Visited my Dad this weekend, and we were talking about the Kidz these days, and how connected they are to their parents.

Dad once again asked me why I had not asked for help even when I needed it--like when my roommate stole all my cash & I had to stop eating for 2 weeks.
Gave him the same answer: it just never occurred to me. I had gotten myself into trouble; it wasn't their job to get me out.

Maybe this is idiosyncratic to me; I've always been stubbornly independent. But I think it's a real generational thing.
Millennials and Zoomers find it natural to appeal to authority whenever anything goes wrong. GenX assumed the adults were all in league against us (we were right). This carried into adulthood: we don't assume authority will care, or be on our side.
Possibly more than any other generation, we were raised with minimal adult supervision, because so many of our moms worked, but the old free and easy culture our parents grew up with--"be home at dark" still existed, which it does not now.
That's not to say my parents weren't involved--my dad came to my basketball games, which were an hour away from his office! They just didn't hover. They still don't: my mother lives a mile away, would never dream of coming over without calling first.
But also, they did not intervene when you got into trouble with adults, and that was definitely not just my parents. I can think of one episode where a parent pressured the school to revisit a disciplinary decision, and the kid was about to be expelled.
When a teacher gave me an unfair grade, the first semester of my senior year when it counted most, my mother said "This is a good lesson on the value of getting along with authority." Luckily for me, an administrator who had taught me in 10th grade intervened.
So it seems weird to me how comfortable young kids are with authority, how much their rebellions focus on appealing to authority, and how confident they seem that authority will ultimately work in their favor.
Not saying one is better or worse, just that the difference is striking to me.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Megan McArdle

Megan McArdle Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @asymmetricinfo

12 Aug
This cannot be emphasized enough: the left spends an inordinate amount of time heaping shame and contempt upon conservatives. Shaming only works on people who conceive themselves to be in the same moral community as you. Otherwise, it's just an ideological pep rally.
Ideological pep rallies are fun! But I see a lot of people confusing this with an actually effective political tactic. Any column I write heaping insufficient opprobrium on conservatives triggers progressive screaming that I am literally endangering lives and supporting fascism.
To be clear, if you are just enjoying telling each other about how awful conservatives are, that's defensible. (Though given that they can see you, do consider the costs, backlash-wise). But understand it's a consumption good with a political effect range from nil to negative.
Read 4 tweets
11 Aug
The war against legacy admissions in elite schools seems somewhat quixotic to me, given that the main benefit meritocratic strivers garner from such schools is less their access to professors, than being socialized and networked into an elite represented by...the legacy students.
Nota bene: I attended an Ivy League school, and was not a legacy. Since I have no children, I have no dog in this fight.
But while it's absolutely true that you could admit some number of strivers by dispensing with the legacy admits, the schools would take a pretty major endowment hit, and more importantly, the value of the package to the strivers got might well fall significantly.
Read 4 tweets
3 Aug
To the "Why are you worried about covid if you're vaccinated" crowd, I'm glad you don't know anyone immunocompromised, or elderly with comorbid conditions, who might be at risk of breakthrough infection despite vaccination, but some of us do know such people.
This is not a dispositive argument in favor of vaccine passports or whatever, but "Stupid covidphobes freaking out" is also not a good argument against those things. There are actual reasons to worry, even if you, personally are relatively young and healthy.
I, for example, have an elderly mom who has COPD, who got vaccinated six months ago, but would probably die from a serious breakthrough infection.

Statistically, the risk may be small, but you see, I don't have enough mothers to form a statistical universe. I only have the one.
Read 6 tweets
27 Jul
One good question for anyone who is proposing to overhaul a current social or political system: "In what ways would this work less well than the status quo?"

If they can't thoughtfully acknowledge the tradeoffs of their proposal, they aren't serious. Life is tradeoffs.
For example, I support drug legalization, even though I think this will mean drug use goes up, including some people developing substance abuse problems they would not have had under prohibition.
I favor deincarceration while knowing that on the margin, at least some criminals will thereby be freed to reoffend; I also favor increasing police presence while knowing that on the margin, this creates the opportunity for more negative interactions with the community.
Read 5 tweets
13 Jul
I'm constantly surprised by how many women I meet had a terrible experience with the pill in ways that they *weren't* warned about--notably, a sudden & profound loss of interest in the activity that was the reason they were taking the pill. Often it persisted after they went off.
Also, most of them report their OB/GYN was dismissive when they asked whether maybe the fact that they suddenly didn't want to have sex had something to do with the new pills they were taking.
And fair enough--post hoc, ergo propter hoc is bad science. But loss of libido is a known side effect!

Also, I first got interested in this question because I was in a group of six random ladies, one of whom offhandedly mentioned it--followed by five others saying "me too!"
Read 5 tweets
9 Jul
This thread is worth reading, the epistemic criss on the right is real, and yes, the mainstream media, by freaking out about Trump and abandoning normal standards, made that epistemic crisis much worse.

That said, I have some quibbles ...
Fundamentally, I agree that this is the story many Trump supporters/apologists tell themselves, and that too much of it is true for comfort.

But my personal experience is that at the end of the day, the story is irrelevant; they side with Trump because they hate/fear his enemies
Back them off any particular truth claim, force them to confront the inescapable evidence that it's false, and they retreat almost instantly to some total irrelevancy about how progressives are nasty and dangerous.

They may be right, but that doesn't make Trump's lies any truer.
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(