[HN Gopher] Infantilism as a norm (2018)
___________________________________________________________________
Infantilism as a norm (2018)
Author : yamrzou
Score : 65 points
Date : 2023-06-13 22:55 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (iq.hse.ru)
(TXT) w3m dump (iq.hse.ru)
| zer0tonin wrote:
| >Kidults are people who preserve their teenage likings (from
| video games, anime and fantasy, to a responsibility-free
| lifestyle) until they are 30-35 and older
|
| This is always something that has bothered by society's concept
| of adulthood. Are people just supposed to not like things past
| 35? Is the only acceptable use of your free time as an adult
| reading non-fiction about finding the meaning of life?
| emodendroket wrote:
| I think the lumping there is certainly sloppy, but there is
| something there. There seem to be a large number of adults who
| like comic books, young adult fiction, or other entertainment
| primarily intended for children... which I think is fine... but
| also have no interest in anything else, or have some sort of
| expectation that these media will start to include decidedly
| adult themes without significantly changing in style. That's
| strange and a bit unsettling to me.
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| But it's acceptable to play chess, bridge and poker or read
| poetry, magazines and football news.
|
| Because that's science.
| Grum9 wrote:
| [dead]
| taneq wrote:
| Is this still "society's" concept of adulthood? Or is it just
| certain demographics? Most people I know in tech-type careers
| still play video games (or would if they had time), read a wide
| range of fantasy and sci-fi books, enjoy hobbies etc. I would
| regard someone as being immature if they thought that, as an
| adult, you shouldn't do the things you enjoy once you've met
| your responsibilities.
| coldtea wrote:
| They are supposed to no like things for kids and teens past 35.
| Or rather, past 18-20, but let's be generous.
|
| But it's not like this is denied to them. If anything, it's too
| prevalent to be even shunned...
| oytis wrote:
| When it comes for difference between teen and adult
| entertainment, the line seems to be pretty arbitrary. E.g. it
| has been perfectly fine for an adult to enjoy crime fiction
| or watch football, while it doesn't require a lot of maturity
| or sophistication, and teens would enjoy the same activities
| too. Somehow we never got a significant market of computer
| games for adults though - maybe because adults don't care as
| much as before about appearing mature.
| [deleted]
| emodendroket wrote:
| There are definitely games that skew older -- I don't think
| that many young kids want to play MS Flight Sim or iRacing.
| To a certain extent even stuff like fighting games I feel
| probably overrepresents the over-30 crowd.
| zer0tonin wrote:
| >Somehow we never got a significant market of computer
| games for adults
|
| Most of today's gaming industry is targeting adults. Kids
| rarely have the money to purchase 70$ games more than once
| or twice a year.
| emodendroket wrote:
| Their parents very well might.
| [deleted]
| oytis wrote:
| OK I mean real adults :) The same demographics who you
| would imagine as a typical reader of Agatha Christie or
| Tom Clancy, football or horse race enjoyer in the era
| before computer games and internet
| zer0tonin wrote:
| Ubisoft literally has dozens of games branded "Tom
| Clancy's", so I think we're not too far from that
| Macha wrote:
| I think the idea that thriller novels or horse racing are
| more mature than video games questionable, however. Your
| average adult thriller (or hollywood AAA movie) has a
| plot that would sit right alongside video game plots.
| emodendroket wrote:
| Don't you think someone who only ever consumed pulp genre
| fiction might be thought of a bit negatively?
| Macha wrote:
| The claim was that readers of Tom Clancy are more mature
| than video games. I found that claim surprising.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Computer gaming is a $300bn industry. Kids alone don't have
| that kind of money.
|
| There is a real "maturity/sophistication" barrier, though.
| Games came close to breaking through about a decade ago,
| then enough "gamers" decided they absolutely did not want
| that and made sure to destroy that possibility.
| em-bee wrote:
| i think what is happening is that in earlier generations
| (before computers were common) there were not many
| "childrens"-activities that translated into adulthood, so the
| games for adults necessarily looked very different from the
| games for children, mostly sports, and classical games like
| chess, playing cards, maybe model trains and model building,
| etc.
|
| this is no longer the case. besides computer games, things like
| board games have massively expanded, lego and compatible bricks
| have sets targeting adults, and more.
|
| the difference between childrens games and adult games is no
| longer so clear.
|
| and to add another counterpoint to the article, all those
| supposedly kids games that i am playing now, except for lego, i
| did not play as a kid. so i didn't preserve my teenage likings.
| and even lego i stopped playing as a teenager and i didn't get
| back to until i had kids of my own.
| mordae wrote:
| Agreed. I am married and have meaning of my life pretty much
| figured out, but I do play games and watch anime on the side.
|
| The biggest problem with average contemporary "true adults" is
| that they only act as if they have their shit figured out. In
| reality they mostly tend to be incredibly close minded, have
| super limited knowledge of the world due to their TV addiction
| and are generally more authoritarian due to our socioeconomic
| system being super authoritarian.
|
| The (more intelligent and cultured) outliers are actually
| closer to these supposed "kidults". More open minded, more
| tolerant, way less zealous.
| K0balt wrote:
| Idk. I think that view of adulthood is pretty biased.
|
| I think it is more that the "games" that we play become less
| overt, and overt games tend to be replaced by covert ones,
| such as social stature, and personal growth, IRL social
| "games", like relationships and solo or shared challenges,
| "levelling up" in accomplishments such as books written or
| papers published, business or notable accomplishments, etc.
|
| Overt games give way to applying learned behaviours that use
| game theory to create personal value, wealth, or legacy...
| but it's still very much "playing a game" just with greater
| risks and rewards.
|
| IRL games make practice games seems quite boring by
| comparison, their challenges mundane and their prizes
| irrelevant.
| zer0tonin wrote:
| What am I supposed to do with wealth if I shouldn't use it
| to purchase it the childish things that I enjoy?
| K0balt wrote:
| Idk, use it to make the world a more just and survivable
| place? Help to develop practical fusion power so we can
| avoid extinction? Preserve some biodiversity? Anything
| vaguely useful to the next generation?
