
A Generation With More Than Hand-Eye Coordination - robg
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21shelf.html?ref=technology
======
jd
Terrible article, if you ask me. The author strings some seemingly arbitrary
quotes together - but it's unclear where the article is going or if the author
is even trying to make a point.

The opening paragraph is great though, and the the description of the
millennials ("shamelessly narcissistic, apathetic and lacking in social
skills") is spot on. But how can the author say in one sentence we millennials
are apathetic, and the in the next that we "care strongly about justice and
the problems faced by [our] society"? Doesn't that just jump out of the text
when proofreading it? Or is there a meaningful difference between apathetic
caring and active not caring?

My knee-jerk (and naturally completely unfounded) opinion is that the author
likes the book because it makes a bunch of statements the author wishes to be
true (for obvious reasons). The author seems to be absolutely uncritical about
the contents of the book. How can he not cover the quality of the
research/argumentation and still recommend it without hesitation? And if the
author doesn't have the background to review the book on a more fundamental
level - should he really be the one to label it an educational must-read?

------
njharman
"Someday that party picture is going to bite them when they seek a senior
corporate job or public office."

Things change. At that time all their peers will also have "party pics" on
net, most of society will believe it's normal. In a generation their seniors
will have grown up with public private lives and if you don't have "party
pics" you'll be weird, out of touch, and too secretive to be trusted in a
senior position.

"or they think the idea of owning music is over."

Things change. When this generation becomes the legislature the laws will
match reality. Well at least get closer.

"they prize freedom" -> <http://www.bugmenot.com/> only bitches require login.

------
tokenadult
"Noting that raw I.Q. scores have been climbing by three points a decade since
World War II across racial, income and regional boundaries"

I hope he has the decency to cite James R. Flynn's book What Is Intelligence

[http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Beyond-Flynn-
Effect/...](http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Beyond-Flynn-
Effect/dp/0521880076/)

which is by far the best scholarly discussion of that phenomenon.

In most of these sorts of social trends, there are usually trade-offs. If I
were hiring an editor of books or magazine articles, I might look for
candidates from a different generation from the candidates I'd look for if
hiring a video game designer.

------
Shamiq
"Mr. Tapscott is not uncritical of Net Geners."

Words like those make me wary...reminding me of Orwellian Newspeak for some
reason.

------
daveambrose
"Don't Mistake Ambition for Entitlement" - <http://mattmaroon.com/?p=573>

------
iamdave
Great review, this seems like it's worthy of anyone's reading eyes regardless
of generation.

~~~
iamdave
So does anyone feel like explaining why my opinion that this was a good write
up was worth voting out?

~~~
gojomo
My main guess: people feel that commenting "this is good" is redundant to an
upvote. Why use 14 words -- including puffery like "worthy of anyone's reading
eyes regardless of generation" -- when you've already expressed your
recommendation through a one-click upvote?

Or possibly: Since there's no article downvote, the easiest way to express a
strong opinion that the article is awful is to downvote comments praising it
as 'great'.

~~~
iamdave
Thank you.

In lieu of sparking up conversation about an article I think is good, because
it may be regarded as "redundant", I'll just vote up and keep any opinions
quiet.

