
Teens Aren’t Partying Anymore - SQL2219
https://www.wired.com/story/why-teens-arent-partying-anymore/
======
westmeal
I know, I know this is anecdotal 'evidence'.

I happen to be 21 which fits me right in this generation and the main reason
this occurs is due to parenting. My parents wouldn't let me go _anywhere_ by
myself until I was at least 17. By that time I was completely and utterly
addicted to computing to just let go and 'hang out'. As a matter in fact most
of my friends are online rather than 4 real friends in real life. It seems
like people in my age group had parents that would rather have their child
stare at a screen than experience the world. Just my two cents.

~~~
ashark
If your parents had eliminated screens when you were very young (including
theirs) save maybe one publicly-placed crappy terminal for wikipedia or
looking up business hours or maps or learning you some programming or
whatever, but loosened the reigns on hang-outs and travel, do you think you'd
have still felt isolated because all your friends were still online most of
the time?

Asking as a parent with three young kids who's seeing practically no benefit
to ubiquitous screens at this point, and lots of bad things about them, and
trying to figure out how to navigate this brave new world while screwing these
kids up as little as possible.

~~~
aaroninsf
Kids approaching 7 and 10 watch some movies/vetted series online, only
recently got Kindle tablets which they are literally only allowed to use on
long (3 hr+) transits, never at home.

No TV or analog in house.

I am now torn as the older kid is at a prime age to introduce programming...

...but the benefits we see daily from no-screen childhood are to our biased
eyes overwhelming.

Our kids spend all their free time engaged in imaginative play much of it
collaborative, and manipulating physical objects, and when we can get out,
outside.

Their ability to sit in a room with no screen and make a world seems pretty
rare, compared to peers who were given ipads or whatever years ago.

But I also worry, how do we also make sure they are literate and savvy.

I fear that as soon if the programming bug bites it will be the End...

~~~
kodablah
Out of curiosity, and as someone who has a newborn and will be going through
this at some point, how do you determine what effects your policies have on
their potential social ostracization especially as they get older. In my youth
I witnessed this social outcasting happen to children based on parental
restrictions such as these. I still see it as they become adults. The effect
seems to compound on itself from being the one not allowed to do something, to
having only the few friends in a similar boat, to being an adult that grew up
with fewer friends and fewer at-large interactions. Do you take into account
these costs? Is the cost of over-exposure to media greater than the cost of
having them be different/segregated to satisfy this?

------
dawhizkid
I wonder why the "young adult nightlife experience" feels so stagnant. I like
going to the occasional upscale cocktail bar, but in general spending Friday
or Saturday night in a crowded bar or club is not my idea of a fun thing to
do. What is the alternative for more introverted people? Stay home?

I went to Copenhagen recently and on a Friday night came across a big
coffee/beer+wine place with lots of tables/sofas that was packed with people
drinking beer and playing board games. It seems like such an obvious
concept/nightlife alternative for people who don't want to stay home but don't
want to go to a loud bar. Doesn't seem to exist in the U.S. as far as I know.

~~~
dilap
i feel this. (in SF.) i think it's extra bad here in SF because most people
have really small apts, so not great for getting a group together at a house.
end up in kinda-shitty over-priced bars. meh.

(there's probably cooler places/things going on and i just haven't discovered
them. maybe?)

~~~
zghst
It took me nearly a year to crack into the SF nightlife scene. There are a
staggering amount of events going on in the city and Oakland, you just have to
meet the right people. Unfortunately, you won’t find these people at expensive
bars.

Hanging around dance places and being proactively social (or a dance maniac)
is a good start (Public Works, 1015 Folsom, Nocturnal Codes, etc). Eventually
you’ll be invited to the most exclusive beach fires, kikis, kickbacks, etc.

Whatever you do don’t just stand in the corner expecting things to happen.

~~~
artur_makly
or just look for BurningMan parties or meetups.

------
kthejoker2
Nothing new under the sun ...