|
| Nations prosper when old men plant trees under whose
| shade they will never sit.
| Jevon23 wrote:
| >survivable
|
| Ok. Let's assume we've made the world a more survivable
| place.
|
| ...what then? What do we do with all this newfound
| "survival"? At THAT point are we allowed to watch anime?
| brvsft wrote:
| Lol you're not even being a jerk about it and this still
| gets downvoted.
| amelius wrote:
| HN doesn't make it very clear whether the downvote button
| is also a "disagree" button.
| zer0tonin wrote:
| Even Bezos amounts of money won't achieve any of the
| things you've listed.
| jjulius wrote:
| Are you viewing this as an "either/or" situation, or are
| we cool to do both? Eg, plant those trees and then go
| play some video games?
| NoMoreNicksLeft wrote:
| I don't know about the rest of you, but I hope to set it
| up so my grandchildren and great-grandchildren don't have
| to carry debt around like millstones and boat anchors
| chained to their necks.
|
| And while by no means is it certain, hoping I succeed a
| little earlier and settle that for my children too.
|
| Once those issues are secured, maybe there will be a
| little extra to buy a few toys.
| sureglymop wrote:
| Thinking about your children and grand childrens lifes is
| good. What about your own life though?
| NoMoreNicksLeft wrote:
| When I decided I wanted to be a father, I realized that
| the rest of my life would become one of being a bullet
| shield or spare parts as necessary. Seriously, every once
| in awhile I catch myself wondering exactly how I'd manage
| to become a heart donor for my kids if they ever needed
| that.
|
| I started too late to be able to be anything but a K
| strategist, but even if I could've been the other I
| wouldn't want to. My children are my life.
|
| The part no one reading this comment will believe is that
| my life has been so much better than it was before. I was
| a worthless asshole, and all the misery I experienced was
| no one else's fault but my own.
| nsxwolf wrote:
| I think we enjoy pathologizing choices we don't make and
| lifestyles we don't understand. So a non-gamer might see the
| adult gamer as infantilized, while the gamer sees the the
| non-gamer as a victim of an authoritarian socioeconomic
| system, or something.
|
| I'm not convinced either person is correct about anything.
| They probably would drop those thoughts if they got off
| social media and got to know each other instead.
| d0gsg0w00f wrote:
| Open minded and contributing less to society or closed minded
| and contributing more. Which is more valuable to society
| overall? Tough question.
|
| It's easy to be open minded when nothing is at stake. As soon
| as you have something to protect the game changes
| drastically. You start eliminating ideas from your head that
| provide no value.
|
| For example, someone who works retail and plays video games
| and opines on the way the world should work vs someone who
| works as a nurse raising two kids and doesn't have time to
| opine and instead just wants to put a conservative in office
| to lower their taxes.
|
| Neither is right or wrong but one has a more measurable
| external impact.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Oh, you can love fantasy and be highly professional, and you
| can be "adult" while being incredibly inmature, childish even.
| I prefer people that far in the first bucket.
| decafninja wrote:
| I think context and nuance is important.
|
| A 40 year old that likes Star Wars or Gundam? I don't really
| see anything "wrong" with that.
|
| A 40 year old that likes schoolgirl anime? I don't know...
| whoisthemachine wrote:
| "Kidults" is a silly term, and feels like another baseless
| attack implying that younger generations shouldn't enjoy life
| and should instead be productive. My grandparents would get
| together with their friends and play card games well into old
| age (I wonder at what age they learned those games?). My
| parents' generation (the baby boomers) seem to still enjoy
| movies, national sports, TV, and other leisure activities of
| their generation. There is nothing wrong with anyone enjoying
| leisure activities, and humanity has probably done so since the
| earliest of times.
| Qem wrote:
| > Are people just supposed to not like things past 35?
|
| They are supposed to become grumpy old men/women.
| burnished wrote:
| Reading between the lines here but it seems to be a coping
| mechanism for psychologists that are uncomfortable with change
| and how an individual life's course has become unpredictable
| for them.
| wooque wrote:
| Yes, most people lose interest for video games, cartoons,
| superhero movies, etc when they grow up. This happen to me as
| well. Some keep clinging to childish escapism.
| aaron695 wrote:
| [dead]
| xattt wrote:
| It probably has something to do with engaging in activities
| that promote higher-order analysis and meta-thought. Older
| adults are usually capable of this; younger kids would
| struggle.
|
| Consider the way you are "supposed to" watch an episode of
| Thomas the Tank Engine versus Better Call Saul. Both are fun
| for their respective age groups.
|
| If you watch the former in the form the latter, you start to
| see moires that probably escaped the writers (1).
|
| (1): https://www.newyorker.com/culture/rabbit-holes/the-
| repressiv...
| zer0tonin wrote:
| I honestly think you over-estimate how deep media like
| "Better Call Saul" is (or how shallow fantasy/anime/games
| are).
| ndsipa_pomu wrote:
| It's notable how many influential scientists have had a playful
| attitude towards their work. Feynman emphasised his "playing"
| with ideas just because they were interesting or fun to him.
| John Conway was another example of having fun and enjoying his
| maths and games.
|
| Edit: Einstein surely belongs here too
| 4gotunameagain wrote:
| I don't think that what applies to 5s mind can be generalised
| to the general population. While we surely should derive joy
| and playful pleasure from all things in life, that should be
| the result and not the goal in my opinion.
|
| Otherwise we end up with adults spending ridiculous hours
| playing video games, chasing that beautiful feeling they gave
| them when they were kids, all the while avoiding real life.
| Ancapistani wrote:
| > adults spending ridiculous hours playing video games
|
| What do you consider to be "ridiculous hours"?
|
| There are definitely times when I end up playing online
| games for >20h/week. That's well above the median I'm
| sure... but how many hours per week did my parent's
| generation spend on average watching TV? My dad is retired
| now, and spends probably ~40h / week in his shop just...
| tinkering.
|
| How is my playing War Thunder any less "real life" than him
| rebuilding his 124th Coleman lantern?
