Give it time, and I bet younger generations will surpass them by a country mile. Most likely skipping Gen X since they grew up pre-digital like the boomers, but were completely ignored and lived nearly all their lives in the shadow of boomers.
Why? Well, partly because of their numbers, but I see quite a bit of narcissism in younger generations, and unlike the boomers who, yes, grew up in a media that showered constant attention and praise on them and their outsized numbers, media is now entirely tailored to make it all about the individual.
I don’t see any reason to believe that human nature won’t fall prey to this in younger generations…if the boomers were steeped most of their lives in algorithms trained on maximizing engagement, they would be even worse. Now imagine a new group of people that have been fed that their entire lives…
You very, very obviously didn’t read the paper or even the article summarizing it.
Basically, what the paper found is that all groups, regardless of birth era… their narcissistic traits lessen overtime as any individual ages.
But also… Boomers are still, as in, after doing most of their ageing… more narcissistic than any other generational cohort that came after them.
Meaning they were even more narcissistic in early adulthood than they are now, that level of narcissism leveled off a bit as they aged… and they are still more narcissistic than younger generations, despite younger generations having not aged out of as much of their narcissism.
Its a longitudinal study, which means that they looked at studies that tracked psychological narcissism scores of the same individuals over many decades, in addition to running all the proper math to come to statistically significant conclusions.
… Thats a lot of words to say: Found the boomer.
Did you know being overly defensive is a prime trait of narcissism? They call it ‘hypersensitivity’ in the study, a maladaptive form of narcissism.
You would if you’d read any of the sources.
But you didn’t, which … makes also sense for a narcissist.
‘Willfullness’ is another defined narcissistic trait the study goes over, which is basically the extent to which you feel you must impose your ideas and beliefs on others.
Its a lot easier to be willfull when you just entirely disregard facts that are inconvenient to your opinions.
Anyway, I’ll take the actual science over a boomer providing factually baseless, useless conjecture, in a condescensing tone, based on a hunch, without evidence.
Thanks for proving my point!
(PS, the incredibly narcissistic people you see on social media all the time are always in your face because the algorithms automatically select for and hyper promote and popularize the most egotistical and narcissistic personas, due to their propensity to turn their own lives into drama filled reality tv plot lines, all on their own!)
(Its the algorithmic method of automatically producing soap opera / reality TV grade slop, because outrage and drama are the most effective ways to draw a large audience.)
(Its entirely unrepresentative of the 99.99% of people who use social media and never go viral, an actual perfect example of the selection bias that you apparently do not think that you, as a social media user, are subject to … despite you describing how social media algorithms tailor the content they serve to each individual, specifically.)
Shrug, okay, I guess wondering about how being steeped in social media will shape future generations makes me both narcissist and a boomer and condescending?
‘Wondering’ is a conclusion neutral, unbiased exploration of possibilities.
You used the verb ‘bet’ in your post, as in, you already have a conclusion from that wondering that you’re convinced is more likely than not.
So yeah, you got called out for making a prediction that flies in the face of the actual data, because you didn’t bother to read that data, and now you are backpedalling via describing your actions with less direct and intentional verbiage than you actually initially used.
You weren’t ‘wondering’.
Wondering would be done by maybe asking what the potential effects of modern social media are on younger generations, by maybe positing multiple possibilities, then trying to evaluate them all against the same standards of evidencd.
You were asserting. Being willfull.
You’ve done the first 3 lines of the narcissists prayer already.
Yeah, you seem to be wanting an argument here and doing some armchair diagnoses and are being way more combative than anything coming from me, so…have fun, I guess? ¯_(ツ)_/¯
I mean facts were given and then someone wrote up a counter point just ignoring the facts and saying what they felt was right. Ironically seems like a boomer move and they were accurate in calling that out.
They didn’t write up a counter point. They said they are guessing that in the future the ratio will move in another direction. They then said why they are guessing that might happen. They never in any way tried to refute the statistics or facts or anything the other person said.
The person who posted the statistics then misread the reply and put out an overly long, overly defensive, and insulting reply… talking about how being overly defensive and insulting is a boomer trait. The irony is delicious.
Overly defensive? The comment they were responding to was offensive and made sweeping assumptions. But no problem there? Seems like a case of attack what you don’t agree with and give what you agree with a pass. Comes across as a bad faith move.
Maybe you didn’t read the reply properly, because the person you are replying was never trying to be defensive like you are. They were never being insulting like you are. They were never being willful like you are. They were never being condescending… like you DEFINITELY are. It’s almost like you projected all of the traits of yourself onto their post. I wonder who that sounds like…
The reply was never trying to refute the statistics or the study. It was only saying they guessed that in the future the percentages will shift in a different direction and said why they thought that might happen. Yes, there might have been more narcissistic boomers in their 20s than narcissistic 20 year olds right now, but a certain percentage of boomers “aged out” of being narcissistic. If a much lower percentage of 20 year olds age out of it, then the ratio MIGHT tilt towards the younger generation if the gap is big enough. It’s just a thought experiment. It isn’t refuting anything or defending anything.