___________________________________________

Human contacts have been so highly valued in the past only because reading was
not a common accomplishment and because books were scarce and difficult to
reproduce. The world, you must remember, is only just becoming literate. As
reading becomes more and more habitual and widespread, an ever-increasing
number of people will discover that books will give them all the pleasures of
social life and none of its intolerable tedium. At present people in search of
pleasure naturally tend to congregate in large herds and to make a noise; in
future their natural tendency will be to seek solitude and quiet.

\- Aldous Huxley, Chrome Yellow

~~~
mattbuilds
I'm not sure I would agree with this statement. I think there needs to be a
balance of both solitude and human interaction, and that balances differs from
person to person. I’m definitely more introverted but it doesn’t mean I don’t
need human interaction. An example is that I play a ton of video games, one
reason is for the solitude, but I also enjoy board games for the social
component. At the core of games, I love the strategy and competition, but
different types of games can scratch different itches. I think things like
that can apply to a lot of parts of life.

~~~
olleromam91
All this quote says is that solitude through literature will become a natural
tendency. Which it definitely has become, much more than in the centuries
before today.

------
donatj
I am a total introvert and some of my happiest high school memories involve
friends pushing me to go to giant parties that pushed me out of my comfort
zone. I would say that there are moments in there which are integral to who I
am as a person.

I really feel like they’re missing out on a developmental milestone.

I almost feel like these kids are brainwashed but that’s probably just me
looking in as an outsider. I am just getting old (31) and struggling with the
fact that I no longer understand the youth.

~~~
maroonblazer
> I really feel like they’re missing out on a developmental milestone.

Are they though? Those milestones can take many different forms, as evidenced
by the fact that "giant parties" are a relatively recent phenomenon,
historically speaking.

~~~
Clubber
>as evidenced by the fact that "giant parties" are a relatively recent
phenomenon, historically speaking.

That is nowhere near true.

~~~
watwut
Teenage boys and girls partying together without adults is something many kind
of societies frowned upon. They used to be scared of unwanted pregnancy _a
lot_.

It did happened occasionally, but it was seen as something bad and stigma
(especially toward such girls) could be quite high.

~~~
Clubber
>Teenage boys and girls partying together without adults

I was assuming you were suggesting large parties regardless of age is a new
historical phenomenon.

Although, fraternities and sororities have been around for hundreds of years
and they're 17-21 or so. I'm sure they've had parties most of that time. It's
probably how they started. Not sure if that counts with teen-only criteria.
The concept of adult age has changed over time as well.

Humans party. Always have, always will. They of course were called "feasts" in
historical times. Lack of partying is probably more of an anomaly (assuming
the article is true). Of course, I would venture that even having a large
online gaming or chat session would constitute a party. I mean its a group of
people socializing, and I'm sure some of them are having beverages or botany
of their choice, plus some hot pockets.

~~~
watwut
Sororities were around for hundreds years? Are they not offshots of
fraternities after women were allowed on universities?

When I read old times, I tend to imagine either rural living or middle classes
in cities or something else more common. Of course they had fun and
socialized, but it was not the same as 80ties or something.

~~~
Clubber
US Sororities have been around in the US since the mid-late 1800s, but that's
not really the point. The point is teen-ish people have been having big
parties a lot longer than "recent phenomena." Fraternities, think Greeks and
Romans, pagan festivals, etc.

------
cutler
Society is sick, let's face it, and technology is largely to blame. We just
can't see the danger in technology so long as we're blinded by everything
shiny. Human beings are primarily social beings and no, that does not mean
peering at each other through the alienating window of a mobile phone screen.

In 1969, at the age of 9, I could be left to play with my friends and wander
several miles from home without any sense of danger. Days were occupied with
spports or just hanging out then reading and TV in the evening. There was
balance because we had less technology. The ageing mill towns of East
Lancashire, UK, still enjoyed a culture of trust and respect for your
neighbours such that you could leave your front door open without fear of
theft. Parents stressd "playing out" and being "out of the house" but it
didn't stop kids from achieving academically.