|
| People need a way to recover from the stresses of everyday
| life. I don't understand why gaming in particular is so
| often discounted, while various other non-productive
| pursuits are readily accepted.
| mordae wrote:
| Real life under capitalism is overrated. It is somewhat
| hard to find an engaging game after 35, since you have
| already played everything there was and know all the
| tropes.
|
| Maybe if we did not have a school system that completely
| kills any innate curiosity in people, they might do
| something real instead of virtual. Well, one can dream.
| nottorp wrote:
| > It is somewhat hard to find an engaging game after 35,
| since you have already played everything there was and
| know all the tropes.
|
| Same for TV but i don't think people stop watching those
| indistinguishable series.
|
| So you can still play different games with similar
| mechanics because of the different setting.
| 1827163 wrote:
| I think once you escape the system you don't find games
| or other distractions enjoyable anymore. When you're
| fully actualized and are capable of "going your own
| path", satisfaction then comes from making things and
| trying to improve the world. That is if you don't want to
| have children, as is the case with me.
|
| I think we've been conditioned from childhood to get a
| job, work for the corporate world and chase material
| goods. All of those further the interests of those in
| power.
|
| Update: Wild foraging, living with nature, moving to
| another country, or doing what hunter gatherers did.
| Running your own business. Camping out in the wild, while
| still making money from something. There are so many
| other options, you need to be creative about it...
|
| Anyway @NoMoreNicks I've flagged your post and I'm
| closing this HN account down (by deleting the
| password)....
| NoMoreNicksLeft wrote:
| > I think we've been conditioned from childhood to get a
| job,
|
| This is a hilariously millennial take on how life works.
| For the past million years or longer, humans learned (and
| quickly) that if you didn't want to starve you'd need to
| work to avoid that. The means to avoid starvation have
| changed. We're no longer hunter gatherers, and few of us
| are subsistence farmers--and I can have _some_ sympathy
| for those who would prefer those occupations--but the
| truth of the matter is that nothing more than the details
| have changed in all that time.
|
| People weren't "conditioning" you to get a job. They were
| gently introducing you to reality. It seems a little too
| gently, by the looks of it.
|
| > All of those further the interests of those in power.
|
| Huh? It furthers the interests of those who don't want to
| starve. But you've never even been hungry, not really,
| and so it's all still highly theoretical for you.
| mnl wrote:
| Yes, but the thing is we have increased productivity
| tremendously because that's what our species does. So
| first we didn't need everyone working in the fields,
| after that we didn't need everyone working in the
| factories, and we're at this point in which we have to
| make up more and more absurd necessities and regulations
| so people have jobs, but we aren't going to need everyone
| doing that either. The clear socioethical paradigm that
| made sense after we realized that growing food was easier
| than hunting and foraging is heading a wall.
| ndsipa_pomu wrote:
| That could be a reason behind the resurgence of board
| gaming as a leisure pursuit - an engaging game combined
| with a rewarding social group.
| antisthenes wrote:
| Board games have exactly the same tropes and design
| patterns as computer games.
|
| Once you've played enough games, you begin to recognize
| the pattern and can tell if it's going to be a new and
| engaging game or just another trope.
|
| But they are a nice stimulus to get together in person,
| that part is right on.
| ndsipa_pomu wrote:
| > Board games have exactly the same tropes and design
| patterns as computer games.
|
| To an extent, but board games can also highlight
| ambiguous interpretations of the rules. Just last night,
| I was playing Cosmic Encounter with some friends and a
| good proportion of the fun was banter and arguments about
| some of the specific rules. I think board games can get
| away with a lot more randomness and chaos than computer
| games as they have a big social aspect to them. If you go
| from a successful, winning strategy to losing in a
| computer game because of someone having a specific card,
| then you'd probably stop enjoying the game, but with a
| board game it tends to spur a round of laughter instead.
| erikerikson wrote:
| Hearthstone allowed for a lot of card dynamics that were
| not available in Magic The Gathering due to its digital
| only format. Particularly random card effects involving
| unowned cards. So... While I appreciate rules lawyering
| conversations as much or more than the next person,
| whether digital or analog games have more RNG may not be
| so straightforward as you write here.
| antisthenes wrote:
| > I think board games can get away with a lot more
| randomness and chaos than computer games as they have a
| big social aspect to them. If you go from a successful,
| winning strategy to losing in a computer game because of
| someone having a specific card, then you'd probably stop
| enjoying the game, but with a board game it tends to spur
| a round of laughter instead.
|
| I'm not sure why you think there's any difference. RNG is
| RNG. At least that's how we treat it in our group.
| ndsipa_pomu wrote:
| The difference is in the design of the game. A computer
| game that has too much of the gameplay assigned to
| randomness will get boring quickly, whereas a board/card
| game can be unfair and unbalanced as part of the fun is
| the players' reactions. An example would be the Fluxx
| card game which dramatically changes the rules as play
| continues which makes strategising almost useless.
| Ancapistani wrote:
| > A computer game that has too much of the gameplay
| assigned to randomness will get boring quickly
|
| Are you familiar with roguelikes? Nethack?
|
| The games that I replay most often are the ones that are
| ridiculously difficult and callously unfair to the player
| - because they're also the ones that get my mind engaged
| the most, and where I get the most enjoyment from
| overcoming an unfair situation.
| antisthenes wrote:
| Changing the rules during play and having too much RNG
| are not the same thing.
| mbg721 wrote:
| Board games also reward the kinds of abstract thinking
| that American schools have been trying to promote. Taking
| standardized math tests all day may not make you better
| at real life, but it will make you better at complex
| Euro-games.
| Hendrikto wrote:
| > chasing that beautiful feeling [...], all the while
| avoiding real life.
|
| The pursuit of happiness IS real life...
