tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post490922934501513400..comments2024-03-27T23:28:20.274-04:00Comments on Face to Face: The transmission of social avoidance across generations agnostichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-90066230645475272082012-10-14T07:24:13.314-04:002012-10-14T07:24:13.314-04:00It's not armchair, as Attachment Theory is a w...It's not armchair, as Attachment Theory is a well developed field. I'm just applying it to how the mix of people who have one or the other attachment style changes over time.<br /><br />The Daily Show was an off-the-cuff example, which will skew older just because it's about current events. Closer to reality would be some series of snarky internet memes.<br /><br />Boomers never went for really snarky humor. They prefer Chevy Chase and Steve Martin. There wasn't much snark when the Silents were young, but their preferred comedy was still less humanistic and more laughing-at than it was for Boomers (laughing-with).<br /><br />The mid-century was the golden age of the abrasive Jewish comic persona, whatever they were like in real life. Most famously the Marx Brothers, the Three Stooges, and the Jack Benny Program.<br /><br />Outside of comedy, youngsters of the mid-century also shared this era's fascination with torture porn, only it was in comic books instead of movies and video games. Seduction of the Innocent was written about the pop culture weirdness of the Silents.<br /><br />Horror movies from the 1920s and early '30s, and later from the '60s through the '80s, aren't single-mindedly focused on torture and pain. They're more about identifying with the characters in trouble, and feeling catharsis when the survivors escape at the end.<br /><br />So that's another sign of differences in attachment style -- wanting to empathize or not with the potential victims in a horror story.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-44783741352388970132012-10-14T06:29:18.653-04:002012-10-14T06:29:18.653-04:00With your development model, because you are norma...With your development model, because you are normally at least OK on this stuff, do you ahve any developmental psychology stuff cites to support any of this armchair psychology? Or is just kind of made up?<br /><br /><i> they'd rather snicker along with Jon Stewart's lame snark </i><br /><br />http://talkshownews.interbridge.com/2009/06/late-night-demographics-average-age-of.html<br /><br />http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/27/section-4-demographics-and-political-views-of-news-audiences/<br /><br />Daily Show has 39, 36, 16, 7 in the categories 18-29, 30-49, 50-64 and 65+. Interesting to see how that compares with the age structure of the USA (i.e. is is it disproportionate and by how much).<br /><br /><i>"The median age of "Daily Show" viewers in May 2009 was 41.4, and the median age of "Colbert Report" viewers was 38.3. That's still pretty youthful compared to "The Late Show with David Letterman" (54) and the Leno-era "Tonight Show" (55)." </i><br /><br />That's slightly older than the median age of the USA (38), but maybe younger than the median age of people older than 16 (or so). 36.8 years<br /><br />Based on the population pyramid of the USA at wikipedia, the median age of people over 20 should be around 42.<br /><br />Also, it seems like ye olde Silents are not particularly likely to enjoy snarky humor, certainly compared to Boomers...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com