Nearly half of young people say tracking partners using technology is acceptable

My wife and I are the same way.

Giving up privacy and personal space in a relationship IS unhealthy.

To feel that one has a right to search through one's spouses belongings is a sign of immaturity and insecurity. There's no way to have a healthy meaningful relationship with someone when one feels that way.

Exactly the same here. I feel (and hope) that this is how most of couples work, but we only hear about the loud and paranoid ones.

Because the people who do it don't think of it as giving up privacy and personal space. If your partner moved in with you, would you call that "giving up half your house"?

Also, how many couples actually keep their email secret from each other? How many would have no expectation of privacy here, and hence view the subject differently?

My partner and I are practically married and if one wants to know where the other is, we just ask. shrugs

We have friends who do the "Find My Friends" thing and we actually find the whole concept pretty creepy.

You sure we're not behind the Stone Age? The mainstream paleoanthropological position is that hunter-gatherers were completely egalitarian socially. Inequality is something that came up (resurfaced actually, because apes have it) only in the last 10-12 thousand years as a result of owning property and land and some people owning more of it than others.

Again, this is not my theory, this is what anthropologists actually believe.

In the interest of giving both sides, there's a recent book, that I haven't read (yet), called Constant Battles, which disputes all of that.

Also: giving classes on this kind of thing solves nothing; see below.

Also: the upside of Religious Education is that it was practically a free period, at least where I'm from.

"partly responsible" is a highly context-dependent weasel word. You can be "partly responsible" for a brick hitting you on the head, since you didn't look up. You can be "partly responsible" for being raped while drunk, because you chose to get wasted in unsafe company. Your parents are also "partly responsible", because they raised you in a neighbourhood with a high number of violent young men. The bar is, indeed, also "partly responsible", for not hiring competent bouncers to prevent this situation. And so on and so forth until we get to the Big Bang, which is also partly responsible, because it set up the initial conditions which evolved to the current predicament. In short, "partly responsible" can mean whatever the hell you want it to mean, and you can get most people to answer whatever you want to that question by first priming them with other questions.

> kids will always do what their parents did.

1968.

I blame this on "Little Data," i.e. modern parenting. Many children grow up having their texts, call detail records, web searches, and GPS locations read by their parents, getting interrogated about them periodically. They learn that this is a normal/expected thing to do to people you care about.

Government surveillance is far removed from most people's realities.

Conversely, you old people grew up in a disconnected, technologically backwards society and you've learned your whole lives that electronic communication is something to be feared.

The simpsons has a famous quote for people like you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdozkeNqNQk

Yeah, "young people" are dumbasses, but for some reason we give much credance to their survey answers.

If there's one thing we've established by now, it's that unsolicited instruction doesn't work:

* Merrel et al, "How effective are school bullying intervention programs?"

* Smith et al, "The effectiveness of whole-school antibullying programs".

Not to mention all those ant-drug classes they have in America that don't work.

It's true for academic subjects too. The declining interest in science as people go through school is well-documented:

* Eccles et al, "Negative effects of traditional middle schools on students' motivation",

* Harter, "A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in the classroom",

* Lepper et al, "Instrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations in the classroom: Age differences and academic correlates",

which, together with this result:

Vedder-Weiss and Fortus, "Adolescent's declining motivation to learn science: Inevitable or not?",

proves that it's the schooling that's causing it, and not, say, a natural part of growing up: this last paper uses schools that don't teach you anything you don't want to learn (democratic schools).

(I think that compulsory, curriculum-based computer programming stuff should be kept out of schools for this reason, too.)

Since democratic schools are private schools, you could make the argument that there's a socioeconomic status thing involved, where rich people "are just smarter". I'd counter by saying that homeschoolers don't show any significant variation in academics w.r.t. wealth, and that I don't see any reason why it should be different for democratic schooling, which is practically group homeschooling.

> Uneducated about reality, as you would expect at that age

People would know more about the real world if they weren't stuck in a building all day.

It should also be followed up by: "Would you be okay with your partner tracking you, without your consent?"

The problem with tracking quickly becomes apparent when you're on the wrong side of the fence. If a person honestly believe that it would be okay to track their partner, but not vice-versa that person is an asshole.

The full reports are here https://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/media-and-resources/publica...