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| I think the idea is that adolescent activities prepare us for
| life as adults, as adults we concern our self with the grown-up
| version of the same thing. Whether it's running a business or
| waging war or building machines or whatever.
|
| That's predicated on adulthood being a state where you're
| autonomous and free to do something with your life, and falls
| apart when we're up to our ears in debt and working as wage-
| slaves.
|
| In the latter scenario, you may satisfy the itch for the thing
| you've been preparing for by additional preparation. We play
| video games or watch TV-shows about people going on adventures
| instead of actually going on adventures ourselves because
| that's not an option.
| [deleted]
| hyperhello wrote:
| I'm going to venture the opinion that advertisements and ad-
| adjacent broadcast media is bursting with adults acting like
| kids, or adults acting like kids would imagine adults would act,
| or whatever's slightly appropriate for the product or show being
| vended. All the way from the "influencer" invented personality
| down to even where you wouldn't expect it, such as Mythbusters.
|
| So we invent the kidult, which is just a scapegoat for all of
| this -- oh, when will the kids grow up and realize they are
| adults and act like it? It's a sign, it's a symbol, for what we
| can't talk about, because you never, ever discuss the way the
| money influences us.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _'Legitimation' of infantilism can also be related to its
| assessment as a protective mechanism, a way to overcome the
| difficulties in life. Nancy McWilliams, a psychoanalyst from the
| U.S., emphasized that the term 'infantile personality' is
| disappearing from the official list, which is logical; in modern
| terms, it's just an alternative life course._
|
| Fall of Rome vibes...
|
| I'm sure the parents of e.g. "back to parent's house at 30 to
| find myself" types are also delighted for their alternative life
| course involving freeloading on them...
| pjc50 wrote:
| At various times in history the age of moving out has gone up;
| the early Modern late marriage trend, for example
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_marriage_patt...
| jhanschoo wrote:
| If you have good relations with your parents as a young/middle
| aged adult it's actually not a bad idea moving back; it doesn't
| necessarily mean freeloading off them. If you have kids they
| get to look after your kids and you get to look after them.
| After experiencing independence perhaps it isn't so bad
| learning interdependence with family.
| coldtea wrote:
| Yeah, those are not the cases I had in mind - or the extended
| family living together of times past.
|
| More about the "30 year old avid gamer living in parent's
| basement" or "coming back to live with parents after the
| dream of skateboarding-pop-singer career didn't pan out".
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Those are all extremes (yes, these days, even extended
| family living together is rare), and quite visible ones.
| But what about the "dark matter" of "alternative life
| course", i.e. regular people who either can't afford to
| move out, or realize it's an economically stupid move given
| the housing costs? Wouldn't surprise me if plenty of such
| people were casted as "basement gamers", because it's
| easier to claim new generation refuses to grow up than to
| accept that prior generations treating housing as
| investment is _preventing_ the next generation from growing
| up.
| _dain_ wrote:
| what about "got a normal job but it still wasn't enough for
| the rent" that seems like it's way more common
| Balgair wrote:
| Not trying to needle you at all here: How many people are
| like that? I tried to google around for this, but really
| didn't come up with much, statistics-wise.
| jhanschoo wrote:
| Google around for:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEET
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hikikomori
| strken wrote:
| There's no mention of money or real estate prices, nor of
| extended educational requirements and time in university, nor the
| increased cost of child-rearing. For a couple, following (what's
| claimed to be) the traditional path means spending tens of
| thousands of dollars on an engagement and wedding, hundreds of
| thousands on a mortgage, having each parent work a full-time job,
| and buying all the overpriced junk that's expected as part of
| raising a kid.
|
| People are still willing to follow that path, of course, but they
| increasingly need to build up their savings to afford it. It's
| incredibly unsurprising that big barriers to entry prevent people
| from passing through traditional life stages, and instead lead
| them to sit on the couch smoking weed and watching anime.
| ohduran wrote:
| So let me get this straight: the authors of this study find that
| adults are showing signs of infantilism. And rather than looking
| at what are the consequences, they focus on the causes, and label
| the child - adolescent - adult stages as...traditional, hinting
| that it's just one of many ways in which we can "stratify"
| lifespans, so to say.
|
| In fact, in the very first sentence, they say that this view is
| no longer relevant. As in, for who knows how long, it was.
| Suddenly it isn't.
|
| This framework for viewing ways of organizing society as equally
| valid and inconsequential defeats the purpose of what, I believe,
| social sciences are for. I don't need a taxonomy of options, I
| want actionable insights!
| bluetomcat wrote:
| > I want actionable insights!
|
| For example, Lego is now targeting adults as well as kids. You
| can make a living out of collecting sets as an investment
| vehicle or by starting a YouTube channel where you review and
| show your collection.
| andyjohnson0 wrote:
| > This framework for viewing ways of organizing society as
| equally valid and inconsequential defeats the purpose of what,
| I believe, social sciences are for. I don't need a taxonomy of
| options, I want actionable insights!
|
| The article is describing academic research, not self-help. In
| this context it is perfectly reasonable to examine causes
| rather than consequences, and taxonomies rather than
| "actionable insights". Thats not to say that consequences etc
| aren't valid areas on inquiry, just that this article isn't
| examining them.
| abwizz wrote:
| > This framework for viewing ways of organizing society as
| equally valid and inconsequential defeats the purpose of what,
| I believe, social sciences are for. I don't need a taxonomy of
| options, I want actionable insights!
|
| social sciences suffer from a lack significance and
| repeatability more than others, which suggests to me that they
| are indeed foremost required to establish taxonomies and
| definitions because anything more is just guessing with a great
| potential to harm ppl.
| kome wrote:
| "I want actionable insights!"
|
| so juvenile :)
|
| it's important to understand the phenomenon, this is science.
| action is about politics.
| ohduran wrote:
| Ha ha ha, you're probably right, I came across as an entitled
| teenager.
|
| But seriously though, taxonomies are part of the whole
| science enterprise. Unless we formulate hypothesis that can
| be used to predict new phenomena, we're missing out. Or just
| cargo culting.
| Tade0 wrote:
| > People's life courses have become unpredictable. For example,
| people earn a degree, work, and then study again and change their
| profession.
