Kids today

February 28, 2007 8:20 AM

Vanity on the rise among young people today. Findings from a recent San Diego State University workshop shows that a couple decades worth of self-esteem parenting, may have engendered an entire generation of narcissists.
posted by psmealey (104 comments total)

Someone on Inside Higher Ed pointed out that the lead author's homepage is an interesting choice for someone claiming to deplore narcissism.
posted by transona5 at 8:24 AM on February 28, 2007 [1 favorite]

Anecdotally this feels very true, so much so that when I encounter someone under the age of twenty-five that doesn't like themselves very much I am pleasantly surprised.
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:31 AM on February 28, 2007 [1 favorite]

What does this have to do with me?
posted by hermitosis at 8:32 AM on February 28, 2007 [3 favorites]

Why You Don't Actually Matter
posted by Pastabagel at 8:33 AM on February 28, 2007

LOL Keswick. I probably shoulda posted the CBS5 link instead. Yeah, not exactly a weighty topic, but it seemed germane enough based upon what I've been reading here lately.

My more cynical side thinks that psychologists invent such phenomena as way for them to sell books, but given my own experience managing college interns of late, it's hard for me not to find anecdotal truth in it as well.
posted by psmealey at 8:35 AM on February 28, 2007

From the article: "By 2006, they said, two-thirds of the students had above-average scores,"

If that's really what the study found, and not just some CNN twit messing up, I think we can dismiss the entire study out of hand.

Personally I've always taken comfort in the various [1] quotes about how awful kids are. My fave is attributed to Peter the Hermit: "The world is passing through troublous times. The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint. They talk as if they knew everything, and what passes for wisdom with us is foolishness with them. As for the girls, they are forward, immodest and unladylike in speech, behavior and dress."

Regardless of whether the quotes are real or not, I think its safe to assume that people have always enjoyed complaining about the youth of the time, and yet somehow we've not only survived but improved. So I'm not very impressed by Dr. Twenge and her report.

[1] And, unfortunately, quite possibly made up.
posted by sotonohito at 8:35 AM on February 28, 2007

By 2006, they said, two-thirds of the students had above-average scores

Well, that's possible; I guess it would mean that the narcissists are just a little bit narcissistic, but the non-narcissists really hate themselves.
posted by transona5 at 8:38 AM on February 28, 2007

tl;dr!

I mean, I would have read it if I was MENTIONED in it, but since I wasn't, fuck it.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:38 AM on February 28, 2007 [1 favorite]

as a friend would say, "Well, that's enough about me. What do you think about me?"
posted by WolfDaddy at 8:40 AM on February 28, 2007

WolfDaddy, is your friend Bette Midler circa Beaches?
posted by jon_kill at 8:45 AM on February 28, 2007

It doesn't help that the generation they are referring to is the most heavily advertised-to in history. If their self-consciousness isn't being cultivated at home, it certainly is everywhere else.

A lifestyle based on the creation and obsessive tending of one's self-image from an early age is now the status quo. One advantage it has is that it encourages recreational risk-taking, but discourages social risk-taking-- heightening fears of alienation. Which probably explains the emphasis placed on financial and career security. All of this is a pretty valuable point of manipulation from a political standpoint, especially with the average citizen receiving both their cultural messages and their political messages from the exact same mediums-- television, internet, and print media-- sometimes simultaneously.
posted by hermitosis at 8:46 AM on February 28, 2007 [4 favorites]

Sorry, that should be disadvantage.
posted by hermitosis at 8:47 AM on February 28, 2007

I work at a university, and consequently I'm around college students on a daily basis. I'm almost 29, and these students seem *ridiculously* self-important compared to people my age. Obviously, there is some ageism on my part (damn kids!), but the behavioral difference is striking. The recent article about this "generation gap" could not be more accurate - I'm only (at most!) ten years older than most of these students, and I feel quite alienated from the social influences that drive them - and, consequently, the students themselves.

While self-esteem parenting may play a part in this "new narcissism", I think the real culprit is the (cough, semi-hyperbole alert) new media reality we live in: 24/7 cell phones, reality TV shows, tabloid-driven "news", iPods, and social networking sites. It's no longer about being a part of society, it's all about me, and the media and technology of our age foster this on a massive scale. There are three things a current college student does almost compulsively:

1) Talk on cell phones before, during, and after class.

I am not exaggerating when I say more than half of all students I pass in the hall on a given day are talking on cell phones. And about the most inane things - their hair, how they didn't get any sleep last night, how drunk they got last weekend, that there's a project they don't want to complete.

2) Listen to music on an iPod.

Not nearly as ubiquitous as cell phones, but still unmissable are the number of students wandering around campus - or sitting in class - with white earbuds seated in their ears. Using an iPod inherently creates a space in which I am special. Furthermore, my music is more important than you, and look, I have this expensive status item. I think the implied social message of being seen with an iPod is more important than using it as a tool, for many college students.

3) The centrality of Facebook and MySpace to the college experience.

I see a lot of students using computers, and other than checking their e-mail, most web browser use I see is on social networking sites, particularly Facebook and MySpace. It fascinates me; I utterly loathe the privacy-demolishing and narcissitic aspects of these sites, but they are enormously important in the social lives of current college students.

These three things create a giant echo chamber of me: I am central to this narrative, and you may take part in it, but don't forget who's in the spotlight here. Why settle for fifteen minutes of fame when you can have recognition twenty-four hours a day?
posted by Floach at 8:53 AM on February 28, 2007 [7 favorites]

It's a double only because of the short-lived deleted post, which itself was a much thinner post with a malformed link to a recent only-tangentially-related mefi post as its kick off link. Don't sweat it.
posted by cortex at 8:57 AM on February 28, 2007

While self-esteem parenting may play a part in this "new narcissism", I think the real culprit is the (cough, semi-hyperbole alert) new media reality we live in

Yesyesyesyesyes.

Thank you.

We've extended ourselves through technology so much that we're almost literally soaking in ourselves.
posted by poweredbybeard at 8:58 AM on February 28, 2007 [1 favorite]

It's not narcissism if it's all true.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 9:02 AM on February 28, 2007

To study the Way is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be enlightened by all things of the universe.

Dogen Zenji.
I'm hoping we all disappear so far up our own arseholes we will eventually find a way out the other end.
posted by Abiezer at 9:03 AM on February 28, 2007 [4 favorites]

Using an iPod inherently creates a space in which I am special.

Dude. I'm just listening to music.

Furthermore, my music is more important than you,

No, I really just want to listen to music right now. Every single time someone comes up to and starts talking, the earbuds come out.

and look, I have this expensive status item.

iPods range in price from $50 to $400 bucks. That's not status, it's just a thing.

I think the implied social message of being seen with an iPod is more important than using it as a tool, for many college students.

Oddly enough, it starts conversations, as people wonder what I'm listening to.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:03 AM on February 28, 2007 [1 favorite]

MetaFilter: we're almost literally soaking in ourselves.
posted by dbiedny at 9:06 AM on February 28, 2007 [2 favorites]

I also work at a university and I slightly disagree with Floach's hypothesis. More important than the technology available to the students is the fact that their parents and, to some extent, their professors, are vile enablers of the students' constant validation. The professors walk on eggshells hoping never to offend the students, lest they receive an angry letter or telephone call from parents who are paying extravagantly for their child to learn. But of course they're not paying for an education, they are paying for more validation that their child is not only acceptable but exceptional. After some time, it becomes easier for everyone involved, from the President down to the janitor, to further foster that environment than to fight it. After all, who wants to raise a stink before getting tenure? And, once you have it, why disrupt the system that has already benefited you greatly?
posted by billysumday at 9:10 AM on February 28, 2007

This whole supposed connection between an emphasis on self-esteem, and overwhelming narcissism and vanity, seems really simplistic. I'm not a psychologist, but the idea that being praised and accepted as a child leads one to be narcissistic and vain in later life just doesn't seem to fly. Emotional responses are not that clear cut. Some of the most arrogant people I've known have also been the most insecure. People who continually need to flaunt their egos or their self-worth are seldom very secure people. Actually psychological studies - as opposed to CNN's bullshit hypothesizing - have shown that people with high self-esteem are generally more accepting of others as well and find it easier to get along with people.

