That might have been true decades ago, but now people have:
Greater access to knowledge, and are forced to think more critically about what they consume.
More extreme views, which picks off the weak.
Most importantly, older people had stuff. They owned houses, had stable, life-long careers, and had settled down before they hit their thirties.
People in their mid to late thirties nowadays might have a fancier job title, but many of them are still struggling like they were before. It’s hard to be protectionist when you have nothing but your life to protect…
I think it’s your third point, mostly. Maybe even as sharply stated as: boomers became more conservative as the system and status quo brought them wealth, comfort, and security, so naturally they wanted to keep that going. For the generations that have followed, the system and status quo have only continued to bring those benefits to the boomers, not to them, so they’re less likely to trend conservative to perpetuate a system that has failed them.
Additionally, in the years since the boomers came of age, the political right has moved away from a traditional conservative platform to a very extreme and hateful version of itself. Even if many millennials had shifted slightly to the right as they aged, the party typically associated with conservatism has moved so much farther to the right that even with their gradual shift, these millennials are still far closer to the left, or at least to “not whatever the right is saying”.
More people become conservative when they have something to lose. Why would you want to conserve a status quo where you don’t own anything of substance and probably never will?
while the last point is perhaps the main determinant theory behind why many older people are not being owing more right wing, I’m a little confused by your first two points.
especially the fact that people have greater access to knowledge and are forced to think more critically. if anything, with the advent of the internet, echo chambers have never been easier, preventing critical thinking. this leads to a growing of extreme positions which further reinforces such views due to tribalistic fallacies in our thinking and the need for these tribal identities to distinguish themselves.
I think it also depends on whether or not they were provided the education to use the internet well. If all people get is a vague “have at 'er!”, of course we would have more echo chambers. Ever hear the saying “don’t believe everything you read online?”
Properly teaching people how to verify their information sources and how to reflect on things would probably result in fewer echo chambers. “Huh. I don’t want to keep looking like a fool who spreads obviously false things around.”
There’s also internal bias to think about here. If someone is already dead-set in believing only their current mindset, they’re likely not going to be open to other sources. Instead, they’re probably going to search for whatever will back up their claim. People don’t usually try to prove themselves wrong in an argument.
This means that part of getting rid of echo chambers will also be teaching people to accept and acknowledge their own errors. We should be teaching people to go for the best answer, not to just prove themselves right. In this way, this problem also preceeds the internet. That mindset has hindered science for literal centuries. It even goes back to the first days of science in Greece. (Thanks for that attempted halt of progress, religion.)
It’s easier to blame the internet than the people doing these things. Sadly though, it’s in human nature.
My kids made me more liberal…our conservative government cut property taxes to starve our public education system, I donated most of the rebate to my kids school, some of it went into their education fund.
People who aren’t as fortunate as we are, deserve the same opportunities we have when it comes to public services.
A lot of people get caught up in finding the best local district for education or sports here. I think that mentality prolly says something about them.
That might have been true decades ago, but now people have:
People in their mid to late thirties nowadays might have a fancier job title, but many of them are still struggling like they were before. It’s hard to be protectionist when you have nothing but your life to protect…
I think it’s your third point, mostly. Maybe even as sharply stated as: boomers became more conservative as the system and status quo brought them wealth, comfort, and security, so naturally they wanted to keep that going. For the generations that have followed, the system and status quo have only continued to bring those benefits to the boomers, not to them, so they’re less likely to trend conservative to perpetuate a system that has failed them.
Additionally, in the years since the boomers came of age, the political right has moved away from a traditional conservative platform to a very extreme and hateful version of itself. Even if many millennials had shifted slightly to the right as they aged, the party typically associated with conservatism has moved so much farther to the right that even with their gradual shift, these millennials are still far closer to the left, or at least to “not whatever the right is saying”.
Add Less Lead Exposure. Empathy is a function of the brain and lead damages it.
More people become conservative when they have something to lose. Why would you want to conserve a status quo where you don’t own anything of substance and probably never will?
while the last point is perhaps the main determinant theory behind why many older people are not being owing more right wing, I’m a little confused by your first two points.
especially the fact that people have greater access to knowledge and are forced to think more critically. if anything, with the advent of the internet, echo chambers have never been easier, preventing critical thinking. this leads to a growing of extreme positions which further reinforces such views due to tribalistic fallacies in our thinking and the need for these tribal identities to distinguish themselves.
I think it also depends on whether or not they were provided the education to use the internet well. If all people get is a vague “have at 'er!”, of course we would have more echo chambers. Ever hear the saying “don’t believe everything you read online?”
Properly teaching people how to verify their information sources and how to reflect on things would probably result in fewer echo chambers. “Huh. I don’t want to keep looking like a fool who spreads obviously false things around.”
There’s also internal bias to think about here. If someone is already dead-set in believing only their current mindset, they’re likely not going to be open to other sources. Instead, they’re probably going to search for whatever will back up their claim. People don’t usually try to prove themselves wrong in an argument.
This means that part of getting rid of echo chambers will also be teaching people to accept and acknowledge their own errors. We should be teaching people to go for the best answer, not to just prove themselves right. In this way, this problem also preceeds the internet. That mindset has hindered science for literal centuries. It even goes back to the first days of science in Greece. (Thanks for that attempted halt of progress, religion.)
It’s easier to blame the internet than the people doing these things. Sadly though, it’s in human nature.
I also think having kids has an impact, which we’re not doing as much.
My kids made me more liberal…our conservative government cut property taxes to starve our public education system, I donated most of the rebate to my kids school, some of it went into their education fund.
People who aren’t as fortunate as we are, deserve the same opportunities we have when it comes to public services.
A lot of people get caught up in finding the best local district for education or sports here. I think that mentality prolly says something about them.
That’s very true. could you explain your statement about “picks off the weak”?