I gave up after a paragraph or two. It looked like it was going to moan about people trying to have fun and do some self care. I don’t have time for that.
Over time, I’ve come to see many “senior” or “success” behaviours as refined versions of childhood ones. Political sniping, business competitiveness, standard hierarchical power dynamics, etc. These are all “playground tactics” but grown up. I don’t see (many) “successful” or “leader” type people publicly engaging in so called “adult behaviours” - supporting, sharing, collaborating, taking time out to understand one another’s needs, looking for win-wins.
Of course, many adults do all these things. However, the higher up the power/success ladder you look, the harder these behaviours are to see. In a lot of situations, many people feel they need to win, or at best draw. Few enjoy losing, and the more they have riding on it (money, reputation, power), the more most people will aim to win. At the level of nations (or gangs), this gets deadly. The ways to win are just the same ways kids explore. The people most likely to win are the ones who lean hardest into those tactics.
So, I’m saying “we’re all children”. If you want to complain about adults playing games and wearing bright colours, you also need to complain about adults using armies to take resources and businesses blocking others out of markets.
> I gave up after a paragraph or two. It looked like it was going to moan about people trying to have fun and do some self care. I don’t have time for that.
The author had quite the opposite conclusion:
> The Great Regression isn’t really a regression at all. It’s a sign of resilience in the face of profound adversity.
Just as I was fading a few paragraphs in, one of the straw men (IMHO) thrown out caught my eye.
How had I not heard of Alexis de Tocqueville's 1835 critique, Democracy in America?
Honestly, you and Tocqueville are saying something very similar at the core. A polite society has a known exploit: not behaving politely. The exploit is used by those seeking to amass power and influence.
The result, he posits:
> It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?
I wouldn't say I liked the article, but it did have some nuance to it and ended with mostly an opposite conclusion:
"The seemingly extreme ways in which adults now play, from Zillennial runway models dressing like kindergarteners, to ‘cuddle parties’, to grownups who choose to marry at Disney resorts – all of it, and more to come – is a reaction to the extreme times in which we find ourselves living. The entire planet may be experiencing its own lost decades now – young and old are suffering. But, as the Japanese experience shows us, embracing our inner child isn’t necessarily a denial of reality. It can pave the way to an entirely new one. The Great Regression isn’t really a regression at all. It’s a sign of resilience in the face of profound adversity. When a child is born, it’s impossible to predict what they might become. Who can say what will emerge from our second childhoods?"
The real creativity in IPAs is in the different cultivars of hops. That is to say, the real work of making a delicious beverage is done by the plants and the people who grow them tend to be the experts. But this is no different to wine or coffee, two other classes of beverage with endless varieties and variations of characteristics.
Just try to ignore the social pretences of the group. All three beverage communities have their extremists who can be quite annoying. But on the other end of the spectrum you’ll find some warm, down-to-earth people who just want to have fun exploring different flavours and textures. That’s really all there is to it!
If you can't man up and drink something gross without grimacing, or have the self control to play the most frustrating game in history, you don't have the self-mastery to be near the lever of power.
Hey, I threw knives as a kid, I had forgotten all about it. It was a set of "throwing knives", no idea where from. I also had a properly functioning South American blowpipe. Ah, childish things.
As much as I think the rest of what you're saying is a really good point, I do think the article has some interesting things it says as well.
For example:
> By framing the embrace of childish sensibilities purely as a moral failing, and lumping all forms of it together, critics like Sasse and Andersen miss two important points. One is that there is a nourishing form of regression that harnesses the playfulness, creativity and diversity of childhood, but there is also a destructive form that manifests as blind rage. Both forms of regression are fuelled by a certain disappointment with society. Both crave the creation of something new. But one delights in transgressing boundaries through play, while the other polices boundaries through hate and violence.
> So, I’m saying “we’re all children”. If you want to complain about adults playing games and wearing bright colours, you also need to complain about adults using armies to take resources and businesses blocking others out of markets.
I feel the same, but, this is one of those all or nothing things, and the irony is that our own barbaric origins are holding us back from ‘evolving’ so to speak.
We have armies and nuclear armaments because, when it boils down; our species is full of agitated hungry animals, liars and cheats.
You’d need to organize a whole species around a single-world order if you ever wanted to stop wars and denuclearize.
I mean I can really only imagine two broad categories for “solutions”
1) Someone demonstrates a bigger stick. At this point a bigger stick is effective counter-nukes, or perhaps the presence of an alien civilization.
2) What you call unipolarity, although I think both are unipolarity. Mass behavioral transcendence towards a higher form of morality. Maybe achieved via BCI, or improving standard of living, or subtle coercions by AI, or looming threat of climate change prompting transformative cooperative efforts.
The latter was omitted for brevity, due to its unlikelihood. Of course it’s not binary, there’s a bit of each in the other.
who knew that not reading an article could lead you to the opposite conclusion of what the article is actually about! But a comment must be made on it regardless. On to the next one.
