Early '90s of course. They usually play that heroin kind of indy music that has no melody at all, no memorable chord progression, no riffs, basically nothing to hold your attention and get stuck in your head afterward.
So it was a real shock to hear "Pretend We're Dead", and I actually found myself singing along. Not the catchiest rock song ever recorded, but it gets the job done.
Then I saw they had a bunch of t-shirts with striped patterns, like this one, that were popular around '91 or '92. Kind of the last gasp of multi-color clothing that started in the '60s and peaked in the '80s. Didn't see any Hypercolor, though.
Just about all of the '90s sucked big time, but those first couple years weren't as unbearable as the rest. The wild culture was winding up and going to sleep, although it hadn't fallen into complete hibernation just yet.
August 15, 2012
Why aren't faggots funny?
Here is an NYT article on the failure of gays to make it in the world of stand-up comedy. Funny people tend to draw a crowd to listen to their jokes sometime in adolescence, whereas pre-pubescent children struggle to come up with their own jokes, humorous observations, ability to relate to the crowd, and so on. So this is another case of gay Peter Pan-ism. (See the pictures for even more vivid proof.)
It's also a great example of their inability to empathize, another one of their Peter Pan-isms. Their routines focus so narrowly on the boring fact that they engage in the butt sex, and whatever is related to that "lifestyle". Really, who cares? Even chick comics riff on topics farther removed from their personal life. The article mentions that their fellow homos don't find queers funny either, while they show up in droves to see fag hags like Margaret Cho and Kathy Griffin.
We also see another example of how lesbians are not socially and emotionally stunted like gays are. I mean, they are women, so they're not going to be that funny or able to work up a crowd, but Ellen DeGeneres and Rosie O'Donnell are basically competent as comic performers, and they couldn't host successful talk shows if they couldn't relate to a crowd at a level above that of a child. O'Donnell may be a fat, obnoxious battle-axe, but that is a more middle-aged than toddlerish trait. And Wanda Sykes is pretty funny, probably because blacks aren't as awkward and retarded as many white people are in front of a crowd.
There used to be a lot of popular gay singers in the '70s and '80s, all in the closet of course, whereas now there are none. I don't think there were that many successful gay comics back then, but it still goes to show how much better they'll fit into society if there's a pervasive climate of homophobia.
It's also a great example of their inability to empathize, another one of their Peter Pan-isms. Their routines focus so narrowly on the boring fact that they engage in the butt sex, and whatever is related to that "lifestyle". Really, who cares? Even chick comics riff on topics farther removed from their personal life. The article mentions that their fellow homos don't find queers funny either, while they show up in droves to see fag hags like Margaret Cho and Kathy Griffin.
We also see another example of how lesbians are not socially and emotionally stunted like gays are. I mean, they are women, so they're not going to be that funny or able to work up a crowd, but Ellen DeGeneres and Rosie O'Donnell are basically competent as comic performers, and they couldn't host successful talk shows if they couldn't relate to a crowd at a level above that of a child. O'Donnell may be a fat, obnoxious battle-axe, but that is a more middle-aged than toddlerish trait. And Wanda Sykes is pretty funny, probably because blacks aren't as awkward and retarded as many white people are in front of a crowd.
There used to be a lot of popular gay singers in the '70s and '80s, all in the closet of course, whereas now there are none. I don't think there were that many successful gay comics back then, but it still goes to show how much better they'll fit into society if there's a pervasive climate of homophobia.
Categories:
Gays
August 8, 2012
Are gays more infantile even as children?
There's a long article in the NYT Magazine about boys who dress like girls, which notes that 60-80% are future gays, some of the rest are future pre-or-post-op trannies, and some presumably small percent will wind up normal.
So they're mostly a subset of gays and others with screwed up sexualities. We can treat them as a "right tail" of the gay distribution, and infer that whatever is out at this tail is more prevalent among gays on average, compared to normal boys. That's the same way that we look at the percent of white people who can dunk a basketball, the corresponding percent among Chinese, and infer that whites are taller on average, even if most whites cannot dunk.
What then is the defining feature of these girl-boys profiled in the article? You should read it yourself because these traits do not show up in statistics about gays, so the profiles will give you a window into a group you could otherwise know little about.
Well, it definitely is not femininity (indeed, most do not consider themselves to be girls). For one thing, they have zero interest in babies, probably the single most important component of female nature. Their complete lack of interest in baby-rearing dolls, despite their fascination with fashion dolls, is just a special case of the general pattern that gays have no nurturing instinct.
Little girls aren't exactly getting ready to marry and raise their own children, but even from an early age they are fascinated by cute babies, spontaneously move to nurture them, and take jobs as babysitters. Grown men aren't as nurturing as women, but they still feel an urge to do their part in raising the young 'uns, or if childless, usually would like to have kids of their own. Little boys, though, find babies yucky and smelly and without other redeeming qualities. Thus, the gay callousness toward babies is one of their many Peter Pan traits, not a feminine trait (just the opposite).
Instead, what comes across in the profiles is that the girl-boys are unable to handle minimal stress, are desperate and needy, attention-whoring, temper tantrum-throwing, insecure about being ugly even at 4 years old, egocentric, narcissistic, demanding that others applaud their awesomeness without having earned it at all, because they're just such special snowflakes -- in a word, they're infantile, even more so than their male and female age-mates.
It's true that those traits are higher among females than males, but that's only because females are more neotenous, or resembling children. As the writer mentions, the behavior of girl-boys is if anything a parody of how girls dress and act. They are not "even more feminine" than girls, they are even more juvenile.
As children mature socially and emotionally, first during elementary school when they mostly interact with same-sex peers, and later during adolescence when they interact more with the opposite sex, they gradually lose their bratty, clingy, narcissistic, and attention-whoring ways. The simple reason is that no one other than your close blood relatives thinks you're a special snowflake, so they won't put up with any of your disruptive bullshit. So within your peer group, it's either shape up or ship out, something you never truly experience from your parents. Extreme diva behavior results only when the child is sheltered from the corrective influences of their peers.
The narcissism, etc., of gay adults is well known and provides yet another vivid example of their Peter Pan-ism. But at first my hunch was just that their development got arrested in childhood, perhaps around age 10, by whatever pathogen caused damage to the part of their brain that controls sexuality (the damage to the developmental regions being collateral damage).
However, it seems as though gays are super-infantile already as children -- not normal children who got stuck or regressed. Or maybe they began as normal infants, but then got infected as toddlers and became frozen there. On reflection, I guess their Peter Pan-isms are more typical of toddlers than of later elementary school kids. (If I recall correctly, there is no season-of-birth effect for gays, so that suggests the pathogen does not strike them as newborns.)
Why this subset of gays, the girl-boys, chooses to act out narcissistically by wearing girls' clothes, instead of some other way, I don't know. I guess they picked up on the fact that pretty little girls tend to get more attention than crude little boys, so they decided to ape the girls' appearance and mannerisms, although again not their mindset or overall behavior. They're hoping that their superficial resemblance to girls will get them the standing ovation that they just, like, totally know they deserve.