The thought of hiding in my room and hardly ever seeing my friends face-to-
face would have been soul-destroying. Chess, games, cricket and football was
life itself in my teens up to about 15 when the music scene and girls became
the main fascination. These were all social activities and I can't imagine
those glorious teenage years spent hidden in my room staring at a phone screen
as a substitute for real human contact. It's unthinkable.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Society is sick, let's face it, and technology is largely to blame.

Technology is never to blame for anything, because technology is not a moral
actor; people may be to blame for the manner in which they use technology.

OTOH, people have been falsely conflating “the youth of today seem to have a
different lifestyle than I preferred in my youth” with “society is sick” for
at least as long as we have historical evidence of what people thought.

~~~
workthrowaway27
There's lots of evidence that people in their early 20s and under are
psychologically different than older people (higher rates of
anxiety/depression at the same age, etc.). Anecdotally, I've noticed that
people don't talk to strangers as much on planes anymore as when I was a
child.

I guess you could argue that technology isn't to blame, but technology changes
people. And it's hard not to use technology when it's so pervasive. At work I
have a hard time not eating donuts when someone brings them in. Technology is
similar. If everyone around you is on their phone or facebook or whatever it
takes a lot of willpower/willingness to be different to not do the same.

~~~
floatboth
Did people really talk to strangers on public transportation back in the old
days? Or did they actually read books, magazines and newspapers?

~~~
oh_sigh
Random NYC shot from the 50s:
[http://i.imgur.com/SoG7Yqh.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/SoG7Yqh.jpg)

------
hodgesrm
Basically it feels as if parts of American society are becoming desocialized--
losing the ability to interact effectively with other members of the society.
This article echoes Robert Putnam's "Bowling Alone" thesis [0]. His ideas are
at least a quarter century old but now seem prescient.

I find the social changes the Wired article describes far more disturbing than
the "Internet is frying our brains" threat that people like Nick Carr fear,
let alone Artificial General Intelligence. Unlike the latter we see evidence
of the former on a daily basis.

[0]
[http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/assoc/bowling.html](http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/assoc/bowling.html)

~~~
Theodores
I think you are correct. I am in the UK and I saw a change happen to the
students that went to university after I left. This was early nineties so pre-
internet. Nothing to do with screens. However, my generation created and
participated in untold amount of parties. We did not go to official organised
events most of the time, more things we did. So no fancy concerts with known
acts, just some of us playing records, everyone else dancing or propping up
the bar (or taking drugs). In fact even the drug taking was different, it was
about the 'raves' and not the drugs. People didn't take the drugs outside of
the events. Undoubtedly the drug scene was a huge appeal to some but more
people were happy on regular alcohol.

The generation that came along after just did not have the aptitude for
getting together with a few hundred close friends for beach parties or illegal
raves. At the same time the 'rave' scene or proper party scene had been killed
off by capitalism, with larger venues in big cities - nightclubs - being the
new thing.

In the days of partying the idea of spending a Friday/Saturday in front of a
screen and not going out would be tantamount to hell. Also, back in the day,
it would be possible to physically see a party event and hear the music.
Nowadays that never happens, I don't see house parties as frequently as how
they used to happen, e.g. on a Saturday night walking back across town there
is no party to be heard, everything has to be properly organised now.

I think that the change happened with Reagan/Thatcher and how the individual
mattered more than society, we become atomised then.

It would be nice to know how teenagers partied before the invention of the
teenager to see the whole pattern and not assume everything is due to me being
'getting old'.

------
temp-dude-87844
It's worth digging one level deeper.

Screen time has increased, and it may be at the expense of parties, but screen
time is also an unsupervised place where the parties have an expectation of
privacy and control.