|
| When we moved to Italy me and my SO joked that people in the west
| have two youths: one for generally screwing around and the other
| for picking up their first jobs, making initial career choices
| etc.
|
| Back home the age at which women give birth for the first time is
| lower than the EU average, but so is fertility rate - it's
| actually some of the lowest in the union.
|
| And this was visible when we returned after four years - in the
| meantime some of our friends went the, as my aunt puts it,
| "marriage, mortgage, family" route, while others seemingly
| changed nothing in their lifestyles.
|
| The best predictor of this that I can think of is whether
| someone's parents both expect grandchildren to appear eventually
| and are willing to provide support - be it by helping finance
| real estate or participating in care for the infant.
| Hendrikto wrote:
| > someone's parents both expect grandchildren to appear
| eventually
|
| Fulfilling other people's expectations is a really bad reason
| for having children.
| [deleted]
| Tade0 wrote:
| Personally I don't believe in "reasons for having children".
| You either feel naturally compelled to do it, or not. Any
| reason for/against having children is a bad one.
|
| Anyone trying to do a "pros and cons" list on this topic will
| eventually arrive at the logical conclusion that it's not
| worth it.
|
| Whoever did such a summary and still decided to follow
| through is in for a bad time, because "pros" inevitably
| include someone else's expectations.
|
| That being said I've seen people postpone or, eventually,
| eschew having children entirely due to lack of support in the
| time window they had - especially from prospective
| grandparents applying pressure.
|
| And herein lies the crux of the issue: some people support
| bringing another generation to this world, others don't. As
| it stands the latter have slim chances of ever having
| grandchildren.
| OkayPhysicist wrote:
| "Natural compulsion" is a reason. A bad reason, born out of
| a failure of self-awareness and reflection, but a reason
| nonetheless.
| tarsinge wrote:
| It relies on a cliche of the idea of what an adult should be. But
| the premise that adults were more mature and not showing these
| traits before is flawed. Many 60+ years old strongly exhibits all
| the traits of the described "infantile personality" when their
| lifestyle and world vision is challenged, be it in their private
| or professional life. Sure if you judge by the capacity to
| masquerade and give the appearance of showing the traditional
| adult image of the older generation by definition the younger one
| will score worse. But it's a facade, on the inside the majority
| of older adults are still children.
|
| > characterized by immature feelings ('childish' reactions, lack
| of willpower, lack of confidence), external locus of control
| (other people are blamed), inflated self-concept, low demands on
| self (accompanied by high demands on society), and egocentrism.
|
| So you tell me none of your older neighbours will display this
| and instead be models of "emotional maturity (rationality, self-
| control, lack of impulsivity, etc.)" when you talk to them about
| lawn mowing, car usage/size, energy, meat eating, land use
| regulation, ...?
|
| There is no more infantilism than before, what has changed is the
| definition of achievement.
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| The stories that I heard about families before world war II are
| fairly different.
|
| I think the great shift occurred with the boomers, The surge
| and wealth, and the tragedies of world war II making spoiling a
| child seem worthwhile
| _jas wrote:
| I'm actually quite curious about what you have heard
| regarding families before WWII.
|
| Many of the stories I've heard are themes of struggle and
| survival.
| xg15 wrote:
| What surprises me the most is that this was from a _russian_
| university. Compare with today, where "western decadence" is one
| of the main talking points of the russian narrative.
|
| (The paper is from 2018, so before the invasion, but already
| after maidan, so the narrative was likely already taking shape)
| lynx23 wrote:
| Ahh, there you go. Reading the .ru TLD at the main page, first
| thing that came to my mind is "I wonder how long it takes until
| someone makes this political. And there you go. No surprises
| anymore in this day and age.
| croisillon wrote:
| isn't Larionova's paper on https://iorj.hse.ru/data/2023/06/0
| 9/2037222126/Vestnik_2023_... pure political bs?
| culebron21 wrote:
| In the late '00-s, Ministry of Education of Russia had set some
| incentives to universities, including the number of papers
| published in top-rated international journals. The more
| liberal, West-oriented folks were much more capable of doing
| this, hence they concentrated in many top-tier universities.
| Sometimes this led to political fights with the conservative
| top management. The latter got huge salaries from the ministry
| and was informally demanded to keep loyalty and suppress
| dissent. (Figures that I heard from a big regional uni:
| rector's salary $12K/mo, teacher's around $700/mo, part-time
| teacher doing a course twice a week ~$100/mo.) So rectors would
| bring as many capable people as possible, no matter their
| political position, and then softly tried to stop them from
| making political stances/scandals.
| oytis wrote:
| HSE has been one of the places which allowed a relative
| academic freedom - as soon as you don't criticise the
| government directly. These places existed for the whole
| duration of Putin's regime, and only after 24th of Feb 2022 the
| government declared zero tolerance to any dissent.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| "Western decadence" isn't anything new. It's been a talking
| point in USSR just as much. It's a talking point in Europe.
| It's a talking point in the US too. The generic "${contemporary
| dominant / liberal culture} decadence" has been a staple of
| religion and philosophy since the ancient days.
| pessimizer wrote:
| You think that the concept of western decadence is Russian
| propaganda from the last five years?
| pjc50 wrote:
| Russian propaganda of the last three years has used "western
| decadence" as a theme a lot, but obviously the concept pre-
| dates that and is common in rightwing messaging throughout
| the 20th century.
| lynx23 wrote:
| Critizing "western decadence" is not a rightwing only
| phenomenon. I wonder why you frame it as such.
| pjc50 wrote:
| [flagged]
| baxuz wrote:
| This is a really insightful topic.
|
| I might be in the wrong here, but I see a number of parallels
| with gender - a somewhat-strict biological component (age) vs a
| social component (maturity). Both having alternative models of
| the normative ones.
| thriftwy wrote:
| One dark issue here is that you can surely let yourself to be
| immature towards the age of 35, but for women it becomes
| progressively harder to have children after this point. Males
| have it easier, but if you plan to have a "normative" family with
| small age gap between spouses, these problems are also yours.
