We’re all teenagers now: The adolescent mindset transformed the US and the world

Moreover, it explicitly makes your point:

> The phrase ‘unintended consequences’ used at the beginning of this essay usually implies negative effects, but there are notable benefits as well. .... These youthful character traits have served to make us more accepting and generous in many respects. Rising tolerance towards marginalised groups can be partly attributed to this emergent youthful mindset

Evidence is indeed lacking in the article, but the author is clearly writing against a scholarly background that almost certainly provides mountains of evidence and analyses, quality notwithstanding. Complaining about evidence in a context like this is like one of my friends in high school who went through an obnoxiously cynical phase, exhorting "prove it" after even the most prosaic, non-substantive statements. (I think he had just begun dabbling with philosophy, including epistemology. Or maybe I had and was also obnoxiously regurgitating philosophical claims in other conversations.) This is not an academic paper. It's an essay summarizing some themes that the author and others are investigating--or at least analyzing. And while making some rather concrete claims[1], it abstains from specific, substantive judgments, conclusions, or prescriptions. Personally, it's only when I see the latter that I begin to scrutinize arguments more closely. Otherwise, I understand these essays as merely providing a window into discourse that hasn't yet gone mainstream, and I mostly look for rough coherency. Whether I agree with the claims, let alone the premises, is an entirely different matter. But these essays can help you anticipate socio-cultural memes and identify potential evidence, both confirming and disconfirming.

[1] Specifically, the linkage between high school socialization and culture. Which, IMO, is an interesting thesis I had not come across before; one that is much more concrete and falsifiable than typical Golden Age-themed lamentations; and one arguably in the vein of the Hajnal line hypothesis[2] in that it links particularized adolescent social patterns to broader social phenomena and evolution. By contrast, mere observations that modern culture is increasingly adolescent are hardly new. The TV show Seinfeld parodies and even satirizes it, albeit without ridicule or negative judgment. Compare It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, which uses similar satire, except the themes are less subtle and the writers and actors admit to substantively critiquing contemporary culture.

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajnal_line

In my work I’ve found non-technical account managers take much longer to respond when they don’t know how to answer something and don’t want to offend me by saying that I communicated poorly.

After figuring out the fundamentals of physics in detail the last 100 years, what else is there except engineering replacement technology and the same old utilitarian day to day?

It’s clear that more people are educated but we’re still clinging to that division of labor meme hard, and turning grads into dumb ass data entry chimps.

1960s cultural reactions were particularly radical largely because they were relative to some particularly rigid and simplistic social mores. But both generations can easily be placed on a timeline of increasing individualism. Both the construction and emphasis of the nuclear family as well as the bootstrap moralism are part of this increasing individualist tendency. Indeed, even today these norms are promoted by conservatives precisely because the implication is that failure to conform will (and should) result in impoverishment--there is no community to fall back on, and thus no allowance for failure. 1960s reformers thought they could build communities supporting radical individualism, but the latter tended to result in the dissipation of the former--literally and figuratively.

Note that increasing individualism does not imply decreasing communitarianism. (Which is distinct from a concept of "we". The U.S. was one of the first modern nation-states, afterall, and helped to redefine what "we" could mean.) Specifically, the article doesn't actually claim that there was greater communitarianism before the advent of secondary school. The U.S. has always been strongly individualistic, but this was more a harsh reality and de facto state of affairs than anything else. Interpersonal communities could thrive, but they were often based around religion or economic necessity (or both). There's a plausible case that the accelerated construction of a sophisticated, positive individualist culture did indeed coincide with increasing education. I always thought this was simply an effect of more people being introduced to non-religious social concepts while standards of living were simultaneously improving (i.e. less need for communities of necessity) in large part due to industrialization (with its own implications for the role of the individual), which had the overall effect of compounding and exaggerating our predisposition to individualism. But the thesis that a large part of it may instead be related to adolescent socialization is interesting. Notably, it's falsifiable in ways that most other social theories are not.

I get that this was an off-the-cuff statement, but worth digging into. Video gaming has morphed so much.

I used to game through the night (Quake through Starcraft, Civ, Diablo, etc) but pretty much gave it up when I had kids. I've found social media and online "edutainment" (inc. HN) to fill that life niche (escapism?) so much better, and even when I've made an effort to try to play a game, it never holds my attention that long.

On the other hand, casual gaming has absolutely taken off. I see so many older people even (60+) playing random games when they're waiting for something. My wife and kids do the same.

Also, adults always have gamed, see card games, board games, charades etc.

I don't believe there is really much of a difference between adolescence and adulthood. Sure, as you age, lots about your mental and emotional state changes, and your expectations shift with experience... but most of what we actually want doesn't really change. Freedom, friendship, companionship, intellectual fulfillment, a sense of accomplishment, sex, pleasurably and memorable experiences, and leisure time.

Ultimately adulthood is predicated on sacrifice. You sacrifice something like 35-45% of your waking hours during the absolute prime time of your life to earn money. Then you sacrifice 70% of the money that you just earned to maintain a basic framework in which to live. That framework then then comes with even more responsibility and work.

I often think the reason why adults ultimately have children is because a sense of legacy gives us hope that our children will have to sacrifice less than we did, and therefore it's all somehow worth it.

Not having to sacrifice milkshakes seems like a win to me.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I guess in the social sciences, bashing on the previous administration is seen as a way for career advancement? Even abroad?