I agree with everything you say about the article, except for the idea that aggressiveness (in all its form) has historically been considered more childish that collaboration.
I mean, the ability to go to war, together with being a father, has always been considered as the maximum level of adulthood for men, as far as I understand.
And to be clear, I’m not even say that latest generations are “less adult”, ie “less aggressive”, because they are somehow “better”.
In my view, this is a direct consequence of the fact that in the current society, aggressiveness is simply a less effective strategy, on average.
Civilization is too complex now, and there are simply too many people around, for aggressive war-like behaviour to be succesful. Even the most hypercompetitive youth today, say in startups or such, are usually extremely diplomatic persons, that are able to navigate people.
“We are all children” because there is simply no more room to be aggressive!
> But as the legendary Midcentury Modern designer Charles Eames put it, ‘toys and games are the preludes to serious ideas.’ Grownups who play with Lego, dump fortunes into JPEGs of cartoon characters online or dress like overgrown toddlers force us to question long-held assumptions about adulthood and society as a whole.
I don't like the implication that those are somehow less worthy ways to spend one's time and money, or that the tendency towards those interests betrays some... divergent cognition or eccentricity. Pick any interest that you think is "proper" for an adult; the person who engages in it either enjoys it, in which case it's indistinguishable from any interest that doesn't meet that criterion, or they don't enjoy it, in which case the person is rather silly for using their free time to do things they don't enjoy.
It’s a generational article, for anyone of a certain age or older, explaining why what we see as “infantalization” serves a purpose and may yield very positive outcomes.
My problem is that it's not challenging its audience's assumption that the activities in question are childish. It tacitly grants that they're childish, and then tries to defend them by looking for a positive side. The corollary is that if that positive side didn't exist the reader would be justified in being outraged at what young people are doing.
> However, the higher up the power/success ladder you look, the harder these behaviours are to see.
I don't have strong evidence for this, but I always feel like this is true until you get right to the very top - the individuals and organisations that are considered leaders in their fields. The difference between those people/organisations and the rest is often exactly that they are supportive, collaborative and doing things for the right reasons relative to the big picture rather than their local political context.
It's harder to succeed if you don't engage with the "playground tactics", but those who do are the ones pushing society forwards.
I made it farther than that, but also stopped. It seemed to go on and on without making it's point.
It also seems it missed a big part (unless they talk about it later). Sure, some people might be doing stuff because of hardships and responsibilities (like living at home to save money). But I think there are also those who were not given responsibilities as a child and don't know how to be responsible and act like an adult now that they are one. I think the delays are even evident in our laws (age of many things continues to increase).
> I don’t see (many) “successful” or “leader” type people publicly engaging in so called “adult behaviours”
This depends on the public pressure to do so I believe. As a counterexample one could name German ex-chancellor Angela Merkel. You can hardly name any decisions she carries full responsibility for, her role was mostly to mediate finding a compromise between interests of different parties.
> Over time, I’ve come to see many “senior” or “success” behaviours as refined versions of childhood ones. Political sniping, business competitiveness, standard hierarchical power dynamics, etc. These are all “playground tactics” but grown up. I don’t see (many) “successful” or “leader” type people publicly engaging in so called “adult behaviours” - supporting, sharing, collaborating, taking time out to understand one another’s needs, looking for win-wins.
It isn't very hard though to find plenty of people acting out those behaviors, both in their own behavior and in the perception/description of the behavior of their in-group members. Adults in 2022 can be conceptualized as being a lot like children "playing house", except we lack a physical frame of reference representing superior competence and wisdom to humble us, as adults provide for children.
Does tweeting funny memes or light trolling make you child? If yes, is that not negated by raising multiple children, founding multiple businesses, and employing hundreds of people?
i meant man child as in, he does not prescribe to what an "adult" should behave like according to old societal standards. I'm making no moral judgments, as i too am what most would consider a "man child".
Very true, childish behavior, specially by decision makers, is the bane of society (always has been). Cosplaying by adults should be the least of our worries, and besides it isn't even a recent phenonema (at least not for men): carnival, secret cults, religious ceremonies.
Over time, I’ve come to see many “senior” or “success” behaviours as refined versions of childhood ones. Political sniping, business competitiveness, standard hierarchical power dynamics, etc. These are all “playground tactics” but grown up. I don’t see (many) “successful” or “leader” type people publicly engaging in so called “adult behaviours” - supporting, sharing, collaborating, taking time out to understand one another’s needs, looking for win-wins.
Of course, many adults do all these things. However, the higher up the power/success ladder you look, the harder these behaviours are to see. In a lot of situations, many people feel they need to win, or at best draw. Few enjoy losing, and the more they have riding on it (money, reputation, power), the more most people will aim to win. At the level of nations (or gangs), this gets deadly. The ways to win are just the same ways kids explore. The people most likely to win are the ones who lean hardest into those tactics.
So, I’m saying “we’re all children”. If you want to complain about adults playing games and wearing bright colours, you also need to complain about adults using armies to take resources and businesses blocking others out of markets.