The stereotypical party the article laments is a complex affair that requires
transportation, supplies, a venue, and desirable participants, and doesn't
spring into place organically. Social circles at colleges can organize these,
but there has been extraordinary scrutiny into campus parties in recent years,
due to accounts of sexual assaults. These related developments makes them more
difficult to plan, drives desirable participants away, and makes resulting
parties less enjoyable. With common people's parties blunted, partying becomes
the domain of the wealthy and attractive, in entertainment playgrounds like
Miami and Vegas.

As for teenagers, parental supervision is at an all-time high, so organizing a
party often requires finding a cooperating adult (e.g. a socially-connected
college student, an older sibling, a laissez-faire parent) who is willing to
provide the venue and supplies away from the eyes of concerned parents. Fewer
college parties means fewer teen parties too.

~~~
murph-almighty
>extraordinary scrutiny into campus parties

I was involved in Greek life in college and can testify. Not only did we need
to register our parties with the university but we still had to worry about
police presence and legal liability.

This isn't to say that these policies should be repealed- dumb people did dumb
things, and thus these came into place, but it doesn't remove the fact that
it's getting harder to hold a social gathering without a cop busting down your
door and citing everyone in the room.

~~~
watwut
What would be the reas on for citing? I mean, you need to break some law for
the cop to do so. I am pretty sure it is possible to have drinking party
without dping something illegal (harder with marihuanna and that should be
lagalized imo).

~~~
megaman22
It's almost a given that any college party is going to have underage drinking,
and providing alcohol to minors. When we used to have registered parties,
there were wristbands for the few juniors and seniors that were over 21, and
everybody else knew to set their cups down when Safety and Security did their
walk-throughs.

Not to mention any other drugs that might get into the mix.

------
FussyZeus
I think a decent portion should also be laid at the feet of technology in
general, not even just Netflix, but also that how teens interact on social
media is more or less in the public (and their parents) eyes, with the
exceptions of things like Snapchat which isn't very conducive to planning a
party.

It's also worth noting that it's much, much harder for teens to get ahold of
booze these days, and the penalties for having anything they shouldn't have,
be it alcohol, drugs, whatever, are extremely steep. Not saying that stops it
completely, but they keep that sort of thing quiet if they don't want to end
up in prison for a couple of decades. Enough weed to throw a party, in many
states, would get you put in a cell until you were middle-aged.

After all of that, a good amount I agree with the article is just down to kids
having more to do that doesn't carry anything close to the same kind of risks;
I also don't understand why this is a bad thing?

~~~
bluedino
>> It's also worth noting that it's much, much harder for teens to get ahold
of booze these days

20 years ago we just had an older sibling or co-worker buy for us. What's
changed?

~~~
smelendez
More stigma attached to it for the buyer.

Stricter enforcement of 21 to drink rules so older sibling will have a harder
time buying with a fake ID if under 21.

Fewer teens working so less interaction with over 21s.

~~~
FussyZeus
Also see above about high consequences. Any over 21 with a brain wouldn't do
it, because that's another of those ways to fuck your life up that boomers and
Xers could afford to do, but millennials really can't.

------
nofilter
Umm, 25 here. All my friends are in the same age-group (21-29) and every other
weekend we party like crazy. Sure, it's no longer the drink-until-you-puke
type of party that we had when we were 18 (yes, in Europe you don't need be 21
to buy alcohol, 18 will suffice). It might be due to the fact that I also live
in Barcelona, which is known for its parties.

As far as how I was raised - umm, mom gave me a beer to try when I was 16, I
spit it out because it tasted awfully (I to this day don't drink beer, do not
understand the appeal), but when I got 18 I bought some cuba libre and
realized that not all alcohol tastes bad. I've never had exactly strict
parenting, more-so "learn through your own mistakes" with guidance provided by
my parents. I think I turned out alright.

~~~
electricslpnsld
> All my friends are in the same age-group (21-29)

Your friend group is millennials. This article is about Gen Z, a decade
younger than most millennials.

~~~
karthikb
At a decade younger, you're talking a range of 11-19. At the lower end,
hopefully not partying much. At 19, probably very similar to the 21 year old
crowd.