The article says that most of them will grow out of flamboyant girly clothing, so it's clearly not some deeply ingrained impulse that they just can't control. They chuck it overboard when they find some other way of whoring for attention, like joining the drama club or whatever during adolescence. Wearing pink dresses and eyeliner was merely a transient strategy for demanding that the world give them a great big hug, during a stage in the lifespan when males have few endearing qualities, so why not look like a girl?
I know I recently said that gays tend to wear little jewelry or other forms of body adornment, and yet here they are doing just that as children. What gives? My explanation rested on their social immaturity, that wearing jewelry and other adornments is a way to signal group membership, commitment to a mate, etc.
As small children, the girl-boys aren't trying to do any of that, and they aren't even trying to use jewelry, etc., for the purposes that little girls do -- namely, to establish or invite others into a social bond. Girls adorn one another to make friends, but girl-boys are instead using their girl friends to get assistance in looking dazzling, the better to whore for attention.
Girls also adorn themselves to start attracting boys; it's a sign of their intentions to be approached by boys, ultimately leading to a steady relationship. But girl-boys are not dressing up to get a feel for attracting mates -- after all, when they come out as gay, they won't be wearing long hair, eyeliner, dresses, etc., to pick up their fellow queers.
So, unlike the generally social bonding reasons that girls adorn themselves, girl-boys dress in drag for strictly egocentric and narcissistic motives -- the faggot as a toddler in caricature. Once that appearance no longer suits their needs, beginning in adolescence, they drop it like a hot potato, while teenage girls continue to try to make themselves look pretty for the boys. (Granted, more so in some eras than in others.)
I wonder why no one else has tried to mine this gay Peter Pan idea for all its worth. Others have noticed things here and there, but not pushed the idea as far as it allows. Obviously liberals are too biased and sanctimonious to even entertain the idea. Unfortunately, though, most conservatives are just not very curious people. For getting through daily life, that's probably a good thing -- don't wander over where we weren't meant to go. So they fall back on amusing but clearly wrong explanations about gays being exaggeratedly feminine. But when you really stop and think about it, a prancing little sissy is more like a toddler than a chick.
So they're mostly a subset of gays and others with screwed up sexualities. We can treat them as a "right tail" of the gay distribution, and infer that whatever is out at this tail is more prevalent among gays on average, compared to normal boys. That's the same way that we look at the percent of white people who can dunk a basketball, the corresponding percent among Chinese, and infer that whites are taller on average, even if most whites cannot dunk.
What then is the defining feature of these girl-boys profiled in the article? You should read it yourself because these traits do not show up in statistics about gays, so the profiles will give you a window into a group you could otherwise know little about.
Well, it definitely is not femininity (indeed, most do not consider themselves to be girls). For one thing, they have zero interest in babies, probably the single most important component of female nature. Their complete lack of interest in baby-rearing dolls, despite their fascination with fashion dolls, is just a special case of the general pattern that gays have no nurturing instinct.
Little girls aren't exactly getting ready to marry and raise their own children, but even from an early age they are fascinated by cute babies, spontaneously move to nurture them, and take jobs as babysitters. Grown men aren't as nurturing as women, but they still feel an urge to do their part in raising the young 'uns, or if childless, usually would like to have kids of their own. Little boys, though, find babies yucky and smelly and without other redeeming qualities. Thus, the gay callousness toward babies is one of their many Peter Pan traits, not a feminine trait (just the opposite).
Instead, what comes across in the profiles is that the girl-boys are unable to handle minimal stress, are desperate and needy, attention-whoring, temper tantrum-throwing, insecure about being ugly even at 4 years old, egocentric, narcissistic, demanding that others applaud their awesomeness without having earned it at all, because they're just such special snowflakes -- in a word, they're infantile, even more so than their male and female age-mates.
It's true that those traits are higher among females than males, but that's only because females are more neotenous, or resembling children. As the writer mentions, the behavior of girl-boys is if anything a parody of how girls dress and act. They are not "even more feminine" than girls, they are even more juvenile.
As children mature socially and emotionally, first during elementary school when they mostly interact with same-sex peers, and later during adolescence when they interact more with the opposite sex, they gradually lose their bratty, clingy, narcissistic, and attention-whoring ways. The simple reason is that no one other than your close blood relatives thinks you're a special snowflake, so they won't put up with any of your disruptive bullshit. So within your peer group, it's either shape up or ship out, something you never truly experience from your parents. Extreme diva behavior results only when the child is sheltered from the corrective influences of their peers.
The narcissism, etc., of gay adults is well known and provides yet another vivid example of their Peter Pan-ism. But at first my hunch was just that their development got arrested in childhood, perhaps around age 10, by whatever pathogen caused damage to the part of their brain that controls sexuality (the damage to the developmental regions being collateral damage).
However, it seems as though gays are super-infantile already as children -- not normal children who got stuck or regressed. Or maybe they began as normal infants, but then got infected as toddlers and became frozen there. On reflection, I guess their Peter Pan-isms are more typical of toddlers than of later elementary school kids. (If I recall correctly, there is no season-of-birth effect for gays, so that suggests the pathogen does not strike them as newborns.)
Why this subset of gays, the girl-boys, chooses to act out narcissistically by wearing girls' clothes, instead of some other way, I don't know. I guess they picked up on the fact that pretty little girls tend to get more attention than crude little boys, so they decided to ape the girls' appearance and mannerisms, although again not their mindset or overall behavior. They're hoping that their superficial resemblance to girls will get them the standing ovation that they just, like, totally know they deserve.
The article says that most of them will grow out of flamboyant girly clothing, so it's clearly not some deeply ingrained impulse that they just can't control. They chuck it overboard when they find some other way of whoring for attention, like joining the drama club or whatever during adolescence. Wearing pink dresses and eyeliner was merely a transient strategy for demanding that the world give them a great big hug, during a stage in the lifespan when males have few endearing qualities, so why not look like a girl?
I know I recently said that gays tend to wear little jewelry or other forms of body adornment, and yet here they are doing just that as children. What gives? My explanation rested on their social immaturity, that wearing jewelry and other adornments is a way to signal group membership, commitment to a mate, etc.
As small children, the girl-boys aren't trying to do any of that, and they aren't even trying to use jewelry, etc., for the purposes that little girls do -- namely, to establish or invite others into a social bond. Girls adorn one another to make friends, but girl-boys are instead using their girl friends to get assistance in looking dazzling, the better to whore for attention.
Girls also adorn themselves to start attracting boys; it's a sign of their intentions to be approached by boys, ultimately leading to a steady relationship. But girl-boys are not dressing up to get a feel for attracting mates -- after all, when they come out as gay, they won't be wearing long hair, eyeliner, dresses, etc., to pick up their fellow queers.