| Quality of the offspring also suffers somewhat, though this may
| be offset by superior medicine and post-natal care.
|
| That, or exchange a prolonged youth for having effectively no
| adulthood, while also moving your society in unsustainable mode*
|
| So our social behavior no longer matches our biology, in which by
| a quirk we (at least women) are only fertile for around 1/4 of
| our total life, and less than that in socially acceptable
| fashion.
|
| * Caveat emptor, perhaps it would be great if we could deflate
| population of most countries by having low birth rate for a
| while, but this is not what we are good at - instead, countries
| seem to race into hyperurbanization and population replacement
| Hendrikto wrote:
| > we (at least women) are only fertile for around 1/4 of our
| total life
|
| What? Women become infertile around 45-50. Going with the lower
| bound, your 1/4 figure implies a lifespan of 180 years.
| thriftwy wrote:
| Women only become fertile at age 15, and socially acceptably
| fertile at 20. 45-50 is a very optimistic upper bound, even
| with that bound you end up with ~1/3 figure.
| Hendrikto wrote:
| > Women only become fertile at age 15
|
| More like 12-13, but you are right. I did not consider
| that.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| menarche tends to average around 12 (with a wide range),
| but most cycles don't involve actual ovulation for the
| first few years after menarche, so fertility and menarche
| aren't simultaneous.
| Ancapistani wrote:
| It's interesting to me that the average age at menarche
| has been declining in recent years - and that we don't
| really know what that's the case.
|
| For example:
| https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr146-508.pdf
|
| Now I'm wondering if there has been any change in the age
| of the onset of menopause, and whether that's been
| studied...
| thriftwy wrote:
| These who are able to have healthy offspring late in
| their lives are at tremendous evolutionary advantage now,
| whereas historically it was a selectionary 'meh'.
| nerdponx wrote:
| Much higher probability of birth defects and fertility
| problems at that point, even if you're still menstruating.
| kpw94 wrote:
| For people wondering exactly how "much higher probability".
| This is for example down syndrome, but many of the other
| syndroms follow the same trend:
|
| https://courses.fetalmedicine.com/images/Course/Course.007-
| 0...
|
| Notice the y-axis is a log scale.
|
| This may be offset if women froze their eggs beforehand,
| but, obviously not everyone can afford it, and also until
| recently, it wasn't really needed as couples would have
| children earlier in life.
| stainablesteel wrote:
| this is a human form of epigenetic changes
|
| its from the neverending drive for safety
| EGreg wrote:
| _The value of adulthood as a period of certainty has declined for
| many, which means that this period is being delayed._
|
| Delayed? It means it's being eliminated for some. Like Einstein,
| who said;
|
| _Do not grow old, no matter how long you live. Never cease to
| stand like curious children before the Great Mystery into which
| we were born._
| 4gotunameagain wrote:
| [flagged]
| noduerme wrote:
| It sounds a lot like the Russian oligarchy, too.
| ndsipa_pomu wrote:
| Strange - I interpret a lot of the far right movements to be
| very immature. MAGA enthusiasts would seem to fit a lot of
| those descriptions and there does seem to be a lot of childish
| opinions not anchored in reality spouted from far-right
| politicians (e.g. it conflicts with MY religion, so it should
| be banned).
| 4gotunameagain wrote:
| I agree, almost all of far * movements are immature. The
| antiquated left-right political dimension is a circle with a
| very small gap between the extremes
| ndsipa_pomu wrote:
| I think that it's more the authoritarian movements that are
| especially immature and of course that's orthogonal to
| left/right classifications.
|
| As a lefty myself, I find that right/capitalist politics to
| remind me of the toddler stage when kids are claiming
| things to be their own ("mine!") and exaggerating all of
| their accomplishments (e.g. Trumpism). Lefties tend to have
| more of a notion of sharing and trying to be emphatic with
| others, but there's certainly a breed of self-righteous,
| angry lefties too (c.f. Linus Torvalds' angry outbursts).
|
| Edit: Another thought - is the infantilism better
| associated with populism? i.e. to appeal to a large
| demographic, it's best to keep slogans simple (e.g. "Get
| Brexit Done" from the UK Tories) and having simple ideas
| that can appeal to people despite the ideas not actually
| being practical (e.g. "Eat the rich")
| mordae wrote:
| I feel that "Eat the rich" reaction is simply an outcome
| of when people realize that they are in fact being
| exploited. Many were feeling similar in USSR. "Who does
| not rob the state, robs his own family" was a pretty
| popular slogan back in those days.
|
| About the "immaturity", I don't have a good grasp of what
| it's supposed to mean. Maybe we should stop using it
| altogether (outside of biology) and concentrate on
| specific skills.
| ndsipa_pomu wrote:
| > About the "immaturity", I don't have a good grasp of
| what it's supposed to mean.
|
| I interpret it as an infantile reaction to when events
| don't go your way. A classic example here in the UK is
| Boris Johnson's reaction to the just released "Partygate"
| report. A mature reaction to criticism would be to either
| dispute it if it's inaccurate or to acknowledge your own
| shortcomings otherwise. His reaction is more akin to a
| tantrum though that could be related to his narcissism.
|
| Nowadays, I'm thinking that a lot of modern politics are
| becoming like a scene from Lord of the Flies.
|
| (I wonder if climate catastrophes will make "Eat the
| rich" a popular slogan)
| piva00 wrote:
| So basically you're saying that people presenting infantile
| traits end up in... Immature ideologies.
|
| It has nothing to do with left or right, you yourself is
| saying the left-right dimension is antiquated but still
| using the term to try to pull your argument.
|
| It has to do with people incapable of thinking in higher-
| level orders, to understand nuance; to understand systems
| and how they relate to oneself, others and societies; to
| understand more mature views of the world, and to be able
| to parse through those views. They are present in any part
| of the political spectrum but the more immature sides
| attract more immature people.
|
| You could just have avoided the whole political jab, it'd
| be a more interesting conversation.
| 4gotunameagain wrote:
| The jab was more targeted because one of these extremes
| is much more represented than the other, currently. It
| has become popular to be far left; it hasn't been popular
| to be far right in decades.