Floach: Using an iPod inherently creates a space in which I am special.

Oh, please. Maybe some people just like listening to music. You know, even when they are walking around, or working. People listen to iPods when they are doing homework, or doing menial jobs that require little concentration, or walking from place to place. People don't have conversations when they're doing homework because that would distract them from their homework, and people don't have conversations when they're at work because that would make them look really lazy, and they don't have them when they're walking from place to place because stopping to talk with random passerbys would make them late. People like to listen to music, a lot, that's why we have music players.

Also, do you actually have a Facebook account? Facebook is a social networking tool (as you mentioned) that allows people to see what their friends are doing. And send messages to their friends. And look at pictures of their friends activities. If all anyone ever did on Facebook is look at THEIR OWN PAGE, it would probably get old fast. If anything, Facebook is an example of the great sense of community that young people have, which older generations don't understand at all because it doesn't reflect *their* experience... which is pretty narcissistic if you think about it.

Anyways, I am not saying that kids today are not self-important and arrogant and narcissistic in a lot of ways. But isn't that kind of the point of being young? Thinking you matter and that you can change the world? All that stuff? Does anyone really begin a life of greatness saying "I am no more important than anyone else. I am just one speck among billions. My contributions will be quite small." Being narcissistic is part of being young and idealistic, and most of the assertions about this huge sweeping tide of narcissism are just plain silly.
posted by crackingdes at 9:11 AM on February 28, 2007 [4 favorites]

That keeps me in perspective for me:

"You are a fluke
Of the universe.
You have no right to be here.
And whether you can hear it or not
The universe is laughing behind your back."

But then, in a Universe animated by the principle of Shit Happens, I am some happ'nin' shit. In fact, I'm so vain, I bet I think think this thread is about me. And I don't need no iPod to tell me I'm special: I got my Voices to tell me I'm Napoleon. Now get off my cloud!
posted by davy at 9:13 AM on February 28, 2007

Heh.
We compete for the ILLUSION of MORE control of our personal consumption (fatuous media, "You are person of the Year", video/music/food on demand...),
yet in REALITY we have LESS political and social options than ever (undeclared and declared wars, intrusion in the name of "Nat'l Security", assaults on legality of who and where we can bond, electoral process...).
How do we sort that out?
posted by Dizzy at 9:16 AM on February 28, 2007

I dunno. Generations younger than me have almost always struck me as self-absorbed and inane. And I'm pretty sure that I have (and do) come across exactly the same way to people of older generations.

Put another way, "kids today" make me wonder if I was that bad when I was their age. Honest reflection suggests that I was (and still am, to whatever degree I have yet to grow up).
posted by treepour at 9:17 AM on February 28, 2007

You know, when you filter out every generation's tendency to notice that teenagers are self-obsessed (true in every era) and over-optimistic (true again), I think there's still a real shift going on here.

Look at the behavior we expect from 40-year-olds now, and the behavior that was expected of them 100 years ago. Maybe it's just historical ignorance on my part — maybe the mainstream was full of self-conscious, image-obsessed consumer-niche-identified 40-year-olds in 1907 and I'm just not aware of it — but I'd say the adults are getting more narcissistic too.
posted by nebulawindphone at 9:21 AM on February 28, 2007 [1 favorite]

Re: Brandon and Floach, on university students and the disconnect: As for mp3 players, I don't see it as a status-symbol thing that much (although count me in as a member of the group that has a knee-jerk reaction to those goddamn white headphones.)

As a lecturer on a giant public university campus, it was the IN-CLASS aspect that kills me. Their $specificbrand mp3 player with music is more important than class. Their phones are more important than class. Phonecalls, or texting (less so the mp3 players) frame their time in class. Class was something between calls.

Here's my specific example of a case: I'm teaching anthropology 101 ('Other people are different and that's OK'). We show a film about some group or another in Africa or South America and there's a lot of children having a good old time in the river while some women wash clothes there or something. Details unimportant. These were forest/village type people, not in a town or a city or anywhere near electricity.

Class discussion rolls around and as we're leaving, this art major says to me, "But I feel so baaad for those kids."

"Why?"

"Well, there's so many things they're never going to have."

I'm thinking she's going to say education, or vaccines, or, you know, food, although it's been shown they do perfectly well on the food front. "Like?"

"You know, like pretty shoes, or iPods. I want to just adopt one and show her all the good things we have."

I don't think I said anything. I was utterly, utterly dumbstruck. And that's the narcissism I see among peers and the slightly younger.

They'll go out and do 'good things' for the recognition it gets them (but this is a long-time truth.) Charity is fashionable; the forms it takes are slightly different over the years. Are they going to found library systems or museums? Likely not. The one-on-one appeal is greater to them, but it's far less productive in the end.
posted by cobaltnine at 9:23 AM on February 28, 2007 [2 favorites]

I heard that on the Doctor Demento show when I was a kid davy. The first lines still make me giggle. I need to find the mp3.
posted by vronsky at 9:23 AM on February 28, 2007

I'm old enough that I have heard exactly the same thing about two generations so far. So in a sense it is a much larger double than simply on mefi.
posted by srboisvert at 9:25 AM on February 28, 2007 [3 favorites]

The greatest thing about kids is that you can ignore them completely and it doesn't change a thing.

I'm reminded of a conversation I had in Japan with a man a generation older than me. He said many people describe Japan as a "Thank you" nation, with reflexive self-effacement and nearly apologetic thanks an integral part of the language and culture. He said, "That's only half the story: Japan is a 'You're welcome' nation, too. We are always letting one another know that their consideration is appreciated."

Maybe kids who never say thanks never learn they're welcome.

This is somewhat of a refraction of the point the posted article tries to illuminate; I think these things are related but tangentially, and certainly some of my friend's words apply as much to the world at large as they do to Japan. It's hard to be self-absorbed and self-effacing at the same time, and the rewards of grace are often merely grace itself.
posted by breezeway at 9:27 AM on February 28, 2007 [2 favorites]

The one-on-one appeal is greater to them, but it's far less productive in the end.

Call it the Brangelina Effect.
posted by psmealey at 9:27 AM on February 28, 2007

Like others, I'd have to say the fault lies with media oversaturation and the fact that these kids have been advertised to since before they could walk. The Century of the Self should be required viewing to every school kid in America.
posted by bstreep at 9:28 AM on February 28, 2007

billysumday wrote "The professors walk on eggshells hoping never to offend the students, lest they receive an angry letter or telephone call from parents who are paying extravagantly for their child to learn."

Actually, I feel sorry for the kids who have to have mommy and daddy call to complain about grades. The parents who do this are not doing the kid any favors at all. College is about learning to be a grown-up, and one of those lessons that must be learned is "putting zero effort into something means I will fail". That's what I tell the few parents who have actually called me about a kid.