So, unlike the generally social bonding reasons that girls adorn themselves, girl-boys dress in drag for strictly egocentric and narcissistic motives -- the faggot as a toddler in caricature. Once that appearance no longer suits their needs, beginning in adolescence, they drop it like a hot potato, while teenage girls continue to try to make themselves look pretty for the boys. (Granted, more so in some eras than in others.)
I wonder why no one else has tried to mine this gay Peter Pan idea for all its worth. Others have noticed things here and there, but not pushed the idea as far as it allows. Obviously liberals are too biased and sanctimonious to even entertain the idea. Unfortunately, though, most conservatives are just not very curious people. For getting through daily life, that's probably a good thing -- don't wander over where we weren't meant to go. So they fall back on amusing but clearly wrong explanations about gays being exaggeratedly feminine. But when you really stop and think about it, a prancing little sissy is more like a toddler than a chick.
Categories:
Gays
Going beyond personal nostalgia in admiring the past
What keeps nostalgia from leading to regression is putting yourself in the mind of someone who, back in the good old days, was as old as you are now. Then you're not just pining for a return to how you remember those times, but discovering that your current self too would enjoy those times more than the present times. It really was a better world for everyone to live in -- young, middle-aged, and elderly -- not just a time that you have biased warm fuzzy memories of.
Now that a lot of people who were children in the 1980s are in their 30s, they should take a stronger look at how much better it was for 30-somethings back then, not only for small kids. It may, however, make you even more depressed at how bad things have gotten.
You won't be prepared for it either by hearing people now in their 50s and 60s complaining about how cool it was to be a 20 or 30-something in the '80s. They'll readily agree to that assessment, and provide you with lots of examples once you bring it up. But you're not supposed to get spontaneously nostalgic about how cool you were in your 30s, and how boring the society is now. It's like they're afraid of hearing, "Well, you were over 30, so how cool could life have really been for you?" Due to this silence, it's something you have to figure out on your own.
But people in their child-rearing years used to have quite a social life, before they decided to lock themselves indoors all day with their nuclear family. Although I don't have kids, I still see how much aggravation helicopter parenting adds to the lives of those who do. You get cabin fever, and you're not allowed much of an outlet since after all they are your family. We don't even have cathartic movies anymore like Vacation and The Shining.
Parents of Millennials get so snippy with them, constantly pester them via cell phone ("What were you doing when I called 15 minutes ago???"), and result to impersonal, emotionally cool, and rational-intellectual ways of interacting with their children. All signs that they're always on the verge of a nervous breakdown, doing whatever it takes to hold themselves together.
During the heyday of New Wave, my mother used to go out dancing with her close friend every weekend. She was in her late 20s and had three children -- me, around 3 or 4, and my brothers who were 1 or 2. Sometimes my dad would go, and more often he'd stay home. And both parents used to go over to other grown-ups' houses for "dinner parties," whose main attraction was actually booze. (My parents say it was not uncommon for party guests to drive home drunk in those days, something that the supposedly reckless and hormone-blinded teenagers today almost never do.)
Also, if neither parent was home to look after us, they hired a... shoot, what were they called? I know I saw them in movies before... oh that's it, a babysitter!
You don't see that level of sociality even among unmarried and childless adults today, who would rather stay at home and plug themselves into one of their many devices instead.
And of course with church attendance so much lower than it was during the most recent religious revival, grown-ups have abandoned one of the most reliable ways to get to know one another and create enduring social bonds. I distinctly remember what ear-to-ear smiles the grown-ups used to wear when they greeted each other before and after church. Daily life was a lot more dangerous and topsy-turvy then, so being near those who would get your back and help you through your troubles must have made them feel blessed.
Don't forget how much time the elderly used to spend hanging out with one another at the mall.
There are many more aspects of adult life that could be discussed, but I'll end it there for now, and come back to it now and then. Perhaps the easiest way to sense this for yourself (if you're of a certain age) is to look back at how much great music there used to be for adults -- not corny, and not ponderous, but sophisticated, and in an organic rather than phony way. Here is an earlier post on that topic, which I only feel stronger about more than a year later, having picked up Graceland by Paul Simon, So by Peter Gabriel, It's My Life by Talk Talk, and Diamond Life by Sade. Forget about being 7 years old again in the '80s -- I'd kill to be in the over-30 crowd back then too.
Now that a lot of people who were children in the 1980s are in their 30s, they should take a stronger look at how much better it was for 30-somethings back then, not only for small kids. It may, however, make you even more depressed at how bad things have gotten.
You won't be prepared for it either by hearing people now in their 50s and 60s complaining about how cool it was to be a 20 or 30-something in the '80s. They'll readily agree to that assessment, and provide you with lots of examples once you bring it up. But you're not supposed to get spontaneously nostalgic about how cool you were in your 30s, and how boring the society is now. It's like they're afraid of hearing, "Well, you were over 30, so how cool could life have really been for you?" Due to this silence, it's something you have to figure out on your own.
But people in their child-rearing years used to have quite a social life, before they decided to lock themselves indoors all day with their nuclear family. Although I don't have kids, I still see how much aggravation helicopter parenting adds to the lives of those who do. You get cabin fever, and you're not allowed much of an outlet since after all they are your family. We don't even have cathartic movies anymore like Vacation and The Shining.
Parents of Millennials get so snippy with them, constantly pester them via cell phone ("What were you doing when I called 15 minutes ago???"), and result to impersonal, emotionally cool, and rational-intellectual ways of interacting with their children. All signs that they're always on the verge of a nervous breakdown, doing whatever it takes to hold themselves together.
During the heyday of New Wave, my mother used to go out dancing with her close friend every weekend. She was in her late 20s and had three children -- me, around 3 or 4, and my brothers who were 1 or 2. Sometimes my dad would go, and more often he'd stay home. And both parents used to go over to other grown-ups' houses for "dinner parties," whose main attraction was actually booze. (My parents say it was not uncommon for party guests to drive home drunk in those days, something that the supposedly reckless and hormone-blinded teenagers today almost never do.)
Also, if neither parent was home to look after us, they hired a... shoot, what were they called? I know I saw them in movies before... oh that's it, a babysitter!
You don't see that level of sociality even among unmarried and childless adults today, who would rather stay at home and plug themselves into one of their many devices instead.
And of course with church attendance so much lower than it was during the most recent religious revival, grown-ups have abandoned one of the most reliable ways to get to know one another and create enduring social bonds. I distinctly remember what ear-to-ear smiles the grown-ups used to wear when they greeted each other before and after church. Daily life was a lot more dangerous and topsy-turvy then, so being near those who would get your back and help you through your troubles must have made them feel blessed.
Don't forget how much time the elderly used to spend hanging out with one another at the mall.
There are many more aspects of adult life that could be discussed, but I'll end it there for now, and come back to it now and then. Perhaps the easiest way to sense this for yourself (if you're of a certain age) is to look back at how much great music there used to be for adults -- not corny, and not ponderous, but sophisticated, and in an organic rather than phony way. Here is an earlier post on that topic, which I only feel stronger about more than a year later, having picked up Graceland by Paul Simon, So by Peter Gabriel, It's My Life by Talk Talk, and Diamond Life by Sade. Forget about being 7 years old again in the '80s -- I'd kill to be in the over-30 crowd back then too.
