Self-Esteem in the Age of Entitlement

Post Reply New Topic

Easy for you to say, your culture is largely self-contained. A large population generates a lot of culture. I come from a country with a lower population than your state, let alone your country.That was the point I was trying to make all along.  People are not more entitled than previous generations. People do not have higher self-esteem than previous generations. I don't question that. The question is why?

Why don't people have higher self-esteem? I think they should but they don't. Something has gone wrong with the system to  make so many have such low self-esteem and such high anxiety.

Sorry for my late reply. This is something I've been thinking about a lot, and I had things to do and was scared of being pulled into the rabbit hole.

I don't want to be too specific, but I'm Scandinavian, and the other culture I spend time in is a much more traditional, but extremely gregarious culture. My Scandinavian culture has gotten the whole "trophy for participating" thing, and the same generation in the other country has not. I think it creates an addiction to praise, because kid cotton on fairly quickly that the opposite of praise is not criticism, but silence. So if you are ignored, it means you're bad.

Listen, this is just my pet theory, but I think it all ties in with loneliness in the modern world. Social ties are weaker. Kids grow up experiencing much more isolation, adults who break promises, moving repeatedly away from friends, the dominance of the car making playing outside more difficult, etc. It all jacks up the cortisol, because we are social animals, wired to feel safer with others of our kind.

In the past, the social game was much more about achieving things like status, positions, attracting the right partner, etc. Now, a lot of it is about avoiding isolation, which is not just about feeling lonely, but also taken as a sign that you suck. It's a game of avoidance, not achievement, which makes people neurotic.

Seriously, I believe there is one answer to the lack of self-esteem: social connectedness and the lack thereof. I think the second culture would be pretty resilient to "praise for everything". It's simply about the fact that kids seldom are lonely. If you don't fit with one person, there is always someone else you can hang with. And there is family, and extend family, and villages, and neighborhoods, and they all know you and stop you to ask about you and your family. Most old people live with their families, and they meet for chess in the park or meet up to cook jam or prepare a birthday party or meet to do crafts. It boggles the mind how much less people in my culture spend time with other people compared to the second one.

I'm not saying it's perfect, and sometimes the social whirlwind is exhausting. I take breaks by running into my bedroom and glueing myself to my computer, or involving myself in some task, which means I get praise for being hard-working, while not having to talk. People in this culture are liberal with praise, but they praise such things as being considerate of others, working hard, being able to make a good cake, being a fun person to be around. You see how the perspective is different. It's all about what you are doing for other people.

This is fascinating because a lot of people say Scandinavia is some sort of utopia. I thought the Scandinavian culture would be the second one you mentioned e.g. the more mundane culture you hang with would be some place like England and the second more enlightened place would be Scandinavia.

I guess Scandinavia is not the mixed economy utopia the liberals make it out to be. I'm not saying it's a bad place by any means but if you make any place out to be utopia, chances are you'll be wrong.True. Kids are isolated and to some extent they isolate themselves.That we are. And kids definately need more time outdoors. And with other kids. I think part of the problem is that kids should socialise in a less structured way. Sure, some kids might be on the baseball team or the polo team, etc. Nothing wrong with sports but I think kids need more unstructured play and more unstructured socialising. If they're guided through it all they won't learn to do it by themselves.

When I was a kid my idea of socialising was riding bikes aroud the neibhorhood with other kids or playing around the creek with other kids. All this was unscheduled, unsupervised and spontanious.

The following are all rhetorical questions.

...it's easy for me to say what, exactly? You've quoted two very different statements.

What does the self-containment of U.S. culture have to do with my doubting that Anglophone cultures can be lumped together?



Why did you bring up the "Age of Entitlement" concept if you don't think that it's accurate? For what reason do you question why modern people don't have higher self-esteem than previous generations? It's unclear why you are comparing past and present. It's also unclear how you even determine the self-esteem of a whole generation, let alone compare it to that of another generation.

I meant to quote the first statement. I've now greyed the other one out.Nothing. I was refering to Australian culture. Or lack thereof.I brought it up ironically for the sake of contrast to illustrate that we do not live in the age of entitlement. But we should. Aren't we entitled to something better than what our parents had?I don't know. That's what I'm trying to work out. Why do modern people have lower self-esteem than previous generations?That's a nessessary part of the above question.Anecdotal evidence

I know that's nor real evidence lol. I realize that even if anecdotes are actually true they reflect only the experience of a few people, not the whole population.

If there was a formal scientific study into self-esteem, I'm sure they would find a better way to measure the self-esteem of large groups. I'm sure they'd keep records to one day cross reference with similar studies conducted on later generations. I'm sure they'd ask if self-esteem is decreasing before they asked why self-esteem is decreasing.

However, I prefere to leave the scientific method to scientists. I'm not claiming to have proof of anything. A forum like this one can't really do much better than speculation.

It's been my personal experiences as well that what RetroGamer says has a lot of truth to it.

Also, there IS statistical evidence that depression rates are on the rise and at an all time high in many places, especially western/Anglosphere cultures.

The U.S.A. has some of the highest depression rates per 100,000 people:



On depression rates per nation/culture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_dep ... idemiology

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4100461/

On higher depression rates: http://www.healthline.com/health/depression/statistics

Wow, that map is really interesting.

Very good question.

In order for this to happen, more "stuff" needs to happen. Who is going to do all this "stuff?"

In the USA, after the war, the baby boomers did all this stuff--led by WW2 veterans who learned valuable leadership skills. The war did have its advantages in that people would put aside their petty differences to win the war--and actually worked together after the war. For instance, Hawaii's senator was able to get all sorts of deals done--perhaps more than he could have as the president of the USA. Had he not been a WW2 veteran, it is likely that racism would have severely limited what he could do.

After boomers, more "stuff" was done by women--who now have more opportunities than they had in earlier years. Women would get stuck in the secretarial pool when they should have been solving difficult math problems--greatly limiting the amount of stuff that could be done.

More stuff isn't going to happen if the answer is "somebody else."


As I see it, training Aspies to be normal is going to result in a significant productivity hit. People who would otherwise be eccentric engineers and scientists aren't going to get there--as they can't be "normal" and be allowed to achieve their full potential--it is really one or the other.

^ Maybe but being more productive is the means by which I want to become more normal.

I am talking about generalities. Every aspie is different. Maybe you are the exception that can go back to school and get your degree to get back on the fast track--but most people take a social hit trying to do that.

I could be a lot more productive if I were to do consulting--I do get offers from time to time. But, why do that when I've already saved enough for retirement? Not like I'm going to hook up with a hot babe that needs a flashy lifestyle.

Or can I?

I don't think baby boomers fully grasp that they grew up in a world where the west was in a position of economic privilege. There is a lot more competition these days. Living in Turkey, I see that the vast majority of people can't afford to own their own home. Not even doctors. People live almost exclusively in high-rises. Few people have big houses with yards. Yet they work just as hard as Americans. It seems like it's the American boomers who are entitled to big houses with yards. Millennials have to compete with places like Turkey where nobody has big houses with yards. Nobody expects that. It's no wonder the latest generation is going to be poorer than the previous. Global expectations are less.

I live in a little house with a big yard--not only is it paid for but I have an annuity to cover taxes. Much better for an Aspie than a big house with a little yard.

I actually like living in an apartment. And I hate gardening.

You took the plunge and moved to Turkey?

Awesome! Good stuff!

I of course mean that positively.

It may not be the best of nations, but you get to be with your S.O. right and quite frankly, I do think it's noble to have the bravery to move to a country that isn't as good economically/by Human Living Index standards.

^ Ditto!