Young men are struggling socially, sexually, and in school. Why? In their provocative ebook 'The Demise of Guys: Why Boys Are Struggling and What We Can. In their provocative ebook The Demise of Guys: Why Boys Are Struggling and What We Can Do About It, celebrated psychologist Philip G. The Demise of Guys. Why Boys are Struggling and What We Can Do About It. by Philip G. Zimbardo · Nikita Duncan. ebook. 1 of 1 copy available. Borrow.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Arabic|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Register to download]|
In their new TED Book, Dr. Philip G. Zimbardo— leader of the famous Stanford Prison Experiment—and co-author Nikita Duncan suggest. To ask other readers questions about The Demise of Guys, please sign up. .. A brief ebook that attempts to diagnose the issues with boys in America. The NOOK Book (eBook) of the The Demise of Guys: Why Boys Are Struggling and What We Can Do About It by Philip Zimbardo, Nikita.
But he and his co-author, a recent University of Colorado graduate named Nikita Duncan, never establish that boys are struggling any more nowadays than they were when porn was harder to find and video games were limited to variations on Pong.
The data they cite mostly show that girls are doing better than boys, not that boys are doing worse than they did before xvideos.
Such an association would by no means be conclusive, but it's the least you'd expect from a respected social scientist like Zimbardo, who oversaw the famous Stanford "prison experiment" that we all read about in Psych The closest Zimbardo comes to a prima facie case linking rising dysfunction among boys to excessive electronic stimulation is his own research on shyness, which finds that 60 percent of Americans not just men describe themselves as shy today, compared to 40 percent in the s.
That rise has been correlated with many things, of course, but this is the best the authors can do by way of identifying Internet-assisted masturbation and the killing of virtual zombies as the culprits.
A closer look at Zimbardo's data might have been helpful at this point.
How do we know that an increase in self-reported shyness indicates an actual change in social aptitude, as opposed to a greater willingness to admit feelings that most humans experience?
Did the increase in reported shyness occur disproportionately among men? Were heavy porn consumers and video game players especially likely to call themselves shy?
If so, how do we know in which direction the causality runs? Zimbardo and Duncan do not have time for such questions, because the shyness research is just a pretext for launching into a series of empirically untethered claims: Now they don't even know where to look for common ground, and they wander about the social landscape like tourists in a foreign land unable to ask for directions.
They don't know the language of face contact, the nonverbal and verbal set of rules that enable you to comfortably talk with and listen to somebody else and get them to respond back in kind. This lack of social interaction skills surfaces most especially with desirable girls and women. The absence of such critical social skills, essential to navigating intimate social situations, encourages a strategy of retreat, going fail-safe.
Girls equal likely failure; safe equals the retreat into online and fantasy worlds that, with regular practice, become ever more familiar, predictable and, in the case of video gaming, more controllable.
You might question the relevance of lost waltzing and fox trotting abilities, although "learn how to dance" appears on Zimbardo and Duncan's list of suggested solutions.
You might even wonder whether male awkwardness around pretty women is a newly discovered phenomenon. But as with most of the book's debatable assertions, no citation is given for the claim that guys' social skills have markedly deteriorated in the last couple of decades. Perhaps that's just as well. One source of evidence that Zimbardo and Duncan rely on heavily, an eight-question survey of people who watched Zimbardo's TED talk online, is so dubious that anyone with a bachelor's degree in psychology such as Duncan , let alone a Ph.
The most important one: It seems probable that people who are attracted to Zimbardo's talk, watch it all the way through, and then take the time to fill out his online survey are especially likely to agree with his thesis and especially likely to report problems related to electronic diversions.
This is not just a nonrepresentative sample; it's a sample bound to confirm what Zimbardo thinks he already knows. Mostly validated, to judge by their survey design. I am more inclined to believe the results of another research project undertaken for the book, but only because its results are so unsurprising.
Duncan, who turned her senior thesis into the book Orgasms: In only a quarter of the videos is there a discernable [sic] female orgasm, whereas in 81 percent of the videos there is a discernable [sic] male orgasm—the male orgasm typically is the highlight of the final scene.
Not once in any of the most-viewed videos is there a discussion of safer sex practices, or of physical or emotional expectations or boundaries. No, I'm not kidding. But at least surveying Zimbardo's fans and counting cum shots produce data, albeit data of limited usefulness.
Other sources of evidence cited by Zimbardo and Duncan are so weak that they have the paradoxical effect of undermining their argument rather than reinforcing it. How do Zimbardo and Duncan know about "the sense of total entitlement that some middle-aged guys feel within their relationships"?
Because "a highly educated female colleague alerted us" to this "new phenomenon. That was what caused me to be a shy and risk adverse person, because frankly staying at home was safer then going to school. Logic therefore follows that within the limited confines of a home, videogames provide a focus that is both entertaining enough for sustained interaction in an indoors lifestyle, and is also challenging enough to forestall boredom.
At the time, it was an uncommon solo pursuit this was the 80's , not maintained with friends, and thus it clearly provided a easily obtainable pursuit for a solitary child.
As a child, it was an obvious fulfillment of the desires for play. Lacking friends and venues, it provided those things for me. However I am also an avid reader, an online blogger, a martial artist and a lab scientist, all indoor pursuits but I don't see you listing those as causing shy and risk adverse people.
I am not agoraphobic, and I have had girlfriends, but I still play videogames. For similar albeit more sexual reasons, I also enjoy online porn, but again, I was risk-adverse and shy long before the internet even existed, and long before I even had an erection.
I find pornography fulfils poorly a basic need, since again as a child and teenager I had only negative experiences of social interaction. I would challenge you Professor to consider the difficulty trying to obtain a romantic date during high school when other boys would fling dog shit at you for fun.
I teach high school, and I can see so many of these quirks being manifested in our young people, and not only the boys. There is a general apathy and lack of social conscience that is disturbing.
Is it the fault of social networking? We no longer need the direct physical contact between people to teach us the social mores that led to work ethic and manners and conscience in the past, and young people now feel they are entitled to a social voice that isn't tempered with wisdom, So We no longer need the direct physical contact between people to teach us the social mores that led to work ethic and manners and conscience in the past, and young people now feel they are entitled to a social voice that isn't tempered with wisdom, or a filter, or maturity.
They have the power to say whatever they want, with impunity, in the cyber world, and they are not learning how to function in the social world. The real world. Where I live. With manners, and stuff.