The parents who do this have the mistaken belief that they can put pressure on a U professor the same way they can put pressure on a high school teacher. They don't realize that not living in their community and not being subject to the whims of their friends on the local school board or PTA means they have exactly zero leverage with me. If this were true in the high schools, we'd have fewer problems in college - but too many high school teachers I know either grade students honestly and then have to deal with the resulting (unwarranted) shitstorm, or give in, give up and pass students that didn't earn it and hope that real life catches up with them in someone else's classroom.
posted by caution live frogs at 9:31 AM on February 28, 2007

I wish that the youth of today would grab some of Keswick's crazy dyspeptic rage at everything that is not Keswick and apply it inwardly. WWKD.
posted by Divine_Wino at 9:38 AM on February 28, 2007

Breaking News: Geezers Tell Kids to Get Off Lawn.
posted by tadellin at 9:38 AM on February 28, 2007 [1 favorite]

Older generation sees change in younger generation as an impending cataclysmic collapse.

News at 11.

I get really tired of this crap.
posted by teece at 9:45 AM on February 28, 2007

The parents who do this have the mistaken belief that they can put pressure on a U professor the same way they can put pressure on a high school teacher.

I wonder how many of these parents have been to college themselves. That is, the problem is often described as one of "privileged" students whose parents do everything for them, but I have a feeling that it's actually a result of more people having the opportunity to attend college than ever before, including those from families that haven't attended Harvard for five generations and aren't aware how gauche it is to harass their children's professors. Some of the complaints about kids today and their pushy parents seem to have an unconscious classist element.
posted by transona5 at 9:46 AM on February 28, 2007

My child is an honor student at WhoTheFuck R U.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:47 AM on February 28, 2007

Self-esteem != Vanity

Being unique doesn't make me better or worse then anybody else, but makes me not exactly the same as any other. It is normal to be somehow different from others, but as this is true for anybody difference doesn't make anybody holier or worse then any other.

"Permissiveness seems to be a component," he said. "A potential antidote would be more authoritative parenting. Less indulgence might be called for."

Nah I can easily see that derailing to useless put-downs and obessively suggested comparisons to "perfect" standards (see the John's kid, he got all A grades ! You are a miserable SOB and your mom too !) leading to perfectionism.

Comparison to others shouldn't be necessarily competitive, nor should we measure ourselves with others , expecially if one keeps on comparing with people presented or perceived as "close to perfect"...I'd rather use comparison in an attempt to learn from others trying to make myself better.

But that _appears_ to be a lot harder then just parroting, so maybe what we are witnessing is an increase in imitation of self-important behaviors...sound much like "reality" in which tons of unwarranted attention is given to anything ...even bodily functions.

Celebrity Shit , How does She Turd ? :D !
posted by elpapacito at 10:00 AM on February 28, 2007

I think truth behind the ipod derail has less to with the device itself and more to do with what it (and phones etc.) offer: the power to craft a bubble of self-mediated influence around oneself, that others may be selectively included in. Of course, in order to do this, one must choose devices/music/features from the cornucopia of options that are marketed toward them. So the real truth is that this illusion of "self-mediated" reality covers up the actual mediation by the usual industrial powers that be.

People who flog their ipods like this are basically (whether consciously or otherwise) operating under the mindset that their immediate experience of reality is more important than any other encroaching fact of reality. Therefore, the function of public space has become subverted; public space is now just an extension of private space. And while enjoying private space is important to the mental health of individuals, being able to function and interact as a public being when in a public setting is pretty critical to our development as people.

Unfortunately people will usually choose the most immediately comfortable option (a tendency that has had consdquencies on our diet and fitness as well) over the unfamiliar, risky, or strenuous option.
posted by hermitosis at 10:01 AM on February 28, 2007 [1 favorite]

RE: floach, billysumday, et al.

I also work at $large_state_university and I'll say that 90% of the kids here are great, pleasant, and incredibly informed (more so than my day, actually *shakes fist*). But that last 10% is way more rude and self-centered in public than their parents would ever dream of, but it's only because now, they can be. The ability to talk loudly on the phone in class wasn't possible in my day, but I bet the laggard sleeping one off in PHYS 101 in my day would be yapping on his phone about the killer party last night today.

In my highly non-scientific opinion, 1/10th of people really are irredeemable, self-centred slobs and bores (no matter what feel-good philosophy you subscribe to) and losing sleep over them really isn't worth it. They'll end up as politicians and record company executives soon enough and then we can laugh and snort at their narcissistic ways while the cluelessly wander on down life's highway.

*grumbles, takes swill of Geritol, washes it down with ice cold PBR, goes out to fix divots in lawn from kids and their damn footballs*
posted by 1f2frfbf at 10:01 AM on February 28, 2007

Some of the complaints about kids today and their pushy parents seem to have an unconscious classist element.

You probably just feel that way because you're poor and rude. Joking!

In my experience, the pushy parents are wealthy and garish with their (and their children's) wealth, and have more reason to push the perception that their children are successful, while the kids from less affluent backgrounds have a better work ethic and attitude.
posted by billysumday at 10:01 AM on February 28, 2007

What crackindes said.
posted by jokeefe at 10:04 AM on February 28, 2007

The trick, I guess, is teaching confidence AND humility. As a parent, I can only say: someone please help me figure out how to do this.
posted by davejay at 10:05 AM on February 28, 2007

Breaking News: Geezers Tell Kids to Get Off Lawn.

Yep. It was ever thus.
posted by jokeefe at 10:06 AM on February 28, 2007

I bet Mink Stole could talk some sense into these kids. (Youtube).
posted by treepour at 10:10 AM on February 28, 2007

Man I really need to get in on some this free money for research that says young people are self-involved. I totally missed my calling.

I'll start a think-tank called "DUH Research Concepts". Anyone else want in?
posted by elendil71 at 10:10 AM on February 28, 2007

Lots of good comments in this thread. But here's what bothers me about the article:

No one makes even a token attempt to show that the study's self-reported vanity test has any correlation to self-important behavior.
posted by grobstein at 10:13 AM on February 28, 2007

People who flog their ipods like this are basically (whether consciously or otherwise) operating under the mindset that their immediate experience of reality is more important than any other encroaching fact of reality.

While there is an element of truth to what you are saying, your general sentiment seems to be about 99.9% overreaction/reactionary.

The way we behave is changing with time. It has always been thus, and always will be thus. It is much, much harder to say the way we behave is changing for the worse. Don't jump to that conclusion without very good reason. If you look at the history of cultures and human reactions, you'll find it really doesn't make sense. Every change brings bad things and good things. It's usually nigh impossible to weigh those good and bad things and come up with some net "good" or "bad" evaluation.

The reality is just change.
posted by teece at 10:15 AM on February 28, 2007 [1 favorite]

The ability to talk loudly on the phone in class wasn't possible in my day

I hear this mentioned a lot by friends that are teachers and professors, but I don't get it. Why is this sort of thing beyond the control of the teacher or lecturer to prohibit it? Just as teachers in my day had the will to make the kids in class spit out their chewing gum and turn off their Walkmans, why can't the powers that be today do anything to try to control the classroom a bit better by forbidding the use of cell phones and iPods? Have things really changed all that much?
posted by psmealey at 10:19 AM on February 28, 2007

Y'know, I've noticed that people who are not so happy with themselves and frustrated with their lives seem to tend to think that people who are pretty happy with themselves and enjoying life are self-absorbed and narcissistic - which may be true, but isn't always. I've noticed this tendency in myself from time to time, and once I recognized it I've done my best to fight it, because it can unfairly color my opinion of other people.

Just my personal observation; it may be that all these "narcissistic" young people are just genuinely happier in their lives with their different modes of interaction, and observers who are not so happy are reacting with undue negativity.

