
In Defense of Old Grumpy Guy: Get Off My Lawn - DanielBMarkham
http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2011/03/in-defense-of-o.php
======
mquander
_At the same time, the average individual's ability to commit to something of
any duration has decreased dramatically._

Citation?

 _It wasn't unusual for a (home-schooled) pre-teen in the 1700s to know Greek
and Latin._

Bullshit. Pre-teen or not pre-teen, in the mid-1700s, the majority of Europe
didn't know how to read and write.

I don't think it's reasonable to make sweeping remarks like this without real
statistics to back them up. I don't have many friends who sit on their ass
playing WoW all day and night, and I doubt you do either. Just because these
people exist doesn't mean that the whole world is going to shit at record
rates.

~~~
synnik
I'd recommend y'all not worry too much about the inaccuracies of his
historical contexts.

He actually gets to his point farther down in the article, and his point is
valid.

~~~
mquander
Hah, but he _added_ citations! I would never have had this nitpicking
opportunity if I hadn't asked!

I know there's a lot of evidence that increased screen time for kids is
harmful for studies, so I won't begrudge that point.

Let me argue a point I didn't intend to argue. Suppose the average American
(just a reference class that I feel OK making guesses about) really is getting
dumber, more hedonistic, and more prone to distraction. Is this going to kill
us?

The same technology that is causing problems for the average American is
opening up awesome new opportunities for anyone who gives a shit. My life is
_way_ better than it would have been twenty years ago; I can get any book I
please and it arrives instantly, or in a few days. I can take as much time as
I like online and have careful conversations with smarter people than me, or
collaborate with them. Anyone can self-publish anything and be judged by their
peers on its merit, and I can generally go read it and judge them for myself.
These are amazing changes, and it seems impossible to enable these things
without enabling WoW players, cat videos, and inane soundbite banter.

Do we need to try to strive to make something out of people who don't care to
make anything out of themselves?

------
dralison
As an old guy myself (47), I've found that it's easy to get frustrated when
you see youth repeating the mistakes you've made. While I've learned many
things over the years that I enjoy passing on to those less experienced, the
skill most valuable is the ability to convey that information in a positive
and constructive way.

The irony to me is that so many incredibly talented "senior" engineers and
business people have awesome lessons to impart but they never acquired the
gift of communications. They don't present themselves as the sage elder that
deftly imparts wisdom, they feel a sense of entitlement from their age and it
shows as soon as they open their mouths.

That said, I really enjoyed reading your blog post Daniel.

------
ojbyrne
"Atheism is making one of it's cyclical comebacks to popularity"?

That's bad?

Also

"Over the past couple of millennia, the amount of work required simply to live
has decreased dramatically, at least in the western world. It used to be
almost your entire life was taken up simply in an effort to survive; now most
of us work 40 hours per week and it takes care of all of our needs."

That's not really true. I suggest reading "A Farewell to Alms"
([http://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Alms-Brief-Economic-
History/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Alms-Brief-Economic-
History/dp/0691121354))

A more accurate description would be something like "After several thousands
of years where civilization has made life more difficult for the vast majority
of people, over the last 200 years, in a few countries that have experienced
the industrial revolution, the effort required to survive has returned to
roughly the same level as required by paleolithic hunter-gatherers. Though
with significantly longer life spans almost entirely due to a large reduction
in infant and child mortality."

------
cafard
"Not trying to sound militaristic, but it used to be when a national emergency
beckoned, you'd have to beat people off to keep them from volunteering. Now
the volunteer is an unusual animal."

Has anybody told Mr. Markham that the US has had an all-volunteer military
since the 1970s, or that the biggest national emergency of all was largely met
with draftees? (Also, to keep an eye out of double entendres...)

~~~
jtbigwoo
Yeah, no one mentions this anymore, but there were huge protests against the
draft for World War I. And rather than being able to rely on the volunteers,
the U.S. had to draft something like 10 million men for World War II.

~~~
anamax
> there were huge protests against the draft for World War I.

Wilson campaigned against the war, and then turned around and escalated.

