Who are our role models today? Think of them. Steven Hawking? Barack Obama? Mark Zuckerberg? We could only wish.
I don't see Mark Zuckerberg as particularly admirable or worthy of our respect, but I'm not sure exactly how you can argue that society doesn't celebrate him, unless you missed the promotion for the movie about him. Stephen Hawking is a household name; unless you're arguing that physicists were venerated by society more in the past than they are today, I don't understand why you would bring him up.
We live in a society where vapidity and shallowness are celebrated.
I don't have any reason to accept that, but I'll allow it for the sake of argument.
"But that's always been the case," you all say.
"Absolutely not," I reply.
In the 16th Century, the original guide to etiquette, The Courtier was read voraciously by those in what we could today call the "aristocracy" and "merchant classes." In the 1920s, Emily Post tried to do the same with her famed guide but found that her largest market was in fact the middle classes, who wanted to mimic the in-bred social graces of the upper classes. Today, what does Middle America have to look up to in the 1%? Paris Hilton. Poor Lauren Lauren doesn't stand a chance. Look at the darned Bratz dolls. I mean, you don't have to go past the dolls' name? What is that teaching children?
Leaving aside your odd comparison of high society of the past to popular entertainment of today, how exactly is any of that any less "shallow" than rote memorization of arbitrary rules of social etiquette? Why is a person who doesn't know that bread is placed to the left of the meal dumber than someone who does?
Now, what does this have to do with intelligence? Everything. The children of today are the products of the society they live in- now that's always been the case. What our society celebrates today is shallowness, and the mere pastiche of ideas.
Presumably, only original ideas were tolerated in the past for which you are filled with so much nostalgia.
They're so many people I've seen who have actually shown support for a candidate, only to have no real reason to support them. Just today I grilled someone who claimed to support Ron Paul, but when questioned on Paul's views on education aid, Civil Rights, and the Civil War, simply replied "Ron Paul!"
Are you suggesting that people in the past always knew about the positions of all the candidates to whom they gave support? I don't think you are, because that would be asinine. If you're not making that argument, this is yet another pointless piece of anecdotal evidence.
Now, I know many all of you here could give me a proficient argument explaining why my view is wrong and Paul's is right. But if you can't give us a reason... it's groupthink. That's why the Democrats do well among young voters. Not their liberalism... but groupthink: Republicans... ew.
Once again, we have unfounded assertions and anecdotal evidence, as well as what appears to be willful ignorance of the massive importance of voting blocs throughout American history. I'll point out again here that this argument seems to focus entirely on politics, as though there is no other measure of intelligence but political knowledge.
Back to your examples. We see a celebration of ignorance, the elevation of the mediocre and inconsequential over the important. But we also see a lack of empathy- here for those fighting for liberation in Syria (is it still "in" to support the opposition, or are we praising Assad's "anti-imperialist" cred now? But that's on a more... advanced... level).
Are you really arguing that people in the past were filled with empathy compared to today? I could point out literally hundreds of examples to the contrary. For instance, I wonder where that empathy was when Americans massacred the Muslim population of Mindanao in the first decade of the twentieth century. Could it be that public opinion back then wasn't based in empathy more than it is today?
Technology today allows for the elevation of the self above all, the idea of personal celebrities. Now we can all be vapid and famous. The focus on promoting ourselves, which becomes more of a necessity with every passing day, reduces our capacity for promoting and caring for others. Again, the product of our society amplified in the children.
I'd like to reply to this, but I can't because it's essentially meaningless. It doesn't actually pertain to the argument that young people are dumber now than before, so I feel safe in ignoring it.
But I'm being grandiloquent here. The crux of the matter is that the conditions of society have led our youth to not regard critical thought and self-education, among many other beneficial ideas, as any particular things to value. When they do "think", it is merely pastiche. The society we live in, and technology to a wide extent, has enabled this. To fix this, we need to change the values of society, what we today hold in high regard. If we can do that, then maybe the "youngs" of 2050 won't be dumber than those today. But I consider that unlikely.[/quote]
As I understand it, your argument rests on three contentions:
1. Modern society is "shallow".
2. This "shallowness" is directly correlated with the intelligence of young people.
3. The past was less "shallow", and thus young people in the past were more intelligent than young people today.
Unfortunately, you haven't managed to prove any of those points.
So, finally, Xahar, I hope this shows you I'm damn well thinking.
Yes, I suppose that fallacious thought is still thought in much the same way that a flat tire is still a tire. I retract my earlier statement; you have given this thought. It's a shame that that thought finds its basis in nostalgia rather than reality.