Categories:
Age,
Over-parenting
August 6, 2012
Pastoralism and endurance sports (including soccer)
That's strange -- a runner from Great Britain just won the Olympic gold medal in men's 10,000 metres. I thought it was Ethiopians who ruled at running long distances... Ah wait, his name is Mohamed Farah and he's Somali.
What explains the dominance of long-distance running by Ethiopians, Kenyans, and other related people in that corner of the world? Very simply, it is their adaptation (through natural selection) to a way of life called nomadic pastoralism. They gain their subsistence by herding livestock rather than hunting and gathering, tending small-scale gardens, or cultivating larger fields of crops. The nomadic groups of pastoralists tend to live in harsher climates with little arable land, so they wander over great distances in search of scarce pastures for their herds.
Having to endure a continual trek across such vast distances must have selected for the ideal physiology of long-distance runners. You don't really need too much explosive strength like you do in sports that involve sprinting, jumping, and throwing, or those that involve hitting projectiles with shock weapons. You just need to be able to move yourself on foot for a very long stretch of land without getting too tired.
The nomadic form of herding livestock is more common in the East African highlands, across the Sahel into West Africa (trekking through the Sahara Desert), and in Central Asia, with patches across the Middle East. There are also spill-overs of pastoralist groups into neighboring countries that are generally not pastoralists. And not surprisingly, the few excellent endurance runners from these non-pastoralist countries are actually pastoralist minorities. For example, one of the top 20 times in the men's 10K is held by Boniface Toroitich Kiprop, technically from Uganda, whose population are mostly gardeners, and a country with limited success in endurance sports. However, the district that he's from is right on the Kenyan border and is mostly populated by cattle-herders.
So far the Central Asians haven't come to rival the pastoralist Africans in the 10K, marathon, etc., although I'm not sure how interested they are in Olympic competition. Alternatively, the Africans may have an extra advantage from being genetically adapted to high altitude. (That can't be their primary strength, though, since no other people from high-altitude regions dominate long-distance running.)
Apparently the nomadic pastoralist way of life has not only selected for superior endurance among the human herders, but also among their horses. In the world of equestrian sports, endurance riding tends to make use of various Oriental horse breeds -- "Oriental" in the older sense of the Near and Middle East -- such as the Arabian. These breeds are famed for their endurance over long distances, unlike those that have been bred to be beasts of burden, who will only have to traipse around the farm of a settled agriculturalist.
There is another form of pastoralism, called transhumance, where the herders don't travel such great distances to unpredictable locations, where instead they have a more fixed pattern of movement between summer and winter pastures. Generally this means the summer pastures are at higher elevation and winter pastures at lower elevation. The herders have more permanent homes near each place, and their migration is a predictable over time -- being seasonal -- and over space -- going from one known choice location to another.
That would seem to select for a greater level of endurance, but just not at the level of the more nomadic groups that rule at distance running. Also, the setting up, maintenance, and defense of their relatively more permanent settlements would keep the pressure on their ability to use strength, as well as endurance, to make a living.
Transhumance is found across the Near and Middle East, the dairying northwestern part of South Asia, Southern Europe, the Alps, Scandinavia, and the British Isles (particularly the Celtic groups). Again it's mostly where there are mountainous pastures to thrive on in the summer, plus lower-lying pastures for the winter.
What endurance sport do these types of pastoralists dominate? Soccer. It is mostly an endurance sport, but it also features rare but important bursts of speed, not to mention giving the ball an occasional good hard kick. The people who dominate at soccer are the cheese-making countries of Europe, particularly the more southern ones, where once again adaptation to higher altitudes may give them an extra advantage.
The Northeastern region of Europe, where large-scale agriculture has traditionally excluded pastoralism, tends not to do very well in soccer, especially adjusting for population size. For example, Russia has a population of around 140 million, while Spain's is nearly 50 million, so the best soccer players in Russia are a much higher percentile within the country. With so many more people, they should be able to find more of those rare gems, and yet they perform more poorly than the Spanish at soccer.
The Near and Middle Eastern countries seem to do OK at soccer, but not as good as the transhumance pastoralists from Europe. Soccer is a team sport, so regions with lower social cohesion won't produce the greatest teams, even if their individual athletes have the right physiology. Societies with higher levels of pastoralism tend to be more rugged individualists, whereas in Europe pastoralism has always co-existed with settled agriculture as well, where people will put up with their neighbors for collective welfare.
And of course anywhere else in the world that these societies have colonized, also do very well in soccer. Brazil and Argentina are the obvious examples, where they were seeded not only by Southern Europeans, but where they continued their cattle-herding way of life. Other countries like Uruguay, Chile, and Mexico, do well in soccer, but they also tend to have more indigenous mixture, and the gardening societies of the Americas have not selected for endurance. Also, the cowboy culture did not thrive as strongly in these latter countries as in Brazil and Argentina, who are still leading beef producers.
What about the Scandinavians? They aren't so hot at soccer, but they do dominate in cross-country skiing. That can't be because they're more familiar with snow, because on a per capita basis Norway and Sweden leave Russia in their dust. But Norwegians and Swedes have been shaped more by transhumance pastoralism than have the more strictly agriculturalist Russians. Also, you don't find Eskimos or other Arctic peoples excelling at cross-country skiing, and they're more familiar with cold weather and the snow than anyone. Their way of life was traditionally hunting and gathering, which in the African savannah might have involved lots of moving on foot, but in the Arctic has relied heavily on boats (for marine hunting) and sleds pulled by a team of animals (for travel over the land).
I hope this little tour through human biodiversity will encourage the HBD crowd to study and apply what is well known about different types of subsistence -- hunting and gathering, horticulture, agriculture, and pastoralism. Getting a hold of subtler differences within each type would do even better. Too much thinking about group differences -- as rare as that already is -- focuses on continent-level races, lumping together the very different Mongolians and Han Chinese, or societies at different levels of economic and political development, ignoring the profound differences between the more advanced East Asian countries like Japan, South Korea, and China, and the more advanced European countries, because hey, they're all smart, hard-working, and economically globally competitive.
I don't mean to get so snarky, but you do see too much of an East Asian fetish among many who are into HBD, and a basic awareness of how different subsistence types lead to different higher-level social properties would correct this naive fetish.
What explains the dominance of long-distance running by Ethiopians, Kenyans, and other related people in that corner of the world? Very simply, it is their adaptation (through natural selection) to a way of life called nomadic pastoralism. They gain their subsistence by herding livestock rather than hunting and gathering, tending small-scale gardens, or cultivating larger fields of crops. The nomadic groups of pastoralists tend to live in harsher climates with little arable land, so they wander over great distances in search of scarce pastures for their herds.