Plank in your own eye first, please.
posted by zoogleplex at 10:27 AM on February 28, 2007 [1 favorite]

While there is an element of truth to what you are saying, your general sentiment seems to be about 99.9% overreaction/reactionary.

I actually agree with you; values aside, this is just one more way for people to behave. But as someone who behaves differently (and as someone who spends a lot of time in public space) it is an undeniable fact that this difference is very pronounced, and that it effects social interaction on a readily observable level. Without any judgment injected into it, when I am in public I perceive some people as open/available and others as closed/unavailable. In the past this has been more ambiguous, but now you can tell at thirty paces not only who is on/off, but who to avoid walking behind or near because of their obliviousness due to engagement in a whole other social realm.

It's been a slow creep over the past couple of decades, and the change is really only more visible than ever. In NYC I actually blame the city environment more than the individuals, which seems almost deliberately designed to draw people into it yet retreat from it at the same time.
posted by hermitosis at 10:30 AM on February 28, 2007

Wait. People talk on their phones during class?
posted by jon_kill at 10:42 AM on February 28, 2007

psmealey I dunno about the schools other people go to, but at the university I'm attending the professors don't put up with it. I've only seen someone answer their phone in class twice, and both times the teacher told them to leave. That's "leave" as in "don't bother coming back today". Mostly people look sheepish and embarrassed if they forget to put their phones on vibrate.

As for iPods and the like, I've never personally seen anyone listening to music during class, but I'd imagine the teachers here wouldn't put up with it if anyone did.

The article is just pointless "kids today suck" BS.

I'm not saying that what some other people are reporting isn't true, I'm sure they've see what they describe. But it's hardly universal, and I'd guess that its the exception rather than the norm.

Now, I will add my gripe about people who listen to their MP3 players with the volume up so loud that you hear their music too. Especially people who do this in the library, or other places where we're trying to concentrate.
posted by sotonohito at 10:43 AM on February 28, 2007

This reminds me of the contestants on American Idol who refuse to believe that there is any reasonable objective standard by which their singing should be judged. They're been told over and over that they can do whatever they want in life, and the ideas of practice, excellence, talent, or even aptitude don't seem to figure in somehow.
posted by miss tea at 10:50 AM on February 28, 2007

I think the conclusion's pretty lame (and I'm 20). I'd really like to see the questions that were asked on that survey. In the first article, we do get three examples, but they're not really convincing.

If I ruled the world, it would be a better place
Is there anyone here who doesn't agree with this statement? Let's say you're pro-choice. If you rule the world, you can now legalize abortion everywhere. It might take awhile to build the clinics and even longer for society to adapt, but if you're pro-choice, you think the world would be a better place if abortion were legal everywhere -- and you'd legalize it first thing. Okay, check "yes" on this one.

I think I am a special person
I think everybody's heard the snowflake speech. I'm special, you're special, but we're all special so it doesn't matter. This earns a "yes" on a technicality.

I can live my life any way I want to
You can! Why not? You might not like the consequences, but that just means you'll wind up changing your mind about how you want to live -- and then living the new way you want to live. Definite "yes."

Congratulations -- we're all complete narcissists!

I go to NYU, a giant private university, and I've never, ever seen anyone talk on a cell during even the biggest lectures. In three years here, I haven't heard students' cells ring in class more than ten times, and the reaction is always an embarrassed one; nobody has ever answered the call. In the same three years, I've heard professors' cells go off probably six or seven times -- and some of them do answer in the middle of class! (These are primarily English professors; they're not in the nuclear science or world-saving departments.)

On the other hand, if you're asking about occasional surreptitious text-messaging during class, there are many guilty students...but are you saying you never passed notes in class?
posted by booksandlibretti at 10:57 AM on February 28, 2007

The article is just pointless "kids today suck" BS.

I knew full well that a lot of people would receive it that way, but I thought it was an interesting topic to broach.

For lack of a better name, I am a member of Generation X. When I graduated college in 1989 and took one of those jobs on Wall Street that only take kids from Ivy League schools and makes them work 85+ hours per week. No one liked working those kinds of hours, but we did it, without complaint. Well, we bitched to each other, but it was always done in more of a competitive (look at me) kind of way, rather than a woe is me kind of way. To do that would have been considered contemptible.

Years go by, and I find myself at a similarly huge company working with roughly the same type of super achieving, bourgeois, Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale recent grads.

The entire program had changed. They were promised upon starting that they would never have to work more than 60 hours per week, and when they did, it was unusual. They were also entitled to file grievances about it when they felt they were being worked too hard.

Being a slacker child of the 80s, there's no way I'll cop to the geezer ethos of, in my day we were blah, blah, blah. We did drugs, fucked around and slacked as hard as any generation before or since, but when it came to work, you didn't screw around. I was amazed to see how much things had changed, with even the stodgiest and most conservative of corporations enabling it.

So, in the end, it's not the changes in the kids that amaze me (I don't think we're so different), it's the changes in institutions that does.

If I am bitter about it, it's only because I am jealous of how these fuckers were able to change the system so they could make the same money I did and have twice as much free time. If I had had a similar experience, I'd probably still be there, set for life.
posted by psmealey at 10:59 AM on February 28, 2007 [1 favorite]

From what I can tell, the woman is using a test for the diagnostic criteria for narcissistic personality disorder, which is a DSM diagnosis and people who meet the full criteria for it are truly problematic.

I would like to read the actual study (which apparently has only been presented at a conference, not yet passed peer review) in order to see how close it is to the actual diagnosis and whether larger numbers of people actually meet the full diagnostic criteria than did in the past. If you just look for a few aspects of a diagnosis without requiring the people to meet the full criteria, it's not as meaningful.

If they do meet full or close to full criteria, however, then I'll worry (although I'd be *way* more worried if we found a massive increase in antisocial personality disorder).

I agree with those who say that this probably has nothing to do with constantly telling kids that they are "special"-- true narcissists tend to be deeply damaged in some way, often due to child abuse or neglect or some other form of trauma.

People rarely become nasty because they have too much or because other people are too nice to them-- far more often, they become so out of pain and unmet needs. However, this can include the unmet need to understand how to get pleasure from pleasing others which is the need from which human connection grows. Some parents may "spoil" kids by not working to develop this capacity in them via nurturing that teaches empathy-- and if that's increasing as it does appear to be, that would be truly worrisome.
posted by Maias at 11:06 AM on February 28, 2007

"They were promised upon starting that they would never have to work more than 60 hours per week, and when they did, it was unusual."

So, you're annoyed that the froshes are working fewer hours than you had to, because they themselves changed the system? But that's not really the case...

Several of decades of corporate research (I have read and heard, too busy to find links, sorry I'm a slacker, class of '87) has determined that working 85+ hours a week gives little to no productivity gains (and may in fact reduce productivity) over working 60 hours, and burns out employees very quickly, rather than creating valuable long-term employees.

Sorry you went thru the meat grinder, and sure you should have some pride about getting thru it, but businesses have discovered that overworking people is bad for the bottom line, so most of them are getting away from that and trying to adopt more efficient HR management and project management.

Even the business I'm in, video games, has finally figured out that you get better results if you don't kill your employees and if you have solid process engineering applied to your workflows.

I can understand you being bitter and jealous but this didn't happen because younger workers are narcissistic slackers, it happened because it was costing companies a lot of time and money. Corporations don't "enable" anything unless it makes them more money.