------
taternuts
I wonder how much the pervasiveness of dating apps has to do with this as
well. One of the bigger social motivators for my generation growing up was
"are members of the opposite sex gonna be there?". Nowadays a lot of people
meet on dating apps, _then_ choose to potentially socialize with each other
and go out, whereas before you'd have to go out and be social to stand a
chance of finding someone to date. Now you actually _can_ sit at home on your
couch all day and still meet girls/guys.

~~~
swiley
As someone who's used a lot of dating apps:

It's an awful way to meet new people, especially potential partners. You
(being the average male, since this is my experience) are competing to have a
coffee date against a ridiculous number of above average males with someone
who you've never met, who knows none of your friends and likely has very
little in common with you. If you get their attention (which is a _very_ hard
thing to do) you might get one or two reply messages before you're forgotten
about. If you manage to get a date it's unlikely to be someone who has all
that much in common with you, it's likely to be someone looking for sex rather
than an actual relationship, and they're unlikely to go on a second date with
you anyway.

Honestly I haven't had a lot of luck dating in person or on line but at least
I've made a lot of friends from doing stuff IRL, while dating apps leave you
with absolutely nothing.

------
vinceguidry
I have a theory that introversion and extraversion don't really exist as
personality traits, and that we build up preferences out of existing culture
about how much social interaction we want in our daily lives.

If the culture changes, then so will our preferences.

I can easily imagine a world in which I'm gregarious and fun all the time.
Making that world happen on the other hand...

~~~
c8d3f7b49897918
Extraversion/Introversion is one of the big five personality traits and is
~50% heritable:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#He...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Heritability)

That's not to say introversion/extraversion wouldn't manifest differently in
different contexts, but the trait does exist (as much as any personality trait
does) and appears to have a large genetic component to it.

~~~
temp-dude-87844
Isn't "~50% heritable" a different way of stating that the results are
indistinguishable from a coin flip? That doesn't sound too hereditary.

~~~
an3waccount
No? Lets say we intro-/extroversion is either heritable (with prob .5) or
random(with prob .5). If both of your parents are introverted you have a 50%
chance of inheriting the introversion of your parents or a 50% chance at a
coinflip, which gives us 75% for introversion and 25% for extraversion.

------
megaman22
If I were a teenager today, I don't know that I'd be going out to the gravel
pits or up to camp and raging like we used to, and that was not so long ago.
Social media is wildly more omnipresent than it was then; when we were sitting
around bonfires and drinking bud lights, most people didn't even have cameras
in their cell phones. When you've got that kind of evidence spread all over
Instagram and SnapChat and Facebook, with little ability to control its
privacy, it changes the amount of risk involved in those activities. Unless
the po-pos actually paid a visit to the shindig, or you stumbled in home the
next morning stove up and reeking of beer, it was pretty easy to get away with
things back then.

~~~
shanecleveland
Smart homes and smart phones would have definitely put a damper on many of my
extracurricular activities as a teenager ... house parties, sneaking out,
saying I was in one place while actually in another, etc.

------
at-fates-hands
I was on the millennial bubble (1999) and I was a total jock in HS. I was so
fearful of getting kicked off my teams, I never partied or drank beer, I was a
total straight edge.

Fast forward into college and at the beginning of my Freshman year I still
wasn't partying because I didn't want to flunk out of college. I was so into
my classes and doing well, I just didn't have time. By the middle of Freshman
year, my soccer teammates basically kidnapped me and took me to my first real
party where I drank, got loaded and flirted with all the girls. It was really
an eye opening experience for me to learn how to be in social situations with
members of the opposite sex, as well as socialize with other students my age.

With less and less people of the current generation skipping college, I can
easily see a huge reduction in partying and drinking overall. Add in the
financial burden of being on your own and how much decent beer or alcohol
costs and it just becomes out of reach due to financial circumstances.

Not surprised at all by the conclusions in the article.

------
Torgo
Our society has institutionalized child abuse by preventing them from doing
things on their own until post-university adulthood.

------
TurboHaskal
I understand it to a degree. I've personally never liked partying; hated the
music and the culture around alcohol and only did it in order to get girls.

There are more efficient ways today.