Having to endure a continual trek across such vast distances must have selected for the ideal physiology of long-distance runners. You don't really need too much explosive strength like you do in sports that involve sprinting, jumping, and throwing, or those that involve hitting projectiles with shock weapons. You just need to be able to move yourself on foot for a very long stretch of land without getting too tired.
The nomadic form of herding livestock is more common in the East African highlands, across the Sahel into West Africa (trekking through the Sahara Desert), and in Central Asia, with patches across the Middle East. There are also spill-overs of pastoralist groups into neighboring countries that are generally not pastoralists. And not surprisingly, the few excellent endurance runners from these non-pastoralist countries are actually pastoralist minorities. For example, one of the top 20 times in the men's 10K is held by Boniface Toroitich Kiprop, technically from Uganda, whose population are mostly gardeners, and a country with limited success in endurance sports. However, the district that he's from is right on the Kenyan border and is mostly populated by cattle-herders.
So far the Central Asians haven't come to rival the pastoralist Africans in the 10K, marathon, etc., although I'm not sure how interested they are in Olympic competition. Alternatively, the Africans may have an extra advantage from being genetically adapted to high altitude. (That can't be their primary strength, though, since no other people from high-altitude regions dominate long-distance running.)
Apparently the nomadic pastoralist way of life has not only selected for superior endurance among the human herders, but also among their horses. In the world of equestrian sports, endurance riding tends to make use of various Oriental horse breeds -- "Oriental" in the older sense of the Near and Middle East -- such as the Arabian. These breeds are famed for their endurance over long distances, unlike those that have been bred to be beasts of burden, who will only have to traipse around the farm of a settled agriculturalist.
There is another form of pastoralism, called transhumance, where the herders don't travel such great distances to unpredictable locations, where instead they have a more fixed pattern of movement between summer and winter pastures. Generally this means the summer pastures are at higher elevation and winter pastures at lower elevation. The herders have more permanent homes near each place, and their migration is a predictable over time -- being seasonal -- and over space -- going from one known choice location to another.
That would seem to select for a greater level of endurance, but just not at the level of the more nomadic groups that rule at distance running. Also, the setting up, maintenance, and defense of their relatively more permanent settlements would keep the pressure on their ability to use strength, as well as endurance, to make a living.
Transhumance is found across the Near and Middle East, the dairying northwestern part of South Asia, Southern Europe, the Alps, Scandinavia, and the British Isles (particularly the Celtic groups). Again it's mostly where there are mountainous pastures to thrive on in the summer, plus lower-lying pastures for the winter.
What endurance sport do these types of pastoralists dominate? Soccer. It is mostly an endurance sport, but it also features rare but important bursts of speed, not to mention giving the ball an occasional good hard kick. The people who dominate at soccer are the cheese-making countries of Europe, particularly the more southern ones, where once again adaptation to higher altitudes may give them an extra advantage.
The Northeastern region of Europe, where large-scale agriculture has traditionally excluded pastoralism, tends not to do very well in soccer, especially adjusting for population size. For example, Russia has a population of around 140 million, while Spain's is nearly 50 million, so the best soccer players in Russia are a much higher percentile within the country. With so many more people, they should be able to find more of those rare gems, and yet they perform more poorly than the Spanish at soccer.
The Near and Middle Eastern countries seem to do OK at soccer, but not as good as the transhumance pastoralists from Europe. Soccer is a team sport, so regions with lower social cohesion won't produce the greatest teams, even if their individual athletes have the right physiology. Societies with higher levels of pastoralism tend to be more rugged individualists, whereas in Europe pastoralism has always co-existed with settled agriculture as well, where people will put up with their neighbors for collective welfare.
And of course anywhere else in the world that these societies have colonized, also do very well in soccer. Brazil and Argentina are the obvious examples, where they were seeded not only by Southern Europeans, but where they continued their cattle-herding way of life. Other countries like Uruguay, Chile, and Mexico, do well in soccer, but they also tend to have more indigenous mixture, and the gardening societies of the Americas have not selected for endurance. Also, the cowboy culture did not thrive as strongly in these latter countries as in Brazil and Argentina, who are still leading beef producers.
What about the Scandinavians? They aren't so hot at soccer, but they do dominate in cross-country skiing. That can't be because they're more familiar with snow, because on a per capita basis Norway and Sweden leave Russia in their dust. But Norwegians and Swedes have been shaped more by transhumance pastoralism than have the more strictly agriculturalist Russians. Also, you don't find Eskimos or other Arctic peoples excelling at cross-country skiing, and they're more familiar with cold weather and the snow than anyone. Their way of life was traditionally hunting and gathering, which in the African savannah might have involved lots of moving on foot, but in the Arctic has relied heavily on boats (for marine hunting) and sleds pulled by a team of animals (for travel over the land).
I hope this little tour through human biodiversity will encourage the HBD crowd to study and apply what is well known about different types of subsistence -- hunting and gathering, horticulture, agriculture, and pastoralism. Getting a hold of subtler differences within each type would do even better. Too much thinking about group differences -- as rare as that already is -- focuses on continent-level races, lumping together the very different Mongolians and Han Chinese, or societies at different levels of economic and political development, ignoring the profound differences between the more advanced East Asian countries like Japan, South Korea, and China, and the more advanced European countries, because hey, they're all smart, hard-working, and economically globally competitive.
I don't mean to get so snarky, but you do see too much of an East Asian fetish among many who are into HBD, and a basic awareness of how different subsistence types lead to different higher-level social properties would correct this naive fetish.
Categories:
Human Biodiversity
August 4, 2012
When was pop music invaded by vocal fry (creaky-croaky voice)?
Younger girls these days speak with a lot of vocal fry, or giving their voice a creaky-croaky delivery. See this previous post to get a better description, examples from YouTube, and an explanation of why it signals social avoidance. (And thus, the rise in avoidant personalities has caused a rise in the use of vocal fry.)
All commentators mention that this vocal register became famous with the singing styles of Britney Spears and Kesha. But it must have gotten started gradually before them. If it does track social avoidance, it probably would've gotten started around the early '90s. You wouldn't hear it much, perhaps not at all, in songs from the '70s or '80s.
I've found two examples that pre-date Britney Spears by awhile, both released in 1995: "Who Will Save Your Soul" by Jewel, recorded in '94, which has vocal fry in many spots of the verses; and Marilyn Manson's cover of "Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This)", recorded in '94-'95, which also has pretty extensive vocal fry. The Manson song was more of a caricatured voice, didn't climb as high up the charts (though it was popular), and is by a male. So you might call that one a little unrepresentative, though it still is there, years before Britney Spears and more than a decade before Kesha.
The Jewel song is more relevant -- by a girl, not in a context of caricature, and delivering world-weary lyrics about only trusting and relying on yourself. And that song was on the radio and MTV non-fucking-stop.