Hang in there, buddy, and enjoy your shorter hours.
posted by zoogleplex at 11:31 AM on February 28, 2007

From what I can tell, the woman is using a test for the diagnostic criteria for narcissistic personality disorder, which is a DSM diagnosis and people who meet the full criteria for it are truly problematic.

This is why I distrust this "study" very deeply.

Narcissistic personality disorder is not "selfish kids." Using that test for anything other than diagnosing narcissism is stupid.

Is the researcher giving these people psych tests for that particular disorder? No, they are not. Personality disorders are extremely dicey, even for the field of psych, and giving someone a survey in no way counts as a diagnosis. Even if the "Narcissistic Personality Inventory" is used as a tool in diagnosing a personality disorder by psychs, it is in no way a "test" for narcissism.

You can find several very solid, research-backed surveys for ADHD tendencies online. Taking such surveys in no way diagnose ADHD, and applying any trends taken from such surveys toward claiming the takers have ADHD would be very irresponsible (such tests are answered entirely via self-evaluation, and with no consideration given for anything other than the survey, they would be essentially meaningless).

But saying kids today are narcissists, as the researchers seem to be saying, acts like such a diagnosis has been made. That's very icky.

Further, the reasons the researchers cite for the "increase" in selfishness and narcissism are 100% made up. They are an off-the-cuff hypothesis for the results of their survey. It is in no way known that that hypothesis is at all accurate.

This is junk science, or at the very least junk science reporting.

Assuming the data and methods of this research are sound, it's just as possible that it points to a problem in the NPI, as much as anything else. You'd need to actually diagnose people with narcissistic personality disorder to, you know, say they have pathologically self-centered behavior. That has not been done, in spite of the heavy implication that such a thing has been done.
posted by teece at 11:34 AM on February 28, 2007

I'm 32 and I have a cell phone and an iPod. And a blog. Perhaps I have NPD.
posted by desjardins at 11:35 AM on February 28, 2007

I hope you understood that my expression of bitterness and jealousy was intended to be more humorous than spiteful, zoogleplex. More power to 'em.
posted by psmealey at 11:36 AM on February 28, 2007

jon_kill: Wait. People talk on their phones during class?

Yes, I've seen students messaging and talking in the back of large lecture halls. This is why I compared it to students napping thru class. It's all about being rude where the professor can't (or won't) keep tabs on students.

sotonohito nails it: "But it's hardly universal, and I'd guess that its the exception rather than the norm." A student gabbing or listening to music is much more apparent that all but the most obnoxious napper.
posted by 1f2frfbf at 11:44 AM on February 28, 2007

I disagree with everything in the article, except for the fact the rise of ubiquitous communication is clearly changing social groupings. Purely anecdotally I found it somewhat hard to converse with people outside of class, as many were living in what the media is deeming as bubbles. It is hard to approach someone running to their car or talking on their cell phone immediately after class. It gives people the ability to connect with whomever, whenever. Sometimes I would like to have lunch with classmates or whatever and felt I was talking to Donald Trump ("I just had made lunch plans with friends"). Now in time I learned that such people were rather vapid, boring and not people I'd engage in conversation with. I don't say this as I'm some sort of social leper, I met plenty of people and have plenty of friends, but they are rather homogeneous.

I think there is something to be said about spontaneity and new experiences without texting all your friends or constantly hanging out with the same group. I'd often leave my cell phone at home (for personal reasons, I didn't want professional calls to interfere with class or with my concentration) and without sounding like a leftist hippie, it was very freeing. I no longer felt compelled to call the same people or go to the same place, and some of my most interesting encounters resulted from that.

That said I would like to reiterate that I do not think instant communication is something bad, I am not a Luddite. I just think it might be a wee bit abused and isolate the future middle managers of America even more. I just wonder about perhaps the so-called plastic people who would not be so if the welcoming cushion is not available to them. I admit that I spent the first several years of college hanging out with safe friends, but for me at least it was rather empty.

Perhaps it has more to do with college being a necessity to get a job and no longer the pursuit of intellectualism that it once was. It is attracting all sorts of people that 3-4 decades ago would never have gone to college. It would be interesting if this study was done among all those college age in say 1950 and now.
posted by geoff. at 11:44 AM on February 28, 2007

As a person who has worked years in retail and customer service in a major metropolis I feel qualified in saying that the dread diseases of assholism and self-absorption cut across every age group, class, race, gender and sexual orientation in roughly equal measures.

Every day I when I go into work I ask myself whose teeth am I going to feel myself wanting to kick in today, and every day I am unfailingly surprised.
posted by Jess the Mess at 11:45 AM on February 28, 2007

Or, to put it another way... my main point (indecipherable) was that the younger generation is no more self-centered or frivolous than we were or our parents were. What seems moreover true is that the current older generation perceives that "the rules" (e.g: societal mores, corporate and academic policies) have changed as to give the impression that the younger generation is more self-centered and frivolous than the older generation remembers itself to be.

Clear as mud, I know.
posted by psmealey at 11:47 AM on February 28, 2007

"I hope you understood that my expression of bitterness and jealousy was intended to be more humorous than spiteful, zoogleplex."

Fair enough! Lucky little bastards, ain't they? Darn research...

"Clear as mud, I know."

Summary: the more things change, the more they stay the same.
posted by zoogleplex at 11:49 AM on February 28, 2007

I'm 32 and I have a cell phone and an iPod. And a blog. Perhaps I have NPD.

I'm 33, have not only a cell phone and an iPod, but a Palm TX, and I take pictures of myself and post them on Flickr! When I find myself stuck somewhere I don't really want to be (a line, generally), I'll listen to my iPod AND read eBooks on my Palm.

God, I am so bent. Or something.

I also went back to college full time as an "old man" recently. I'd use my cell phone and iPod as much as the kids. I never used it in class; nor did anyone I ever saw. My iPod was a great tool -- one must study in very public places on a college campus. Music can create a private space when I needed to do that, which was often. It never hindered social things for me, or any one that I knew. I did not use any of this stuff in class, or when I was with other people.

None of this has much of anything to do with this study, I suppose, but it's what we're talking about in this thread.

I never noticed the kids I was going to school with to be any more self-centered than anyone else. Yes, there are marked differences between generations -- there always will be in times of such great change, as the last century has been.

The idea that these changes are negative is bunk. A particular change might be, but these researchers have done nothing to prove that (and almost every change will have both negative and positive aspects). It seems the researchers haven't done a hell of a lot more than spend some grant money to say "get off my lawn, you whipper-snappers!", unfortunately.
posted by teece at 11:54 AM on February 28, 2007

As a narcissistic young person myself, I know that in the bright New service economy I want to look my very best while serving you salads, making sure your espresso is "half-caf", soy, foamless, not too hot and that the two packets of Slenda are mixed in BEFORE the milk is added, and that the deep furrows rent across my brow by my feelings of intellectual and emotional isolation from a society where poetry and art are little more than commodified myth are sufficiently concealed by some kind of rejuvenating, botanical cream with a natural SPF. I also want to appear sufficiently grateful for the $6.50 an hour I earn after taxes and the gracious tip of your 23 cents in change that you drop only because you don't want dimes and pennies jingling in your pocket. Yes, I'm terribly vain, but when the only human warmth available is the anonymous grip of a sweaty stranger I met at a deafening club, I'm afraid my extensive knowledge of Russian literature and history, my expensive and useless BA, and my extremely rich inner life will not get me laid or steam that espresso any faster. Assholes.
posted by bukharin at 11:57 AM on February 28, 2007 [21 favorites]