| Ancapistani wrote:
| > It has become popular to be far left; it hasn't been
| popular to be far right in decades.
|
| It's become popular in your cohort to be far left perhaps
| - but it hasn't in mine, and it definitely hasn't in the
| generation currently in high school.
|
| For example: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-
| states/massachusetts/articl...
|
| Note that I don't care about that source in particular,
| it was just the first one that came up when I searched.
| The point is, that school had a vocal "rebellion" against
| what is commonly seen as a leftist plank. The reaction of
| the school's administration - and now, the media -
| certainly hasn't helped. If anything it has solidified
| those kids' views.
|
| For me, where I live (the US "Mid-South") it never became
| popular to be on the left. While perhaps "far" right
| isn't exactly popular; it's not uncommon, is accepted,
| and being on a moderate/right position is by far the
| majority of adults.
|
| As dumb as it sounds on its face, I honestly believe that
| "memes got Trump elected". The popularity of Internet
| culture, the sheer amount of nuance you can pack into a
| single image meme, and the sense of tribalism that comes
| from following the evolution of various memes (as in
| "image meme formats") over time that prevents "others"
| from understanding why they're funny is... well, it's
| hugely influential.
|
| If you see yourself as being on the left or far left, and
| you believe that the right is "uncool", I think you're
| going to be in for a rude awakening. The left-wing anti-
| establishment in the US has _been_ the establishment for
| a long time now. Young people tend to be rebellious, and
| the only way to rebel against a rebellious culture is to
| embrace conformity.
| piva00 wrote:
| > it hasn't been popular to be far right in decades.
|
| I think we are living in very different realities then. I
| had never seen in my life vocal and open support for
| white supremacism as it's been since around 2015, I'm not
| in or from the USA, mind you. I also had never seen
| popular figures with the youth to be spouting Nazi-
| adjacent rhetoric as I've seen in the same time frame.
|
| I believe you should look better into your biases...
| Everything has become more polarised, and support for
| fascism and/or protofascists has grown in a way I had
| never expected it could happen again after WW2.
| ndsipa_pomu wrote:
| > it hasn't been popular to be far right in decades
|
| How did Trump and MAGA become successful if they're not
| popular?
| 4gotunameagain wrote:
| Do you think that the voters of Trump are far right? Some
| of them are, sure. The success of Trump was due to the
| failure of the Democrats, not the popularity of far
| right.
| piva00 wrote:
| The rhetoric of the far-right definitely became more
| commonplace, it's not necessarily that the majority
| Trump's voters are far-right but he has definitely opened
| a floodgate to empower the far-right not only in the USA
| but in other countries as well.
|
| If you hang out with Nazis, if you brush up with Nazis,
| you are very likely to become a Nazi yourself because no
| one that rejects Nazis would put themselves into that
| position... And I think it's pretty clear that Trump
| brushed shoulders with Nazis.
| ndsipa_pomu wrote:
| Yes
| kristjank wrote:
| I think it's important to recognize how we got to the point
| where we are now. Infantilism is a big component in far
| anything communities, but the internet has made it way
| worse in some cases
|
| If you go to (excuse my outdated concepts of extremist
| communities) Parler to talk about LGBT in a positive manner
| you will get about the same amount of vitriol as if you
| went to r/FemaleDatingStrategy to call out misandry or if
| you went to a specific /pol/ thread to fight antisemitism.
|
| I think the bottom line here is, vitriol is pretty much
| omnipresent among us. The difference between communities is
| how they run the ductwork to siphon it out of our daily
| conversations. That's where the discourse is formulated and
| fine-tuned to the specific needs of its members.
|
| When you build bubble-like communities, you will get echo
| chambers that breed infantile subjects. If you allow people
| to call each other certain slurs, but not other ones, you
| will naturally optimize for resistate to the former. If you
| build a forum with usernames and perhaps even an upvote
| system, people will recognize and build up reputation bound
| to their names. If you make an Anonymous board, people
| won't care about reputation. These are just two options on
| a huge spectrum of possible alignments. Engagement-oriented
| platforms (by that I mostly mean social media and Reddit),
| are however a special case.
|
| Maybe an anecdote makes more sense: A few years ago, in
| high school, I used to find joy in trolling. I felt
| especially at home on the imageboard that starts with four,
| but when the thread would scroll over the limit and plunge
| into oblivion I realized how little those three people that
| I made seethe actually mattered. To contrast that, on
| platforms that value engagement, it was and probably still
| is a lot easier to reply with something inane and watch the
| replies roll in. A single statement that would go into the
| archives mostly unnoticed instead made an impact on dozens
| if not hundreds of people. After getting out of my turbo
| edgy phase I realised that I hurt a pretty good amount of
| people in both cases, and it feels somewhat dishonest to
| believe that every single downvote, reply and slur hurled
| my way was born in infantilism.
|
| What I'm trying to say is that when we increase the number
| of interactions, we as a byproduct also increase the number
| of "bad" interactions. When I talk to "bad" people with
| "bad" opinions, I try to recognize that even if they are
| 90% infantile garbage, the rest can come from honest pain
| and discontentment. But sometimes that's just being too
| charitable. People are hard.
| Ancapistani wrote:
| > Infantilism is a big component in far anything
| communities, but the internet has made it way worse in
| some cases
|
| I definitely agree with this. I've seen it in my own
| ideological development.
|
| I'm about 40 years old now. I've labelled myself lots of
| things over the years: Republican, conservative,
| libertarian, Objectivist, Anarcho-Capitalist, and more. I
| still identify in some way with all of those, which makes
| sense because while my ideas and beliefs have been
| refined over the years, much of the foundation and all of
| the personal experiences that informed them haven't.