I couldn't think of these off the top of my head, but followed some hunches by reading through the Billboard Year-End Singles chart (here is 1995, with other years at the bottom). If you remember the singer projecting a kind of cocooning, through-with-boys, or other jaded kind of attitude, that's probably worth looking at. If it's clingy or needy, it won't have vocal fry, since she's trying to get him to come closer, not push him away. That clingy-needy song "Stay" by Lisa Loeb, for instance, has no vocal fry.
Browse through that Billboard list if you're up for it, and let us know if there are other examples of persistent vocal fry in pop music before Kesha and Britney Spears.
Fucking Jewel, I knew I didn't like something about her, right when that song came out. That whole "I'm too scarred and wounded to let boys get close anymore" vibe that she put out. But girls who have creaky-croaky voices are avoidant and never let boys get close in the first place -- that too-wounded thing is a total facade.
All commentators mention that this vocal register became famous with the singing styles of Britney Spears and Kesha. But it must have gotten started gradually before them. If it does track social avoidance, it probably would've gotten started around the early '90s. You wouldn't hear it much, perhaps not at all, in songs from the '70s or '80s.
I've found two examples that pre-date Britney Spears by awhile, both released in 1995: "Who Will Save Your Soul" by Jewel, recorded in '94, which has vocal fry in many spots of the verses; and Marilyn Manson's cover of "Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This)", recorded in '94-'95, which also has pretty extensive vocal fry. The Manson song was more of a caricatured voice, didn't climb as high up the charts (though it was popular), and is by a male. So you might call that one a little unrepresentative, though it still is there, years before Britney Spears and more than a decade before Kesha.
The Jewel song is more relevant -- by a girl, not in a context of caricature, and delivering world-weary lyrics about only trusting and relying on yourself. And that song was on the radio and MTV non-fucking-stop.
I couldn't think of these off the top of my head, but followed some hunches by reading through the Billboard Year-End Singles chart (here is 1995, with other years at the bottom). If you remember the singer projecting a kind of cocooning, through-with-boys, or other jaded kind of attitude, that's probably worth looking at. If it's clingy or needy, it won't have vocal fry, since she's trying to get him to come closer, not push him away. That clingy-needy song "Stay" by Lisa Loeb, for instance, has no vocal fry.
Browse through that Billboard list if you're up for it, and let us know if there are other examples of persistent vocal fry in pop music before Kesha and Britney Spears.
Fucking Jewel, I knew I didn't like something about her, right when that song came out. That whole "I'm too scarred and wounded to let boys get close anymore" vibe that she put out. But girls who have creaky-croaky voices are avoidant and never let boys get close in the first place -- that too-wounded thing is a total facade.
August 3, 2012
Wendy's
Earlier I mentioned in passing the switch from Burger King to Wendy's as my go-to fast food place. Having gone there for awhile longer now, I notice several other things that make it a much more enjoyable experience than the alternatives. This is based on just the one I normally go to, but even if they're not typical, they've been allowed to remain by the corporation, rather than systematically gutted by efficiency experts, and that still speaks well of Wendy's.
- Booths with cushioning for both your back and butt, and in a red color. You hardly ever find seating that's comfortable and nice to look at in ordinary fast food restaurants anymore.
- Actual plaster on the sloping part of the ceiling, although the flat part of it is covered with the standard sterile acoustic panels. It isn't architectural splendor, but little details like seeing a texture on the walls or ceiling goes a long way to making the place feel alive instead of a glass-and-concrete machine for eating.
- Much better music. Burger King's wasn't unbearable like Starbucks, but it leaned too far toward Nickelback and Norah Jones. That junk shows up in Wendy's too, but there's a lot more '80s pop rock / adult contemporary, so you're guaranteed to hear a pleasing melody and some catchy riffs during your meal. In just a few weeks, I've heard multiple songs by Phil Collins, Steve Winwood, The Police, Belinda Carlisle, and "Don't Dream It's Over" was playing when I walked in today.
- People actually stay in the dining room to eat, and what's more, they're not fags, freaks, druggies, or crazies. It feels like it did back in more outgoing times, when everyone ate outside the house. It's not just a white yuppie sanctuary, or a hang-out for food stampers. It's men and women, children, teenagers, adults, and elderly, black, white, and other, professional and just-scraping-by.
This all seems to be in keeping with its overall conservative orientation. It's not heaven on Earth, but that's the wrong way to look at things. Everyday life should be enjoyable too, and these seemingly simple features used to be standard not very long ago.
- Booths with cushioning for both your back and butt, and in a red color. You hardly ever find seating that's comfortable and nice to look at in ordinary fast food restaurants anymore.
- Actual plaster on the sloping part of the ceiling, although the flat part of it is covered with the standard sterile acoustic panels. It isn't architectural splendor, but little details like seeing a texture on the walls or ceiling goes a long way to making the place feel alive instead of a glass-and-concrete machine for eating.
- Much better music. Burger King's wasn't unbearable like Starbucks, but it leaned too far toward Nickelback and Norah Jones. That junk shows up in Wendy's too, but there's a lot more '80s pop rock / adult contemporary, so you're guaranteed to hear a pleasing melody and some catchy riffs during your meal. In just a few weeks, I've heard multiple songs by Phil Collins, Steve Winwood, The Police, Belinda Carlisle, and "Don't Dream It's Over" was playing when I walked in today.
- People actually stay in the dining room to eat, and what's more, they're not fags, freaks, druggies, or crazies. It feels like it did back in more outgoing times, when everyone ate outside the house. It's not just a white yuppie sanctuary, or a hang-out for food stampers. It's men and women, children, teenagers, adults, and elderly, black, white, and other, professional and just-scraping-by.
This all seems to be in keeping with its overall conservative orientation. It's not heaven on Earth, but that's the wrong way to look at things. Everyday life should be enjoyable too, and these seemingly simple features used to be standard not very long ago.
Categories:
Food
August 2, 2012
Gay Peter Pan-isms: No jewelry or body adornment
If gays are supposed to be more feminine, and if they're supposed to be so obsessed with getting attention for their fashionable clothes, then why don't they wear any jewelry? And why don't they opt for other forms of body adornment or modification? (Leaving aside the post-op freaks.)
To document this, just do a google image search for gays, gay men, gay pride parade, or whatever you want, and notice how little body adornment there is. Sure, back in the day some of them used to wear an earring in their right ear to signal they were queer. Even back then, though, that was it -- no more adornment than normal men, who were just as likely to wear an earring, just in the left ear. Not to mention the rings, necklaces, wallet chains, pins and buttons, sweatbands, etc., that could all be found on normal men. Even when queers did "accesorize," it wasn't as much.
They're also less likely to have piercings and tattoos, or else that would've been a huge stereotype by now. There was an explosion in the popularity of piercings and tattoos over the past 10-15 years among hetero guys, and no one ever said "that's such a homo thing to do." Leaving aside the occasional fag with an earring in his right ear, I can't remember ever seeing one with other parts of his face pierced -- that's more of a straight hipster thing. Ditto for tattoos -- at least ones visible in everyday situations. I can't remember ever seeing a queer with one, and I must see dozens every day in my city.
