscientiousness through a change to public education, my first thought is to do what they do in Japan: make the kids responsible for cleaning and trash pickup on a daily basis to keep their schools functioning.
I think in Europe, your grade is still commonly your final exam, something I don't think many Americans would go for.
It'd be interesting to experiment with it, particularly since boys seem to account for a disproportionate share of the "I enjoy learning but I hate homework" group, who would get the most relative advantage by an emphasis on exams.
I'm open to that argument--I hated doing homework as a kid, and I would prefer to keep school at school rather than have it spill over into home life and cut into kids' free time, which is probably contributing to the rise in neuroticism--and I also like your idea, if for no other reason than it might teach kids that there is no work that is "beneath" them.
But either way, inculcating conscientiousness is something schools should try to do, even if that might be "girl-coded." And schools should also encourage kids to be willing to take risks, something usually seen as "boy-coded." Have to think about how to do that one right, though.
High in neuroticism, low in conscientiousness, and low in agreeableness is one of the worst combinations somebody can have. They perceive the world as threatening and they struggle with impulsivity, which makes them hate the world even more, and are resistant to people trying to help them. They are caught in a cycle where their negative emotions fuel impulsive actions, which in turn create negative consequences (damaged relationships, job loss), further validating their pessimistic and hostile worldview and feeding their neuroticism.
I believe that high neuroticism and lower conscientiousness is one of the divides between liberals and conservatives, so I wonder how much of the lower conscientiousness phenomenon is a biproduct of the increasingly progressive politics and culture of the past 20 years. Then there is also the question of how much of this is nature - are the people who increasingly make up the younger cohort in the West from ethnic/racial backgrounds that are lower in conscientiousness? My guess is yes, although this would be something that that is probably verboten to discuss, as it's yet more ammunition against mass immigration.
I suspect that conscientiousness has dropped among people regardless of party affiliation for the past few decades, mediated largely in part from advances in digital distractions. The MAGA base doesn’t have the conscientiousness of Reagan’s base, or even Romney’s base.
Those charts from the FT article are grim. But I recall an essay from a few months ago: it has never been easier to be above average. Rings true.
Yes.