~~~
kenning
Didn't realize it until this comment, but you're right. Tinder really made
hooking up a lot more efficient, and finding mates was the only reason I had
to go out after I was ~23.

Apparently the use of tinder in the NBA is actually making a big impact on
away teams' sleep schedules.
[http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/page/presents18969358/tinder...](http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/page/presents18969358/tinderization-
today-nba)

------
watwut
Nostalgia for parties that "wretched parents house" says more about older
people and their lack of empathy then something bad about youngsters.

Am I only one who did not grew with cell phones and still did not wretched
anybodies house? I would not invite kids likely to wretch our house home.

------
otakucode
I disagree with their conclusion. Yes, teens are certainly partying less. But
they're also increasingly unwilling to get driver's licenses or jobs as well.
Basically, the overly controlling atmosphere of schooling and helicopter
parenting has worked - it has broken them. They are successfully being
prevented from experiencing the natural maturation process of growing
independence. We can only hope that the neurological development which
supports independence and the ability to form and maintain complex human
relationships is not like other aspects of neurological development which is
impossible to compensate for if the critical period of development is missed.

------
blaisio
I can personally assure everyone that plenty of people are still partying and
have no problem with social interaction. This is an article that's practically
targeted towards the hacker news audience of older introverted people who feel
like they don't understand younger generations. One difference that might be
real is people might be a little more responsible, because our education
system is better and parents are more careful and have more support. But
plenty of people still love going out, even when they can't legally drink.

------
MaxLeiter
Totally anecdotal, but I'm a 17 year old in the Bay Area, and teens are
partying more than they were when my older siblings (early and late 20's) grew
up in the same area.

My point is that my experience isn't true for all, and I can't prove that it
isn't true for the majority. This article is the same way - not enough
statistical evidence to support it.

Like yes, teens get together with friends less often on a day-to-day basis.
But what teens party on a day to day basis?

------
dcow
While I'm slightly too old to have experienced what the article is describing,
the trend is there and I believe technology plays an undenyable role (followed
by parenting). I have many siblings but notably a brother who's in his first
year high school. I also just attended a wedding and got to meet the high
school brother of the groom.

I was talking to my brother on NYE. He was lamenting that he could not find
anyone to hang out with on NYE for a party. We asked why he didn't text people
and get something together, "that's not how it works, people communicate with
snapchat, and I'm not allowed to have that, not that I want it.. it's just
people posting weed and coke stories". He was obviously a little moody but
still unable to find any social gathering (even a parent hosted on) on NYE of
all nights.

The brother of the groom: nice kid but wholly uninterested in anything other
than maintaining his snapchat streaks. First he came to me for data. A few
days later his phone was dead and he wanted to install snapchat on my phone to
continue the streaks. It's psychologically addicting. And it made me realize
how much people are depending on fabricated social experiences on their phones
instead of real social interactions.

One thing is common: snapchat. People don't hang out anymore, they have
streaks. If they do hang out it's over pot or coke, no one is even that
interested in drinking these days. Oh no tech is ruining everything! Well, no.
But something is happening. It's not snapchat's fault, either (unless they
deliberately exploit addicting behaviors to increase engagement and
retention). I think parents are largely to blame. It's easy to let your 14yr
old become consumed in their phone because that means more internet time and
less driving around for you. My parents are very wary of this and it's largely
why they waited as long as they could before giving my younger brothers a
phone and why they are reluctant to let them create an entirely digital social
life.

My generation, we discovered the internet before our parents knew what it was.
I administered networks at 15. I built websites at 14. I was a moderator of
large forums at 13. My dad gave me his old laptop when I was 12--bobs celebs
era. And I think I've turned out pretty decent.