As I pointed out before, gay men favor shorts, sandals, and t-shirts, just like other man-children. Their concern with clothing is not to look dashing -- that would be too grown-up for their tastes. They want to feel as kiddie as possible. Perhaps their aversion to body adornment is another aspect of that. (Search this blog for "Peter Pan" to see just how much of their weirdness can be explained by that principle.)
That is the main split between the more and less adorned -- you earn the right to wear more adornment as you get older. Adornment has many functions, but two of the most important are to signal which group you belong to, and what your rank is within that group. During the 2000s, for example, sporting a puka shell necklace meant you belonged to the frat crowd. And throughout the world, gaining a level in status is usually accompanied by an extra piece of decoration (still widely in use even in America within the military, or who's allowed to wear cuff-links within the office). Aside from cases of signalling one's hierarchical rank, other major status changes that proceed with maturity, like a rite of passage, also tend to involve wearing more jewelry, such as putting on an engagement ring, and then after that a wedding ring.
Pre-pubescent children are allowed some decoration, but not too much and not too soon. And when you are allowed, you feel like, "Awesome, they're letting me be more of a grown-up!" I still remember how psyched up I got when, around age 8 or 9, my mother let me pick out a gold necklace at the Ohio State Fair. It was a thin chain with a winged skull pendant, like a frontal Hells Angels logo, that had red stone or glass in its eye sockets. Man, I wore that thing everywhere. Or maybe you tried to look more mature and badass by wearing a shark's tooth necklace. Even if it was just one of those rings from the 25-cent vending machine, you felt more grown up putting it on.
And the same goes for body modifications. You have to earn the right to be designated a member of some particular tribe whose members have a particular tattoo, scarring, or branding design. Even within that group, you acquire more mods as you rise in status. That lives on in America within the military, although it's much more informal and unofficial. And again, when you were little and were allowed to slap on a few temporary tattoos, didn't you feel more grown up?
Queers then, as perpetual children, do not feel like initiated members of a group who should display their allegiance to their overarching tribe, so they don't wear body adornment for that purpose. And no, putting a rainbow flag on their car bumper or hanging one in their house window doesn't count -- that's not their body. And since stunted man-children have not gained any kind of higher status within their group, gays feel no need to wear adornment to show their status or rank. And obviously they don't wear rings, etc., to show commitment, given how uninterested they are in fidelity.
And it's broader than the lack of their own unique jewelry, tattoo designs, etc., to mark themselves apart from heteros. They don't adorn themselves to show membership in any group, not just the homo tribe, nor do they indicate status within any group. They just feel that it's against their nature or something, and would really prefer not to go there. It's just like a kid who doesn't want to do more mature things like signalling commitment or adherence to anyone other than himself.
As far as I know, I'm the only one to notice this pattern and give an adequate explanation, although admittedly most of the results for "gay jewelry" weren't very academic. Just about every theory involving homosexuality is totally idiotic, so I'm happy to have come up with a reductive, single-minded research approach that not only explains most of what everyone else had noticed, but explains new patterns too -- ones that are not explainable by other popular approaches, e.g. that male homosexuality is about feminization. Instead it's about infantilization.
Whatever pathogen damages the brain to cause homosexuality (the Gay Germ, as Greg Cochran calls it), apparently harms the area(s) responsible for emotional, social, and moral development. They stay stunted at around age 10, or perhaps develop twice as slowly as normal males.
To document this, just do a google image search for gays, gay men, gay pride parade, or whatever you want, and notice how little body adornment there is. Sure, back in the day some of them used to wear an earring in their right ear to signal they were queer. Even back then, though, that was it -- no more adornment than normal men, who were just as likely to wear an earring, just in the left ear. Not to mention the rings, necklaces, wallet chains, pins and buttons, sweatbands, etc., that could all be found on normal men. Even when queers did "accesorize," it wasn't as much.
They're also less likely to have piercings and tattoos, or else that would've been a huge stereotype by now. There was an explosion in the popularity of piercings and tattoos over the past 10-15 years among hetero guys, and no one ever said "that's such a homo thing to do." Leaving aside the occasional fag with an earring in his right ear, I can't remember ever seeing one with other parts of his face pierced -- that's more of a straight hipster thing. Ditto for tattoos -- at least ones visible in everyday situations. I can't remember ever seeing a queer with one, and I must see dozens every day in my city.
As I pointed out before, gay men favor shorts, sandals, and t-shirts, just like other man-children. Their concern with clothing is not to look dashing -- that would be too grown-up for their tastes. They want to feel as kiddie as possible. Perhaps their aversion to body adornment is another aspect of that. (Search this blog for "Peter Pan" to see just how much of their weirdness can be explained by that principle.)
That is the main split between the more and less adorned -- you earn the right to wear more adornment as you get older. Adornment has many functions, but two of the most important are to signal which group you belong to, and what your rank is within that group. During the 2000s, for example, sporting a puka shell necklace meant you belonged to the frat crowd. And throughout the world, gaining a level in status is usually accompanied by an extra piece of decoration (still widely in use even in America within the military, or who's allowed to wear cuff-links within the office). Aside from cases of signalling one's hierarchical rank, other major status changes that proceed with maturity, like a rite of passage, also tend to involve wearing more jewelry, such as putting on an engagement ring, and then after that a wedding ring.
Pre-pubescent children are allowed some decoration, but not too much and not too soon. And when you are allowed, you feel like, "Awesome, they're letting me be more of a grown-up!" I still remember how psyched up I got when, around age 8 or 9, my mother let me pick out a gold necklace at the Ohio State Fair. It was a thin chain with a winged skull pendant, like a frontal Hells Angels logo, that had red stone or glass in its eye sockets. Man, I wore that thing everywhere. Or maybe you tried to look more mature and badass by wearing a shark's tooth necklace. Even if it was just one of those rings from the 25-cent vending machine, you felt more grown up putting it on.
And the same goes for body modifications. You have to earn the right to be designated a member of some particular tribe whose members have a particular tattoo, scarring, or branding design. Even within that group, you acquire more mods as you rise in status. That lives on in America within the military, although it's much more informal and unofficial. And again, when you were little and were allowed to slap on a few temporary tattoos, didn't you feel more grown up?
Queers then, as perpetual children, do not feel like initiated members of a group who should display their allegiance to their overarching tribe, so they don't wear body adornment for that purpose. And no, putting a rainbow flag on their car bumper or hanging one in their house window doesn't count -- that's not their body. And since stunted man-children have not gained any kind of higher status within their group, gays feel no need to wear adornment to show their status or rank. And obviously they don't wear rings, etc., to show commitment, given how uninterested they are in fidelity.
And it's broader than the lack of their own unique jewelry, tattoo designs, etc., to mark themselves apart from heteros. They don't adorn themselves to show membership in any group, not just the homo tribe, nor do they indicate status within any group. They just feel that it's against their nature or something, and would really prefer not to go there. It's just like a kid who doesn't want to do more mature things like signalling commitment or adherence to anyone other than himself.
