re: Self-esteem & the “Crisis of the Young”

quote:

---

people who engage in virtue signaling have no self-esteem? I can see that.

---

The people that engage in virtue signaling have plenty of self-esteem because of the virtue signaling. Virtue signaling provides them the moral high ground to plant their flag on, it gives them status in their tribe, superiority over others that don't belive as they do, and provides the armour to block the nuance of counter arguments. Without virtue signaling their self-esteem would cease to exist.

quote:

---

Wow, the divorce rate really starting going up in 1960. I wonder what happened that year.

---

The introduction of no-fault divorces. They were easier to get.

quote:

---

Since money is just an idea or an agreement, why or how have humans been able to convince ourselves that wealth gives (or could give) our lives purpose. I’m only a few chapters in so maybe he explains this later. Or, connecting this to that thread about property rights, maybe the obsession with wealth has to do with a desire to assist and extend ourselves through our descendants.

---

Much as the Fox news analyst yesterday, commented that his biggest achievement in "Americana" being a deer head mounted on the wall from his first hunt, people in general seek trophies as to their achievements. He noted his boys having your own deer head trophies was particularly important to him, more so than any educational achievements they had made (something I found rather stupid). Money would be one example of a "trophy" signifying achievement. Diplomas on a wall would be another. A very attractive wife… I kid, I kid.

The difference with money, of course, is that it can rate as an achievement passed on in inheritance as a legacy. For atheists in particular, a lasting legacy would be their only ticket to immortality.

quote:

---

In the Introduction, Becker mentions the "Crisis of the Young," arguing that youth in the late 60s/early 70s were dropping out of social expectations (like college or practicing a religion) because they realized society deprives them of a chance to be find dignified meaning.

Given that this was published in 1973, it makes me wonder if this same existential framework help explain modern phenomena like the male loneliness epidemic or the increasing prevalence of childlessness by choice in the West? If the traditional sources of self-esteem feel fake or rigged, people just opt out.

I’m really curious to hear NC_Tigah’s thoughts or takeaways since I think he’s read it.

---

In so far as Becker's observations about youth, many of his comments draw from 19th and early 20th century analysis. Those analyses often turn out to be true, dating back millennia, probably to prehistoric times. They tend to be given different monikers, or nomenclature in modern lexicon, but they're basically the same precept.

I would add an important caveat regarding some of those early names in psychology. Freud, Jung, Rank, etc., had very little understanding of medical/biological causes of psychopathy. So I find some of their holdings analogous to miasma theory where they pertain to medical conditions. Rank, who asserted memory pre-dates birth, would be a perfect example. His work ITR would be more an example of a conjured opinion rather than scientific method.

Assuming your argument regarding male loneliness to be true (I do not fully accept the premise), it would fall along the same lines of historic laments about upcoming generations, albeit in this case with the unique input and effect of modern social media.

But your takeaways on Becker's holdings in general seem right on point. In short Becker et al observe the fact that man (presumably uniquely) recognizes his own mortality, can predict it, and seeks to come to grips with it in various ways.

ETA: Becker died of colon cancer shortly after the publication of his work, so some of his observations are particularly poignant.

Becker acknowledges that humans have been seeking fulfillment, meaning and pursuing immortality projects since the forever. None of this is modern, it just looks different.

quote:

---

Money would be one example of a "trophy" signifying achievement. Diplomas on a wall would be another. A very attractive wife… I kid, I kid.

The difference with money, of course, is that it can rate as an achievement passed on in inheritance as a legacy. For atheists in particular, a lasting legacy would be their only ticket to immortality.

---

Producing anything significant leaves a lasting legacy, whether it’s significant wealth, a significant scientific or academic theory, a significant literary work, piece of artwork or sculpture, architecture, etc etc.

Maybe humans see wealth as the easiest or most attainable path to significance?

quote:

---

Sounds judgmental which is on brand for you.

---

Perhaps. I am assuming that he is the type of father who would want to be surrounded by his children. Managing custody with multiple mothers seems stressful.

quote:

---

I’m not disputing this but I find it fascinating. I wonder if the age of the children at the time of the divorce is a factor in this. My siblings and I don’t remember our parents ever living in the same time zone. My sister has been married 20+ years. I’ve been married 10+. My brother hasn’t married yet. Even at the lowest point of my marriage, I never considered divorce. I would never do that to my kids and I didn’t even experience my parents splitting up in any meaningful way.

---

It's quite possible that has an impact, studies do show that having a father figure in the house is important no matter the biological relation as it imparts examples of a male and female working through the complexities of a relationship, though Becker might simply claim that none of you have replaced God with a spouse.

quote:

---

Maybe humans see wealth as the easiest or most attainable path to significance?

---

Perhaps, but I would categorize it as one of many paths.

Clint Eastwood had an interesting observation about growing old, and retelling stories that others had heard many times before. He said that it's not necessarily indicative of the old person going senile, and forgetting that he had shared those tales many times before, but rather that old person anchoring to his achievements as a sort of worth of contribution in his or her life, as perhaps a proposition to legacy.

When folks are dead and gone, the rest of us are left, but with memories of those people, the lives that they led, the things that they accomplished, the hardships that they overcame, etc. The hopes of those now deceased, during life, would be that our memories of them enable us to achieve greater or better things standing upon the shoulders of their contributions. Each generation building on the last.

quote:

---

Narax fwiw, your boomerobsession is noted, but non-explicatory.

---

quote:

---

The OP addresses death and mortality perceptions in the early 1970's when the oldest boomers were in their mid-twenties. His dalliances into so-called "Crisis of the Young," were general observations of silents and boomers, but are applicable across generations from time time immemorial.

---

People try to equate all societal fallout to something they can wrap their head around.
But what you have here is a time period transitioning from low divorce low illegitimacy high societal religion (which populated the author's mindset), to a time period of higher divorce, higher iligitimacy lower societal religion.

So yes, there have been other times of societal shift, but what we have here is a specific shift that colored society.

quote:

---

Concerns about the youth "Trying to find themselves" are not new. They date to the ancient Greeks. For example, in his plays in the 5th century BC, Aristophanes depicted young Athenians as disrespecting their fathers, disregarding their elders, valuing clever unanchored rhetoric over virtue, and abandoning traditional discipline. They were the hippies of the day.

---

Yes, similar things were said about the youth of 1939.
The Gin Epidemic of Georgian England.

But fundamentally society is changing, the pill alone has drastically reshaped humanity, women's education (not a bad thing per se, but changing).
Aristophanes was only concerned about the children of his fellow elites, not the children of slaves etc...

We now have an entire society of children who get to live like the elites of Rome and Greece, extended years of education, low birthrate, cheap entertainment, unlimited sexual activity, high irony/cynicism, self defined religion.

It's different.

God, you're an insufferable count.