Just more proof of the ongoing encroachment of Entitlement Syndrome™. It's the result of the process of creating good little citize..., er, consumers, the primary mission of secondary educational institutions. Pay your membership fee to the College Club, and we'll make sure you are immersed in an environment where you are given endless amounts of positive feedback and soul-nourishing encouragement. Too bad you'll ultimately find out that the world, the REAL world, has precious little in common with this cocoon of self-satisfaction that you took out loans to attend, better get to that job, you've got a note to cover and can I interest you in a $4 cup of coffee? See how those crucial deductive reasoning skills get used? One child or three? 30 year mortgage? Hey, it was all about you, now pay the piper, or you're gonna really find out what we think about you. Eat a fucking pill, Prozac, WellButrin, FeelGoodTrin, KingOfTheWorldzac, have some wine with that lie. Mommy and Daddy told you that you were a snowflake, oh so special, too bad Mommy and Daddy aren't married anymore, hey, we weren't happy in that marriage, and we wanted to move on with our lives. We both love you, though I love you more, look, I gave you better shit for the Dead Jewish Messiah/Carpenter Day™ than your no-good mother whore. Go to college, get that paper, go get a career so you can have it all, just like us. Just make sure you have a prenup before you marry that slut you call a girlfriend.

Just more of the con in action. The difference is that we call all compare notes on the Internet, so some of us have an even better idea of how deep this rabbit hole goes, and man, it ain't gonna be pretty when the American nightmare comes crashing down and the Chinese arrive to collect the note. They don't give a flying fuck about your self-image and narcissistic attitude, they propped us up and they want their money. NOW.

Glad to get that off my chest. Now get off my frikkin lawn, ya little egocentric bastards, I gotta have me some peace and quiet. American Idol is on, I wants to see if that fine dancer bitch is drunk or stoned.
posted by dbiedny at 12:00 PM on February 28, 2007 [3 favorites]

The more I think about this, the more I'm wanting to put on my tin foil hat and declare it as a covert, pre-election attempt to frame debate on parenting techniques & their effect on society. "Oh no, look at the damage liberal spare-the-rod parenting has done to our nation!"
posted by treepour at 12:05 PM on February 28, 2007

It may be narcissism, but it ain't new. Every generation says this about the next, and claims to have evidence to prove it.

We we saw the story on NBC News last night, I turned to my partner -- we both grew up in the 1970s -- and said, "I thought --we-- were the "Me Generation." That was what people who grew up in the 60s called us, since we indulged ourselves in sex, drugs, and disco instead of marching for a cause.
posted by Robert Angelo at 12:16 PM on February 28, 2007

They'll go out and do 'good things' for the recognition it gets them (but this is a long-time truth.) Charity is fashionable; the forms it takes are slightly different over the years. Are they going to found library systems or museums? Likely not. The one-on-one appeal is greater to them, but it's far less productive in the end.

Far less productive than what? I'm of the view that there really no such thing as true altruism. You do it for a reason: Because it makes you feel good, because it pleases a higher power, and yes, because of recognition. And you think that all the moneybags out there donate to library systems and museums out of pure genrosity? Guess again. Many are making charitable contributions for the tax write off. That's the way it's been and that's the way it continues.

In the end, though, the reason why people are charitable doesn't matter. What matters is that they still do give in one way or another.

Back to the main point of the post: I've suffered through more than a couple of generations including my own, and I have to say that in my opinion, people have not changed a hell of a lot. They've just found new ways to be annoying (or not). The current generation doesn't have a lock on supreme vanity or assholishness - just look at the current batch of politicians, ranging mostly from boomers thru gen x.
posted by SteveInMaine at 12:19 PM on February 28, 2007

treepour Man, and I thought I was paranoid... But now that you mention it I can't help but wonder if you've got a point.
posted by sotonohito at 12:21 PM on February 28, 2007

It used to be that only the wealthy had the privledge of absorbing themselves in artistic and other desires of leisure. Now a large segment of the population has a ready access to a wealth of music, fashion, culture, film, television, and literature regardless of social status. In addition, many more have the time, the means, and the lack of dedication to the social contract to engross themselves in these. As a result, to compete in the social sphere, one must become proficiently able to reference them. It seems inevitable that it would skew a portion of the populace towards narcissism that was previously unable to be narcissistic. It would be more a slow trend since the 60s though I'd imagine.

This being said, it wouldn't be just them kids.
posted by kigpig at 12:31 PM on February 28, 2007

This seems like a good place to point out that the hardcover edition of Thomas de Zengotita's Mediated is currently on sale for $6.99.
posted by Prospero at 12:33 PM on February 28, 2007

I, for one, don't think the world would be a better place if I ruled it. It would be a dystopic wasteland where men are little different from animals and life and death are but two sides of a coin.

I am also not "special." I am superior. There's a difference.

I'm not particularly concerned about living my life the way I want to. I'm more concerned with making other people live their lives the way I want them to.

Of course, I'm from an older generation. We were raised with values.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 12:36 PM on February 28, 2007 [3 favorites]

I'm just making this comment so I can favorite it.
posted by now i'm piste at 12:37 PM on February 28, 2007 [1 favorite]

my extremely rich inner life will not get me laid or steam that espresso any faster

Bukharin, I understand; it's hard enough serving all these unenlightened troglodytes with my valve the way it is.
posted by sarcasman at 12:39 PM on February 28, 2007

I, for one, don't think the world would be a better place if I ruled it. It would be a dystopic wasteland where men are little different from animals and life and death are but two sides of a coin.

I am also not "special." I am superior. There's a difference.

I'm not particularly concerned about living my life the way I want to. I'm more concerned with making other people live their lives the way I want them to.

Of course, I'm from an older generation. We were raised with values.

Dick? Mr. Cheney? Is that you?
posted by jokeefe at 12:57 PM on February 28, 2007

Being morally opposed to the Walkman Ipod carries with it certain responsibilities.
posted by Snyder at 1:15 PM on February 28, 2007

Using an iPod inherently creates a space in which I am special. Furthermore, my music is more important than you, and look, I have this expensive status item.

How dare you think that you are more special than I? It is clear that I am more special than you.
posted by electroboy at 1:30 PM on February 28, 2007

I also also teach at $Large_State_University and graduated from Virginia in 1992. If you make some allowance for $Large_State being bigger and far less selective than UVa, the students here aren't any worse. Back in the dim mists of history when Reagan stalked the Earth and velociraptors hid in the shadows:

*Students had all sorts of dipshit conversations about nothing and worse-than-nothing, easily including just how fuckin' drunk they'd gotten last night.

*Students did all sorts of charity crap they didn't really give a shit about because they thought it would look good on their med/law school application.

*Some students at least wouldn't take off their #%@$! walkmen to save their lives.

*Students regularly slept through large lecture classes, or did the crossword during them (me included), or even just sat back and read the paper.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:33 PM on February 28, 2007

I think that, from a very early age, "college track" kids are pushed to commodify and package themselves (often with extensive coaching) to a degree not seen before.* When teenagers are pushed to mythologize themselves and their "life stories" before they've even begun, who's to start telling them they're NOT entitled and uniquely important?