FWIW, the WWI draft protests were much less vehement than the Civil War draft
protests. (Curiously, the draft protests were much worse in the NE, especially
NY and NYC even more so, than the in the midwest and south.)

> And rather than being able to rely on the volunteers, the U.S. had to draft
> something like 10 million men for World War II.

Nope. WWII had a surplus of volunteers and they used the draft to manage
things.

------
gm
I think in the article you confuse old grumpy guy with experienced guy who
does not know how to interface with people.

Old grumpy guy to me is someone who is unquestioning in his own views. Does
not care if he's wrong and does not give the least shit about what you think
or how the world is changing. "Get off my property!" while holding a shotgun
sums up this guy nicely.

The old grumpy guy you talk about in the article is someone different.
Nobody's going to groan about scalability unless the message is delivered in
an antagonizing way. In this case it _is_ the fault of the messenger.

------
jtbigwoo
I'm a fairly old guy and I found myself getting bored 1/3 of the way in.

When we were younger, all of us ran into a grumpy old guy (or gal) and told
ourselves, "No way I'll be like that." Then we get a little older and many of
us realize that we're turning into that same guy. At that point we all have a
choice:

1\. Figure out what's important (here's a hint, it's not pre-teens learning
Latin) and learn to communicate it in a manner that will actually move people
to action regardless of their age.

2\. Become a cranky old guy and wonder why no one appreciates your wisdom and
brilliance.

------
ekidd
_It wasn't unusual for a (home-schooled) pre-teen in the 1700s to know Greek
and Latin._

I'd love to see some actual evidence for this. A solid command of either
language would require on the rough order of 1000 hours of work (or perhaps
only 350 if you had a lot of raw talent and studied effectively). This is
entirely reasonable for a member of the educated classes in any era. But were
ancient Latin and Greek _ever_ common skills among your stereotypical pre-
industrial dirt farmers?

~~~
JonnieCache
No. The people who were being schooled in the 1700s to speak greek and latin
were the children of the highest aristocracy. When talking about broad
societal trends, they are irrelevant.

------
colanderman
> It used to be almost your entire life was taken up simply in an effort to
> survive ; now most of us work 40 hours per week and it takes care of all of
> our needs .

...as well as the whims and fancies of the super-rich. If income disparity
wasn't so high, I believe most of us would get by working significantly fewer
hours per week (which could likely exacerbate some of the problems he
mentions). The complexities in government that he mentions act as proverbial
rocks in the stream, diverting wealth disproportionately to executives,
lawyers, and bankers and keeping those "kids" busy.

------
th
The last quarter of this post has the real message. The first half will
probably snatch most of the comments though because that's where all the
controversial ramblings and historical inaccuracies are.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
I debated going back and arguing each little historical point, but in fact,
the response here is a wonderful example of exactly what I was saying. It
doesn't matter. Just assume I'm wrong. If my information doesn't fit with a
reader's model, the value of what I am saying is lost. With some types of
information, there is no way to say it "the right way" -- it's just not going
to fit. Perhaps 99% of that information is bad, perhaps not, but if we don't
consume it, we'll never know. Several people still never got to the point of
the article. So really the comments on HN work as an extended example.

Very meta, and pretty neat.

~~~
mquander
"Everything is going to shit" is a much easier thing to argue about than "you
should listen to critical people."

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Yeah but the point wasn't that everything is going to hell, and it wasn't that
you should listen to critical people, it's that there are certain criticisms
that deserve attention and concern, yet these concepts are impossible to
broach with some because it becomes an assault on their way of looking at the
universe. You get into endless arguments. This can be confused easily with
"everything is going to hell" especially for those who don't want to
acknowledge any problems at all. It's grumpy-old-man-syndrome, the other side.

As I pointed out in another comment, this is a attribute of how groups of
people relate to one another. Citing my personal view of things only served to
frame up my suggestions in the manner I was talking about, which then caused
exactly the response I mention.

I think it's a facile argument to say that this is an issue about criticism
only. If only it were so simple.

~~~
mquander
OK, sorry for mischaracterizing your point.