Give it time, and I bet younger generations will surpass them by a country mile. Most likely skipping Gen X since they grew up pre-digital like the boomers, but were completely ignored and lived nearly all their lives in the shadow of boomers.
Why? Well, partly because of their numbers, but I see quite a bit of narcissism in younger generations, and unlike the boomers who, yes, grew up in a media that showered constant attention and praise on them and their outsized numbers, media is now entirely tailored to make it all about the individual.
I don’t see any reason to believe that human nature won’t fall prey to this in younger generations…if the boomers were steeped most of their lives in algorithms trained on maximizing engagement, they would be even worse. Now imagine a new group of people that have been fed that their entire lives…
You very, very obviously didn’t read the paper or even the article summarizing it.
Basically, what the paper found is that all groups, regardless of birth era… their narcissistic traits lessen overtime as any individual ages.
But also… Boomers are still, as in, after doing most of their ageing… more narcissistic than any other generational cohort that came after them.
Meaning they were even more narcissistic in early adulthood than they are now, that level of narcissism leveled off a bit as they aged… and they are still more narcissistic than younger generations, despite younger generations having not aged out of as much of their narcissism.
Its a longitudinal study, which means that they looked at studies that tracked psychological narcissism scores of the same individuals over many decades, in addition to running all the proper math to come to statistically significant conclusions.
… Thats a lot of words to say: Found the boomer.
Did you know being overly defensive is a prime trait of narcissism? They call it ‘hypersensitivity’ in the study, a maladaptive form of narcissism.
You would if you’d read any of the sources.
But you didn’t, which … makes also sense for a narcissist.
‘Willfullness’ is another defined narcissistic trait the study goes over, which is basically the extent to which you feel you must impose your ideas and beliefs on others.
Its a lot easier to be willfull when you just entirely disregard facts that are inconvenient to your opinions.
Anyway, I’ll take the actual science over a boomer providing factually baseless, useless conjecture, in a condescensing tone, based on a hunch, without evidence.
Thanks for proving my point!
(PS, the incredibly narcissistic people you see on social media all the time are always in your face because the algorithms automatically select for and hyper promote and popularize the most egotistical and narcissistic personas, due to their propensity to turn their own lives into drama filled reality tv plot lines, all on their own!)
(Its the algorithmic method of automatically producing soap opera / reality TV grade slop, because outrage and drama are the most effective ways to draw a large audience.)
(Its entirely unrepresentative of the 99.99% of people who use social media and never go viral, an actual perfect example of the selection bias that you apparently do not think that you, as a social media user, are subject to … despite you describing how social media algorithms tailor the content they serve to each individual, specifically.)
Shrug, okay, I guess wondering about how being steeped in social media will shape future generations makes me both narcissist and a boomer and condescending?
Alrighty then.
‘Wondering’ is a conclusion neutral, unbiased exploration of possibilities.
You used the verb ‘bet’ in your post, as in, you already have a conclusion from that wondering that you’re convinced is more likely than not.
So yeah, you got called out for making a prediction that flies in the face of the actual data, because you didn’t bother to read that data, and now you are backpedalling via describing your actions with less direct and intentional verbiage than you actually initially used.
You weren’t ‘wondering’.
Wondering would be done by maybe asking what the potential effects of modern social media are on younger generations, by maybe positing multiple possibilities, then trying to evaluate them all against the same standards of evidencd.
You were asserting. Being willfull.
You’ve done the first 3 lines of the narcissists prayer already.
Yeah, you seem to be wanting an argument here and doing some armchair diagnoses and are being way more combative than anything coming from me, so…have fun, I guess? ¯_(ツ)_/¯
You’re more than just a bit of an asshole.
There is no reason to be an arsehole about it.
I mean facts were given and then someone wrote up a counter point just ignoring the facts and saying what they felt was right. Ironically seems like a boomer move and they were accurate in calling that out.
They didn’t write up a counter point. They said they are guessing that in the future the ratio will move in another direction. They then said why they are guessing that might happen. They never in any way tried to refute the statistics or facts or anything the other person said.
The person who posted the statistics then misread the reply and put out an overly long, overly defensive, and insulting reply… talking about how being overly defensive and insulting is a boomer trait. The irony is delicious.
Overly defensive? The comment they were responding to was offensive and made sweeping assumptions. But no problem there? Seems like a case of attack what you don’t agree with and give what you agree with a pass. Comes across as a bad faith move.
Maybe you didn’t read the reply properly, because the person you are replying was never trying to be defensive like you are. They were never being insulting like you are. They were never being willful like you are. They were never being condescending… like you DEFINITELY are. It’s almost like you projected all of the traits of yourself onto their post. I wonder who that sounds like…
The reply was never trying to refute the statistics or the study. It was only saying they guessed that in the future the percentages will shift in a different direction and said why they thought that might happen. Yes, there might have been more narcissistic boomers in their 20s than narcissistic 20 year olds right now, but a certain percentage of boomers “aged out” of being narcissistic. If a much lower percentage of 20 year olds age out of it, then the ratio MIGHT tilt towards the younger generation if the gap is big enough. It’s just a thought experiment. It isn’t refuting anything or defending anything.
What a pompous jerk