So it leaves me all really torn. Do we embrace technology or shun it? My main
fear isn't necessarily the tech itself, but the dependence on it. I fear the
iGen isn't learning how to use computers as tools and simply becoming
consumers of all the experiences we create with them. And at the same time I
hate some of those things we've created like SC and FB for literally taking
the human out of humanity--despite having grown quite accustomed to virtual
interactions growing up.

So I guess the real question is whether it's a problem that people aren't
socializing anymore, or at least doing it differently. And if so what will we
do about it? Maybe AR to the rescue...

~~~
athenot
> unless they deliberately exploit addicting behaviors to increase engagement
> and retention

I can assure that this is something on the forefront of any consumer-oriented
service. This stuff is tracked, tweaked, reported on, KPIs are built around it
and used as important ways of measuring the health of the company.

See _Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products_ [1] which describes some of
this process.

> Do we embrace technology or shun it? My main fear isn't necessarily the tech
> itself, but the dependence on it. I fear the iGen isn't learning how to use
> computers as tools and simply becoming consumers of all the experiences we
> create with them.

YES. I'm in the same boat as you and I think the key difference is that while
we created things and explored the tech world much like a giant box of LEGOs,
now it's all about giving into the latest ready-made shiny expericence that is
heavily marketed to us. But I don't think it has to be so. I remain hopeful
that we can train our kids to only use tech on the condition that something
useful or truly creative arises out of it, not just passively consuming what's
offered. Yet I realize this is going to be an uphill battle...

[1] [https://www.nirandfar.com/hooked](https://www.nirandfar.com/hooked)

------
tremendulo
The weird thing for me is that instead of partying people are watching Netflix
videos of fictional people partying. Which makes those people fictional
indeed. Are we going to eventually have movies about watching movies, about
playing video games, and so on?

~~~
dragonwriter
> Are we going to eventually have movies about watching movies

MST3K and it's descendants already exist.

> about playing video games,

Again, it's been done.

~~~
tremendulo
_> MST3K_

Thanks. Must check that out.

What I ought to have said: we've have had movies where movies or video games
are _part of the adventure_ e.g. Wargames (1983).

But an adventure takes place against a _background_ of people living ordinary
lives, which used to consist mainly of communal office work, socialising,
chatting, families at the breakfast table and whatnot. Whereas now ordinary
lives consist more and more of digital interaction. So the background will
have to change too.

------
bsder
Mostly? I suspect it's the fact that they _always_ have something more
interesting to do than attempt to interact with another human which, let's
face it, generally has a low probability of being interesting.

------
cyen
The Atlantic did a long-form article about this, if anyone is interested in
further reading (with survey results!):
[https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/has-
the...](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/has-the-
smartphone-destroyed-a-generation/534198/)

------
moretai
I remember me and a friend(same age as me) went to a concert with my brother
and his friend(same age as him). We offered them drinks and things, and they
declined. After the concert, I was in a state of paranoia and my friend was
puking in the toilet. My brother and his friend were just sitting quietly in a
separate room, chilling, watching netflix on their own computers.

It was odd.

------
jcadam
Bah, I was a nerd/loser and never got invited to parties as a teenager (in the
90s) anyway.

Actually, I still don't get invited to parties...

~~~
jcadam
Dang, way to rub it in, downvoters.

~~~
yayadarsh
I'm sorry for the situation you describe. For what it's worth, the downvotes
(I did not downvote you) are due to HN's insistence on comments that are
productive/on topic.

~~~
jcadam
It was mostly an attempt at self-deprecating humor, which admittedly wasn't
particularly productive and was only marginally on-topic.

------
mcgrath_sh
One thing I haven’t seen in the comments is the pressure and expectation that
you are supposed to be an excellent student and get into a good school and/or
get scholarships. The pressure and work pushed onto kids from a young age is
staggering.