As far as I know, I'm the only one to notice this pattern and give an adequate explanation, although admittedly most of the results for "gay jewelry" weren't very academic. Just about every theory involving homosexuality is totally idiotic, so I'm happy to have come up with a reductive, single-minded research approach that not only explains most of what everyone else had noticed, but explains new patterns too -- ones that are not explainable by other popular approaches, e.g. that male homosexuality is about feminization. Instead it's about infantilization.
Whatever pathogen damages the brain to cause homosexuality (the Gay Germ, as Greg Cochran calls it), apparently harms the area(s) responsible for emotional, social, and moral development. They stay stunted at around age 10, or perhaps develop twice as slowly as normal males.
Categories:
Gays
August 1, 2012
Children of over-protective disciplinarians still end up selfish and bratty
Helicopter parents have fooled themselves into believing that their kids will turn out well-mannered and considerate if they could only remove them from "bad influences" in their peer group, and insist on strict rules and correction of bad behavior.
The drive to curb their kids' exposure to bad influences in practice leads them to shelter them from all contact with their peers -- it's not like the parent can tell in advance who'll end up being a good or bad influence. They might choose a house in an area where fewer Bad Influences live (wink wink), but even in their mostly-white middle-class neighborhood, you still never know.
So the end result is the common practice these days of locking kids up indoors all day, with the occasional time outside in the back yard (still isolated from peers, though), and the rare contact with peers being planned out and supervised by grown-ups (the "play date").
Parents today also spend a lot more effort on elaborately correcting their kids. I don't mean only when they do something really wrong -- I remember getting corrected plenty for that -- but having every little act being micro-managed and supervised by the parents to make sure it passes a threshold of politeness and appropriateness. Parents are always telling their kids what to do these days, for every little thing.
Why then do these children grow up to be such self-centered, tantrum-throwing brats? People have been saying that for awhile once Millennials started entering the workplace as late teenagers to get their first job experience. All that effort by their helicopter parents apparently did nothing to give them good manners.
The simple reason is that socialization depends on socializing. Kids know that their parents are never going to throw them out of the house, more or less no matter what they do wrong, because the parents' love, tolerance, and so on, is fairly unconditional. Children don't have to earn their keep withn the family.
Therefore, if the only or primarily source of feedback is the child's own parents, they won't get very strong correction during development, however much frequent nagging and lecturing they may endure. Thus they will persist in their bratty behavior, which can stick well into adulthood. It's one of those "sensitive window" things, although the window is pretty long -- all of childhood and adolescence. But by the time helicopter parents let their kids do their own thing at age 30, it's too late to learn how to act properly around others.
In contrast, children whose parents encourage them early on to socialize with others their age, wind up getting lots of harsh negative feedback. If you act like a brat around a genetic stranger, they'll kick you out of the group, talk shit about you behind your back to your friends, threatening further consequences, and perhaps even result to violence. Parents hold back so much when it comes to punishment -- maybe a thrashing on the butt with a belt is as bad as it tends to get. Pull that same stunt with someone who isn't family, though, and they may try to pound your face in.
This peer correction is a slow and steady process, but ultimately the kid's behavior is shaped to fall within a range acceptable to the peer group he belongs to. Because everyone else in the group doesn't think the kid is someone special, they won't allow really selfish behavior or panicky whining upon receiving punishment. The kid grows to consider others more and becomes more accepting of their punishment when they've screwed up.
Human beings did not evolve in a literate, mediated world, so all this has to take place in face-to-face interactions. Parents are really naive, bordering on stupid, if they think that their kid's peers can socialize him online or through texting. Just look at a 12 year-old's internet comments or their mouthing off in online multiplayer video games.
So, by exaggerating the threat posed by bad influences, even within their well behaved neighborhood, helicopter parents have denied their kids the benefits of interacting with everyone else in the peer group. It can be no surprise that these kids end up socially, emotionally, and morally immature.
The drive to curb their kids' exposure to bad influences in practice leads them to shelter them from all contact with their peers -- it's not like the parent can tell in advance who'll end up being a good or bad influence. They might choose a house in an area where fewer Bad Influences live (wink wink), but even in their mostly-white middle-class neighborhood, you still never know.
So the end result is the common practice these days of locking kids up indoors all day, with the occasional time outside in the back yard (still isolated from peers, though), and the rare contact with peers being planned out and supervised by grown-ups (the "play date").
Parents today also spend a lot more effort on elaborately correcting their kids. I don't mean only when they do something really wrong -- I remember getting corrected plenty for that -- but having every little act being micro-managed and supervised by the parents to make sure it passes a threshold of politeness and appropriateness. Parents are always telling their kids what to do these days, for every little thing.
Why then do these children grow up to be such self-centered, tantrum-throwing brats? People have been saying that for awhile once Millennials started entering the workplace as late teenagers to get their first job experience. All that effort by their helicopter parents apparently did nothing to give them good manners.
The simple reason is that socialization depends on socializing. Kids know that their parents are never going to throw them out of the house, more or less no matter what they do wrong, because the parents' love, tolerance, and so on, is fairly unconditional. Children don't have to earn their keep withn the family.
Therefore, if the only or primarily source of feedback is the child's own parents, they won't get very strong correction during development, however much frequent nagging and lecturing they may endure. Thus they will persist in their bratty behavior, which can stick well into adulthood. It's one of those "sensitive window" things, although the window is pretty long -- all of childhood and adolescence. But by the time helicopter parents let their kids do their own thing at age 30, it's too late to learn how to act properly around others.
In contrast, children whose parents encourage them early on to socialize with others their age, wind up getting lots of harsh negative feedback. If you act like a brat around a genetic stranger, they'll kick you out of the group, talk shit about you behind your back to your friends, threatening further consequences, and perhaps even result to violence. Parents hold back so much when it comes to punishment -- maybe a thrashing on the butt with a belt is as bad as it tends to get. Pull that same stunt with someone who isn't family, though, and they may try to pound your face in.
This peer correction is a slow and steady process, but ultimately the kid's behavior is shaped to fall within a range acceptable to the peer group he belongs to. Because everyone else in the group doesn't think the kid is someone special, they won't allow really selfish behavior or panicky whining upon receiving punishment. The kid grows to consider others more and becomes more accepting of their punishment when they've screwed up.
Human beings did not evolve in a literate, mediated world, so all this has to take place in face-to-face interactions. Parents are really naive, bordering on stupid, if they think that their kid's peers can socialize him online or through texting. Just look at a 12 year-old's internet comments or their mouthing off in online multiplayer video games.
So, by exaggerating the threat posed by bad influences, even within their well behaved neighborhood, helicopter parents have denied their kids the benefits of interacting with everyone else in the peer group. It can be no surprise that these kids end up socially, emotionally, and morally immature.
Categories:
Cocooning,
Morality,
Over-parenting
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)