*I once took a Kaplan training class where one activity was to present our 5 minute "life story" to the class. Most of the over-25 participants talked about educational/career attainments, hobbies, travels or places of residence, etc. but the current college students were much more about reciting personal mythologies that you imagine they were preparing for their future "E! Hollywood Story" or Presidential run. My favorite presentation was from a college sophmore who spent her entire allotment telling us--in a speech you could tell had been carefully spun, vetted, packaged, and presented over and over again to admissions committees, awards committees, intro writing classes, etc.--a heartbreaking story about how she had been "deeply scarred" by the trauma of having her first grade teacher correct her in front of the class when she said that eggs were black.....the student was Asian American, and 13 years, one elite private high school and an Ivy League college later (and plenty of accomplishments and experiences along the way, I'm sure) it was still supposedly the definitive moment of her life that an elementary school teacher once made the mistake of not immediately realizing she was talking about preserved duck eggs.
posted by availablelight at 1:51 PM on February 28, 2007 [1 favorite]

I think everybody's heard the snowflake speech.

yeah, but everybody forgets the character who gave it was crazy

there are worse things than being self-absorbed ... such as being absorbed in what everyone else is doing and saying and starting endless arguments about it ...
posted by pyramid termite at 2:14 PM on February 28, 2007

My favorite presentation was from a college sophmore who spent her entire allotment telling us ... a heartbreaking story about how she had been "deeply scarred" by the trauma of having her first grade teacher correct her in front of the class when she said that eggs were black

Yes, it might seem narcissistic, but it no doubt worked. It encapsulates issues of race, identity, and learning humility all in one package. My personal essays for college were such crap in comparison. My sister's essay (she applied to college 12 years after I did) was much better than mine, too, and also managed to work this angle very well.

These personal essays are extremely annoying. I mean, you're 17. When your life is more or less, "I have a family, work hard in school, enjoy spending time with my friends, and have gone on vacation a couple of times," it's only natural that the college essay is going to try to magnify these aspects of your life into The Most Moving Life Story Ever.
posted by deanc at 2:24 PM on February 28, 2007

My sister's essay (she applied to college 12 years after I did) was much better than mine, too, and also managed to work this angle very well.

I know exactly what you mean as I see many "personal statements" of this nature in the course of my job. They appear extremely polished and interesting, but they mostly adhere to a basic formula/structure. It's kind of like the "Bart's People" segment on the Simpsons. You see one and it looks impressive that someone of such and such age could be so polished, but after a few, you conclude that they'd all taken the same Kaplan course. With a few exceptions, it's pretty bland stuff, and I usually always prefer the rougher ones that have something a bit more interesting to say.

To their credit, a lot of these kids do have some pretty exotic travel experiences, but I would attribute this to the fact that post cold war and post Khmer, more of the world is open to them.
posted by psmealey at 3:25 PM on February 28, 2007

And then you, as their instructor, catch one of them (of any race, sex, sexual preference, ethnicity, etc.) plagiarising a paper and they react as if their so carefully scripted "life story" has been derailed.

"I'm a student at Yale! You can't give me an 'F"!"

This is why I stopped teaching.
posted by bad grammar at 4:19 PM on February 28, 2007

I don't have a large enough longitudinal sample to work with for university students, but I tutored high school students from age sixteen and on for many, many years. I have seen required answers go from specific and concrete to squishier and squishier. Don't tell me the answer, tell me how asking makes you feel. Children who simply would have been held back a grade, or at least failed a class, are now moved on, regardless of test scores and final grades, to keep them with their peer group, and to avoid damaging their self-esteem. Self-esteem is now an end, rather than a lovely byproduct of work and accomplishment. I get called in to help the kids whose self-esteem has radically outstripped their ability to, say, multiple one-digit numbers together.

Additionally, people are becoming encouraged to be proud of things which were not accomplishments, but rather accidents of birth. Racial pride? Did I work very hard to be mostly Irish? No. Gay pride? I thought that was supposed to not be a choice. Pride, to me, is based on something you actually worked for, struggled to achieve, etc. Instead, we have self-esteem based on nothing.

Now grades are mostly a matter of lawyering and the amount of influence your family can bring to bear on a teacher. The public rallies against standardized testing because it might actually show that little Johnny wasn't the brilliant angel that everyone has told him he is.

As to the self-absorption, I have been at university for many years and have noticed increasing number of students stunned into what I call "clicky catatonia," that state in which people stand like zombies enraptured by some small electronic device with which they must interface, now. This can occur anywhere - in the middle of a line, at a counter, in a busy walkway. It does not occur to anyone that this might be socially unacceptable. At some universities, the students act like bosses - everyone else is hired help, and it's impossible, by definition, to be rude to the help.

So, yeah, I buy it.
posted by adipocere at 4:32 PM on February 28, 2007

adipocere: the whole point of pride is taking pride in something that previously was considered shameful. And when you say "Well, I'm Irish I don't need to have pride in that" you are totally missing the point. For the last several generations there has been no shame in being Irish. Kids don't kill themselves because they are Irish. People aren't denied housing because they are Irish.

And let's not even start on the gay is a choice comment.
posted by aspo at 4:56 PM on February 28, 2007

The whole point of pride is taking pride in something that previously was considered shameful.

Says you.
posted by breezeway at 5:11 PM on February 28, 2007

This is particularly apropos since I just came back from teaching a class in which I had students, during a two-hour lecture: a) on MSN b) having their cell phone ring c) updating their mySpace pages d) utterly shocked that they did not have the right to re-take a quiz they missed after deciding to vacation in Mexico.

I don't think it's "vanity", per se, although I think the several comments regarding a mediated, user-centric, "always on" society rang very true. And I agree that generations are not that dissimilar from one to the next. They have the same drives: urges to rebel, form tribal groups, etc. But there are appreciable differences: there is a reason the terms "baby boomers" and "greatest generation" are bandied about.

I do think that a sense of entitlement is a very large part of it. These kids have, to a great degree, been cocooned and scheduled their entire lives: ballet class, music lessons, call-me-wherever-you-are, etc. They're also very much used to multi-tasking. Many find it difficult to concentrate on just one thing for an extended period of time.

In class the other day I defined at as the distance between ambition and ability. Many of them absolutely expect to get the job that they are after, to pass their classes, etc, without any considerable effort. They're devastated the first time they actually fail. They've never been confronted with the notion that, academically speaking, they may not measure up.

Finally, there's very much a focus on "the one answer", the conviction that there should be a right, simple solution that will allow them to get the job done. Many of them find it difficult to take a concept, alter it slightly, and apply it to something else.

I should stop before I get the urge to napalm my lawn.
posted by Bora Horza Gobuchul at 5:14 PM on February 28, 2007

So find it something else to call it besides pride. My point stands: people are entirely too pleased with themselves over accidents of birth and false praise, rather than what they have done, learned, accomplished, and brought into the world. And it's a generation of people who are taught to worship what they are, without criticality or doubt, rather than how far they have progressed in their own lives.
posted by adipocere at 5:16 PM on February 28, 2007

bora horza: I am curious, do you remember how did you manage to develop the skills those students of yours appear to lack ?

Rather than a personal question, take it as a question I somebody asked myself and often found the most immediate, associated answer was "because I was interested"..but this is only an immediate association like "sweet ? cake" or "beautiful ? A girl I met" ..it is not pondered.

When I try recalling what led me to be what I am , sometimes I meet memory of people who influenced my live positively (or negatively) and sometimes experiences such as reading my first science-book about planets, when I was 5-6 years old.

What hooked me (and still hooks me :-) was the unfolding of apparently complicated , "misterious" problems in rational, compelling explanations.

Probably these "kids" need just that, as opposed to "everything is explained or will be explained, why bother"
posted by elpapacito at 5:26 PM on February 28, 2007

i might take this opportunity to paste a favourite quote from ethereal bligh (googled a million times to try & find the original post, but no luck, for some reason...)

the classic narcissistic personality is paradoxically both indifferent to and extremely sensitive to other people's opinions of them. This contradiction parallels another, the narcissist's perverse combination of self-love and self-hate.

