This is an interesting opinion piece from the NYT on the disconnect between the messages children of baby boomers have been fed about finding a calling and the reality of building an identity and adult life.

The problem is that people don't want to hear it. It is like saying, eating well and exercising will keep you healthy. People want to eat pizza and watch TV instead.

As an article about the ill effects of helicopter parenting, it's food for thought.

I'm not buying it.

Blaming the younger generation for being more selfish and less well prepared for adulthood than previous generations is the easy pickings of cultural commentary, and has been since at least the ancient Greeks.

He reaches for two cultural tropes that are close to hand: "Over-supervised helicopter-parented robots!" and "Self-entitled boomer values!" But he cites no polls or other data that would show that there is actually a change from previous generations on either of these dimensions.

Young adults today know that they're facing some awful circumstances, and are probably less naively idealistic about their opportunities than the last several generations of Americans.

Actually, there IS a distinct rise in narcissistic traits in the generations post-X.

That's documented. Now, does that correlate with anything else that can be documented?

Who knows, right? Mechanism, mechanism, correlation fallacy and all that.

But the fact that young adults are facing terrible job prospects has probably not a lot to do with it either way. The ground HAS changed under them, though whining and entitlement probably isn't serving them well (as a demographic) in light of that set of facts.

Perfect storm, perhaps?

Not so much. Here is a good intro to the issues with that claim. Skip to paragraph 7 if you're in a hurry. Very briefly, the problems are:

1) Some researchers find no rise in NPI scores.

2) The NPI doesn't measure pathological narcissism anyway, but rather a set of characteristics that may be more positive, and in moderation may provide resiliance to difficult circumstances.

3) "Were a narcissism epidemic truly striking the United States, we ought to be seeing signs of it, but we're not. . . . Rates of teen pregnancy, substance abuse, smoking, and dropping out of high school are all down . . . more high-school students are taking difficult courses like calculus and advanced science. . . . And, as far as selfishness goes, evidence suggests that young people are engaged in community service and other civic activities more than before."

http://thomasfriedmanopedgenerator.com/about.php

I wish there was one for David Brooks, because he seems to be heading the same place recently.

Perhaps, but I'm not sure how things like smoking rates reflect narcissism. Ditto for taking calculus. Plus, how much of that civic involvement is in aid of college application fodder? And how much is required by schools?

In my experience and observation teen pregnancy, smoking, drinking and quitting school early are fairly strong indicators of low self worth not narcissism.

The point is that there is no evidence for an increase in "narcissism" (however that's defined), selfishness, irresponsibility, entitlement, immediate gratification, unwillingness to work for things, poor decision-making, or any of the other various ways that the supposed personality flaw of Gen Y gets described. No matter what measure you use, Gen Y seem to be behaving like pretty responsible young adults.

Two-thirds of high school students who do volunteer work continue to do so after high school. There is surely some natural attrition even among those who volunteer for disinterested reasons, so the answer to your question is "something quite a bit less than 1/3rd."

as a mom of a 20 year old I can certainly see the narcissism, self entitlement and everything else mentioned in him and his generation. There seem to be very few "kids" who do not share this trait. And we are NOT a wealthy area. More so, it's an area of low income to low middle class.

Sometimes narcissism can lead to a drive for instant gratification, which in turn may be self-destructive.

Hello everyone - just a reminder to keep this thread on topic and related to gifted education.

Thank you!

What? I certainly wouldn't. Weirdo.

Also, Brooks is out of it, for someone who claims to have his finger on the pulse. I'm solidly Gen X, but this is not what I did, nor is it what my peers did:


It hasn't been like that for a while, David, and you ought to know that.

Anyway, while I don't disagree with him on a broad level--does anyone really pay serious attention to their commencement address? I don't remember mine. Do you?

I will note, though, that baby boomers are the unhappiest living generation, with the highest suicide and divorce rates. We Xers don't look half bad by comparison, folks. If I were a young graduate, I might want to know that. Don't model yourself on the boomers.

Hahahahahahaha!!!!!!

Maya Angelou spoke at my commencement. I most definitely remember what she said: she inspired us. She told us that "someone would find a treatment for an incurable disease. Will it be you? Someone will find a new way to solve our energy problems. Will it be you? Someone will find a way to alleviate the disastrous effects of poverty. Will it be you?"