|
| I stopped calling myself a Republican when I saw that
| most Republicans had strong beliefs that ran counter to
| mine. I've never cared who someone loves or how they
| live. I'm happy to live peacefully and respectfully with
| whomever is around me as long as they're happy to do the
| same. I've always been opposed to the unbound growth of
| government and particularly opposed to government
| violating its own rules in pursuit of a goal that happens
| to be "an exception". The people I knew who called
| themselves Republicans increasingly differed from me, in
| these areas and others, so I looked for a new (or perhaps
| "more specific") community.
|
| Libertarians seemed to fit that mold for me, and that
| worked for a long time. That term became associated with
| the Libertarian Party for me. For a while the LP seemed
| to be making some progress. I was an ardent supporter of
| Ron Paul and would have loved to see him take the
| Presidency. He didn't, so I started to care more about
| building a solid foundation so the "next Ron Paul" could
| be better supported. That looked like it might work for a
| while, but ultimately the LP fell apart and was taken
| over by people who weren't there for the same reasons
| that I was.
|
| Objectivism was a more well-defined label, and at first I
| agreed with almost all of it. I loved that it was so
| consistent! But over time I found more and more edge
| cases where it _wasn 't_ consistent at all, and I
| realized that the people I interacted with were more
| interested in what Ayn Rand said than they were about
| thinking critically about things. I came to see
| Objectivists as "Randists", and abandoned the label.
|
| Anarcho-Capitalism was similar. It's consistent, I agree
| with the foundations... but the people who apply it to
| themselves began to feel more and more "shallow" to me.
| Most of them were self-described Ancaps because they saw
| it as edgy; most those that earnestly believed it have
| such a shallow understanding of the way social systems
| work that they expected to be able to throw out all
| government tomorrow morning and everything would work out
| great. I (think!) I know better - while I believe
| government in its current form is immoral and should
| ultimately be abolished, trying to do it in one fell
| swoop is a sure recipe for social and economic disaster.
| Historically that's always followed by a period of
| violence and the rise of authoritarianism. No thanks.
|
| These days my views are pretty much just my own, and I
| don't strongly identify with any label that I know of. My
| username is sorta tongue in cheek, even - I've seen it
| used as a slur for ancaps in the past, and it was mildly
| amusing to me, so I adopted it.
|
| TL;DR: I think I've grown as a person to the point that I
| know my beliefs change over time, allow for the idea that
| I could be totally wrong, and am really just looking for
| a way to leave in peace and harmony with those around me.
| If I can find common ground with them and work together
| to move toward our shared goals - awesome. If not, that's
| OK too. I'm happy continuing to ignore the things I can't
| change.
| suoduandao2 wrote:
| I find the only predicting factor in which policies the
| right or left will adopt to be what sort of parent would
| implement them- the right wing want the state to be a
| father, the left want it to be a mother.
|
| By that lens, it makes total sense that the more seriously
| one takes the right-left polarity, the more one needs a
| parental figure!
| Ancapistani wrote:
| Traditional gender roles seem like a reasonable proxy for
| political party in the US.
|
| As of 2019, women tended to identify as Democrats (56%)
| much more often than as Republican (38%). Men identified
| as Republican more frequently (50%) than Democrat (42%).
|
| Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-
| reads/2020/08/18/men-and-w...
| pixel3234 wrote:
| People produce CO2 just by breathing. If you have kids, grandkids
| and so on... that is exponentially increasing your CO2 footprint.
| It is like frequent flying but so much worse! To revert global
| warming we need to reduce global population, not to increase it!
|
| Being Peter Pan today is a mature and sensible thing to do! Only
| selfish person would have kids!
| vlunkr wrote:
| Maybe, just maybe, people think that there are more factors to
| consider when having kids than their CO2 footprint.
| K0balt wrote:
| Peter Pan has a carbon footprint, and leaves the world a worse
| place than when he arrived. The Peter pans of the world need to
| get out and plant some trees, at least, to justify their
| existence. Or stop playing childish games and join one of the
| many clans of "escape extinction" 3.0.
| pixel3234 wrote:
| [flagged]
| refurb wrote:
| Side note: any CO2 humans exhale was already in the atmosphere
| and fixed by plants.
|
| Humans produce no net new CO2 by breathing.
| Mordisquitos wrote:
| All animals produce CO2 just by breathing. Should we cull their
| populations? Sterilise the largest mammal species so they can
| become extinct?
|
| To revert global warming, the breathing of animals such as
| ourselves is rounding error. Furthermore, reducing population
| is only useful to the extent that the population is assumed to
| have a carbon footprint (breathing excluded) which is still
| unsustainable as is that of the current population. It is a
| measure that can have an effect on the macro policy level of _"
| promote the conditions that will encourage demographic
| transition"_ [0], not on the micro _" don't have kids"_ scale.
|
| Honestly, the idea that having kids is irresponsible because _"
| population growth causes global warming"_ is a prime example of
| an infantile idea.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition
| mothsonasloth wrote:
| I would argue that growing up in a comfortable Western lifestyle
| is contributing to this infantilism and will be one of the
| contributors of the decline of the western world.
|
| If you are a Syrian refugee, the last thing you are caring about
| is the new Mario Nintendo game and Starbucks frappucino.
|
| Time to get serious and have children (me talking to myself)
| pjc50 wrote:
| Once the Syrian refugees arrive somewhere safe and settle, they
| quite like the creature comforts too. It's not an innate
| property of different groups, it's a Maslow situation.
| barelyauser wrote:
| Of course he does. Parent comment means the socioeconomic
| conditions of the refugee place of origin.
| emodendroket wrote:
| > Kidults are people who preserve their teenage likings (from
| video games, anime and fantasy, to a responsibility-free
| lifestyle) until they are 30-35 and older.
|
| It seems like this is painting with an extremely broad brush...
| is liking video games (or, I don't know, the Offspring) really
| that similar to putting off employment or parenthood?
| johnea wrote:
| > Some studies have shown that when live communication is
| replaced with digital communication, empathy decreases and
| 'autistic-like behaviour' grows (self-absorption, escaping
| reality). This leads to emotional immaturity.
|
| There's just no doubt about the destructive aftermath of
| abandoning physical reality for life inside one's own mind (i.e.
| online).
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-15 23:01 UTC)