People often misunderstand what narcissism is because they go no further than accepting the superficial implications of the person who has fallen in love with their own image reflected in the mirror. But a narcissist isn't so much in love with themselves as they are mesmerized by the idea of themselves.

The most anti-narcissistic thing I can think of is something I remind myself of occasionally and have told to a few of the narcissists close to me in the past: you will never, ever be even remotely as important to anyone else as you are to yourself. You are the hero (or anti-hero, or tragic lead) of your own drama...but no one else's. In everyone else's story, you are a secondary character--you're just not that important. In contrast, a narcissist will call you up in the middle of the night in crisis, perhaps a crisis of self-confidence or even loathing, but the key thing is that the occasion is assumed to be momentous--in their personal narrative that moment is a key scene where they may apprehend some great life-truth or suffer a tragic defeat--it's a turning point. They will expect you to remember the smallest details of their personal lives but will blithely refuse to remember even the most important facts and events of yours. They will often be heard complaining how selfish and ungrateful everyone else is, how they are constantly being taken advantage of by others because of their own generous, unselfish and idealistic nature. In fact, in my opinion that is their single most defining characteristic.

Saying that the narcissist lacks empathy, as this author does, is a bit incomplete of a description. They lack empathy in a very specific way: when they do try to relate to other people, to understand other people's states of mind, what they do is to merely see a clone of themselves as the other person. This is part of why they are so impatient and disappointed in everyone else. They are deeply contemptuous because the only explanation they can imagine for other people's failure to completely agree with them (because the truth is so obvious) is that the other person has some deep moral flaw or otherwise are willfully being wrong. Perhaps, they suspect, this willful wrongness is motivated from a malice directed toward them.
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:00 PM on February 28, 2007 [2 favorites]

Sigh. This "study" is all about politics.
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 8:56 PM on February 28, 2007

The etiology of pathological narcissism/narcissistic personality disorder is not self esteem. It is a combination of nature/nurture issues, ie, genetic predisposition and not being loved in a healthy way by primary caretakers in the first 6 years, such as being smothered/over-controlled or traumatised/abandoned.

Self aggrandising is a narcissistic trait, among other traits. Grandiosity is not self esteem, it's a symptom of depression. Narcissism is falsely thought to be self-love. It isn't. Narcissists are not capable of loving, neither others, nor themselves.

Self esteem is not narcissism.
posted by nickyskye at 9:28 PM on February 28, 2007

elpapacito - not taken personally at all. Here I must admit that we're dealing with a biased sample: I can be as easily distracted as these kids, and multitask fairly well. The difference being a) I would never think to be as rude as to behave that way in a class; and b) I am very much a self-motivated learner. Most classes were groundwork for me - the most interesting and informative things I found by myself. My students, for the most part, are not - otherwise they would not be in school.
posted by Bora Horza Gobuchul at 9:35 PM on February 28, 2007

Senecan Moods: Foucault and Nietzsche on the Art of the Self [PDF]
posted by homunculus at 9:38 PM on February 28, 2007

I am an 8th grade dropout. FWIW.
posted by davy at 11:03 PM on February 28, 2007

These personal essays are extremely annoying. I mean, you're 17. When your life is more or less, "I have a family, work hard in school, enjoy spending time with my friends, and have gone on vacation a couple of times," it's only natural that the college essay is going to try to magnify these aspects of your life into The Most Moving Life Story Ever.

Also, the idea of baring my soul to a faceless organization that doesn't seem to have any good reason for wanting to know* just feels... intrusive, creepy, and intensely repugnant. And there's that element of, "We're going to be judging your very life".

*They want to "get to know me"? No, they don't. If they're scanning college apps looking for their new BFF, that's disturbing.

Expecting people to want to talk about themselves in intense personal detail.... Ugh. Actually requiring it? Oh, sweet Jesus.

I bet the egg girl just picked a story that she was comfortable sharing and could work a few Themes into.

/derail
//surely to be expected in a thread about self-absorbtion
posted by sleeplessunderwater at 11:47 PM on February 28, 2007

The only reason y'all don't recognize my ineffable incredibility and respond with appropriate adulation is that you're narcissistic.
posted by davy at 12:12 AM on March 1, 2007

Thanks for pasting that in, UbuRoivas. E_B is dead on there.

I have a 44 year old sister-in-law who is a narcissist to an extreme. She's smart, charismatic and attractive, but she's never met an employer she didn't cheat, nor a partner she didn't cheat on, and she lies and steals from practically anyone that would have anything to do with her. When she is taken to task on any of this behavior, it's always someone else's fault, never her own. I wish I were exaggerating about her toxic personality, but these are well-worn behavioral paths.

To make matters worse, she has been raising, on her own, with "no rules", a now 18 year old boy who is, for all intents a purposes, feral. Already with two drug arrests, no education to speak of (she "home schooled" him from 15 years old), and no coping skills with regard to functioning in a job or in society, his future looks bleak. We tried many times to intervene, and as a last resort, called CPS, but she was always able to charm her way out of those situations.

I don't think I've ever met a more evil person. She's perfectly nice, though, you'd all like her.

Yes, the word narcissist is thrown around a bit too loosely when it's used to describe someone who is self-indulgent, indifferent, vain and or lazy, and it's always a mistake to enagage in mass tele-diagnosis.

I didn't know what I was going to get when I posted this - the study is of course flawed and obtuse, but the topic was compelling enough to bring up - but I am very pleased with the conversation that followed. Not so much with all the "you kids get off my lawn" stuff (I used that as a tag, so you shouldn't have had to), but the very insightful analysis provided by teece, crackingdes, zoogleplex and others.
posted by psmealey at 4:08 AM on March 1, 2007

Listen, be careful with the flamebait of the word "narcissist."
posted by joeclark at 3:15 PM on March 3, 2007

I can understand you being bitter and jealous but this didn't happen because younger workers are narcissistic slackers, it happened because it was costing companies a lot of time and money. Corporations don't "enable" anything unless it makes them more money.

This was gnawing at me, but didn't get the chance to think about it until last night, when I had a drink with some old friends. My point here was that my peer group and I still work pretty similar hours. 10 hours at the office per day, plus another 4 or so at home bracketing the commute. As a senior manager at a smallish firm, I would never ask people that worked for me to put in more hours than I was doing. This was not how I came up through the system, but whatever.

I cannot seem to get the younger folks to want to commit to delivering a project (even when a massive, critical client deadline is upon us) if it interferes with their personal time. I try to run a ship where this stuff doesn't happen all that often, but it's unavoidable. It is virtually impossible to get these folks to help pitch in, particularly when the tasks aren't "meaningful", or "educational" in some way.

I have seen this at my company, and the dozen or so other companies I have worked at as a consultant in the past four years. My peers, among them an Investment Banking Management Director, and Advertising Exec, and a Publishing Manager, all report similar stories.

Now, I freely admit that my generation might be comprised of suckers. People that too easily sacrificed their free time to do ridiculous spreadsheeting exercises until midnight every night, but it seems we made our mark. We earned the confidence of the older generation, and made our way up the ladder.

When it comes time to promoting these folks to the next level (or looking to send their job to India or Eastern Europe), I will very likely look elsewhere.

I understand that this is in no way scientific, but it's a pattern of behavior that I have witnessed in a similarly aged group of people over a 4-5 years period. I can't ask the same sacrifices and commitment that was demanded of my generation, but I can't help but think that they are missing out on something. Some essential discipline and training to push through incredibly challenging and frustrating projects and not walking away from them.
posted by psmealey at 3:52 AM on March 9, 2007