Then she sang to us.

Some people should just never die, and she was one of them.

Well, I'd like to end up with exactly the same family I have now, but if it were possible, I would definitely like to rewind back to age 22 (penniless, but wiser) and do over.

Of course "Nearly every sensible middle-aged person" is ridiculous.

---------------------------------------

Okay, I'm guilty of feeding this thread, but it's really not a "Gifted Issues" topic.

Right-- and I think that of the commencements I've attended (and I've been to well over a dozen at the secondary/post-secondary level at this point)-- the ones that stick are the ones where the speaker (who needs to be charismatic and powerfully engaging to begin with) also CHALLENGES people as individuals to respond internally and idiosyncratically.

Most are just insipid and frankly meaningless. But-- and I say this having just seen how such speakers are "selected" now-- that's all that those choosing such speakers WANT from them now.

They don't want speakers who make the audience uncomfortable or surprised. But-- that is what makes for memorable speakers.

I, too, have been privileged to hear Maya Angelou speak-- and even though my DD has not, she readily identified (strongly) with her excerpt/essay "Graduation Day" upon hearing her own commencement speakers. They clearly weren't addressing her at all, and it felt false and disgusting to her. It made her ANGRY at the wasted opportunity to say something both poignant and meaningful to that group of young people.

I think that this is more a mark of my DD's intensity as a GT issue, though-- and it comes through loud and clear in Ms. Angelou's account of her own graduation as well.

My daughter wanted at least one speaker to rouse the crowd to-- well, something. She wanted something that would inspire something besides boredom or polite golf-applause. No such luck.


And yes, Ms. Angelou is one of those people who really SHOULD get to live forever. SHE was never an insipid speaker. I recall her words very vividly, and I was sixteen years old when I heard her deliver them.

Youthful idealists can do more harm than good, so they worry me. My message would be to not worry about saving the world but to find the best-paying career that you are competent at and do not dislike, since how much a job is paid is a measure of how much value it is creating. You can always give away excess wealth later, as Bill Gates is doing. There is currently talk about the need to forgive government-guaranteed student loans for people with low incomes. Young people should think first about repaying their loans and not becoming public charges. I could give a memorable graduation speech .

You and Zach, HK, you and Zach.

Okay, that actually made me giggle. I will have to share that with my daughter, who was APPALLED at the corporate toadying in her own commencement exercises on Saturday. She was also pretty over the student forelock-tugging, too. It's a good thing her eyes didn't get stuck in that position, or all she'd see is clouds and sky.


Yes, I believe that you could, Bostonian. And I say that knowing that your speech would probably enrage my daughter. But she'd remember it.

The quotes that I've pulled below are the reason I shared this article. I think some of you are getting sidetracked by the narcissism talk.


In the first quote, I think the author speaks well to the challenges of being a polymath and lacking life experience. How can you possibly "discover" yourself in a meaningful way in several fields and build an appreciation for what a life in each of those areas looks like in your early 20s?

By that point I had finished grad school and had worked for a few years as a researcher alongside people in their 30s and 40s. I wasn't even that young when I started work full time--20--what about the people who finish grad school at 16?

I remember reading in Miraca Gross' book "Exceptionally Gifted Children" the story of the person under the pseudonym "Christopher Otway". Christopher was able, through radical acceleration and compacting, to take basically every high school course offered at his school and begin university at 16. I think there is tremendous value to be had from such an approach--perhaps combined with dual enrollment in the student's areas of strength, entrepreneurship, and practical internships (like HK's DD has done) because these experiences ground interests in reality and connect them tangibly to life after X degree.


This speaks to me. I strongly believe that meaning and happiness don't collapse into the same neat set. Personal difficulty has, ironically, been the best source of long-term happiness because it's forced me to look squarely at my weaknesses (and outside myself) and find causes that force me to grow to use my abilities fully. I think this is particularly important for gifted children, because they often don't even get to test their limits or experience real growth until adulthood, if ever.

I get that parents want happiness for their children, but more than anything, I want meaning and growth for my son, even if that means he spends some of his life impoverished or ostracized for his choices. I believe happiness isn't an end in and of itself, but a by-product of feeling that you have used your life well. I have to wonder if gifted families almost have to sidestep the happiness goal entirely and foster growth if they want their polymath children to have a reasonable chance at happiness.