I graduated HS in 2006. I feel like I was on the early-ish side of “must get
very good grades, have multiple extra curriculars, and get into a good
school.” I had 4-6 hours of homework a night after sitting in school all day
and having a 2-2.5 hour sports practice or a game (which was even more of a
time commitment). I was often up until midnight or later and waking up at
6:15-6:30 on weekdays. Weekends were used for more practices and more
homework. Even when classmates would party, it would be exceedingly rare. I
would often only hang out with friends 3-5 times a month for no more than 2-3
hours. I simply didn’t have the time.

I don’t buy that the homework time is the same. I think the amount of homework
that kids get is absolutely insane. When I would (rarely) miss school becaus I
was sick, I realized how little I actually missed during the day; I was
basically fine if I got my homework done.

If a boss told me in order to get a promotion (college) to a midlevel manager
position I would have to work for 7 hours a day, 5 days a week, spend 2-3
hours 6 days a week for a mandatory but not mandatory activity (sports, band,
plays, etc) to make my resume look better, spend another 4-6 hours after work
and activities preparing for the next day, and and finally spend another 10-16
hours on the weekend learning more about my job I would be job hunting before
the door closed behind me. Oh, and those mandatory activities? They cannot
really be minimum wage jobs. They don’t seem to do a whole lot to impress the
colleges.

All told, to get into a decent state shool you are looking at __~82 hours a
week! __Why is that at all acceptable? That is two 40 hour work weeks!

We are also at the point where kids have zero room for screwups. I have a
family friend who is ~10 years younger than me. They had a C+/B- average
freshman year. Became B+/A- into sophomore and junior year. They didn’t get
into Pitt or PSU main campus (those are the in state schools) despite having
solid extra cuticular activities for all the years. Essentially, an average
semester at the start of their HS career sunk them getting into the main
campus of the big state schools. 20-25 years ago, they are accepted to
Pitt/PSU main campus without a second thought.

So, between the absurd amount of work/time it takes to get into a decent
school and the utter lack of room to be anything but the best, no wonder teens
aren’t doing anything with the very limited free time they have.

IMO, teens would be much better off with less homework, less demand on what it
takes to get into a decent school, more time to work jobs, and more
opportunity to be the odd kid/adult hybrids they are.

~~~
nickparker
I think you're closer to our root issues than most of the comments, but there
are still links further down the causal chain from here.

College admission is hyper-important and hyper-competitive today because
_life_ is hyper-competitive. Stagnant wages and a steadily increasing cost of
existing are destroying leisure and stability in all age groups, not just the
teenagers.

It honestly terrifies me. I'm extraordinarily lucky in almost every sense, so
personally I'll likely be able to live a good life no matter what. But I feel
like the systems that undergird every part of our society are getting more and
more fragile. Huge groups of Americans are one small misfortune from ruin, and
that's choking everything from entrepreneurial risk-taking to teenage partying
and other pure leisure activities that used to shape our culture.

------
nawtacawp
Does the same hold true in Europe?

~~~
collyw
I worked in a company with a lot of 18-25 year olds recently.Based in
Barcelona but a very international mix of people. They seemed to do a lot of
drinking and a lot of social media (we had a work trip to Rome one weekend and
they looked nervous when they didn't have wifi or their phone was out of
charge).

As it was a very international crowd out of their home countries and most
working in sales maybe it captured a fairly extroverted sample of the age
group.

------
mohaine
Should we call this generation the "Solarians"

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solaria](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solaria)

------
gibbiv
Is it just me or was this article very thin on sources of information and in
general? It ended very abruptly and was not that convincing.

------
madengr
Not good. Better to get all the partying done in high school so one can buckle
down in college.

------
guywaffle
Yea... the moment the author used iGen they lost all credibility.

------
tulipmania
Frankly this is totally case by case. I’m 22 and have been partying hard since
15. Simultaneous to that my career hasn’t been a distraction or a replacement.
It would make sense that the support on a developer driven channel like Hacker
News would sway the kids who hang inside more. I promise you HN, kids are
partying hard.

~~~
workthrowaway27
It's about population trends, not individuals.

