Millennials: The Most Selfish Generation Ever?

In the late 80s, the movie Wall Street introduced us to Gordon Gekko, a banker whose motto "Greed is good," is often used as mascot to highlight the selfishness of the young people of that generation.

But did they get it wrong? According to a new research study, the most selfish generation may just be the Millenials:

The researchers examined survey data collected since 1975 from high school seniors, as part of the University of Michigan's Monitoring the Future project, and, beginning in 1966, from college freshmen, as part of the American Freshman survey by the University of California, Los Angeles.

Data on life goals showed a shift away from those related to intrinsic values — such as developing a meaningful philosophy of life — and toward more extrinsic ones, such as being well-off financially — over the three generations.

"Compared to boomers, millennials and Gen Xers viewed goals concerned with money, fame and image as more important, and goals concerned with self-acceptance, affiliation, and community as less important," wrote the researchers in a study published online March 5 by the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Link (Photo: Shutterstock)


@Ryan S - "A fundamental error lies at the basis of our individualized self-hood. That error is that we are not really individuals. We were born out of the same dust (so-to-speak) and all share a similar form, ordered and structured by the cosmos through cause and effect (Karma/Logos). In essence all that appears opposite is fundamentally unified in one grand universal system. Our choices issue forth from all the factors which conspire and converge to create us. Our identity structures (who we believe we are) is entirely dependent on the conventional use of socially differentiated identifiers. In reality we are Nature’s puppets with an imagination of ourselves."

Damn Son, you must be from the most verbose generation. Good lord. You must be a boomer.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
The city I live in was hammered by youth on St. Paddy's day weekend. They rioted, overturning and scorching a CTV news van and pelting police with bricks and bottles. An estimated 1,000 college students and transients were involved in turning a quiet street into a war-zone simply because it's what appealed to them in their drunken stupor.

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2012/03/18/19518906.html
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
IMO, the dividing line between genuine moral intuition and faux moral intuition is Truth.

The difference between good behavior and bad behavior is not immediately in the intentions. The intentions can be good, but if one's perception of the world is false then good intentions merely pave a highway to hell.

I wish I had a more concrete example; but take as an example the Kony 2012 campagin. If one just watches the documentary, believes what is said and wants to help. One's intentions may be good, but what if the information in the documentary is wrong? What if Kony has never done any of the things he is accused of? What if it is the Moseveni government who has done them and has passed the buck onto Kony? If we rush in like heroes to squash Kony and give absolute power back to the Moseveni government? Wouldn't that mean good intentions failing to meet justice? Absolutely! It could very well be good intentions resulting in crimes against humanity. Think of the Nazi propaganda and how Germany was deluded into believing they were liberators.

Good intentions are nothing if you misperceive the world.

A fundamental error lies at the basis of our individualized self-hood. That error is that we are not really individuals. We were born out of the same dust (so-to-speak) and all share a similar form, ordered and structured by the cosmos through cause and effect (Karma/Logos). In essence all that appears opposite is fundamentally unified in one grand universal system. Our choices issue forth from all the factors which conspire and converge to create us. Our identity structures (who we believe we are) is entirely dependent on the conventional use of socially differentiated identifiers. In reality we are Nature's puppets with an imagination of ourselves.

This is contrasted by our socialized perspective and our innate perspective. We are born with no sense of self whatsoever, we do not distinguish between "I and thou", but by repeated reference to us through our parents and siblings we gradually construct a self-concept which we learn to identify with. Now we have a self-absorbed perspective of the world; where everything relates and revolves around this self. To the extent that we are unaware that this self is not who we really are, we also have a skewed sense of morality.

For those of us who are trapped within a self-absorbed perspective, fairness is "an eye for an eye" it is retribution, vengeance, "you get what you give" mentality. In the integrated "All is One" perspective the 'individual' choices made by others are our responsibility as well. You cannot say that "Person A made a free-choice and nothing I could have said or done would have changed it." because this is not true in the integrated (true) reality. The truth is, everything you say and do influences (contributes to the cause) of everyone else's behavior.

Likewise; there aren't really "three generations" here. To begin with a "generation" is an arbitrary category and it could just as easily be 5 generations if we chose to make it. One should not identify strongly with a generational identity because they are - at bottom - false constructs, merely conventional categories. But they serve their purpose for approximating the truth. In this case they show a trend toward increased self-absorption. Don't get hung up on the generational identifiers and feel offended that something like self-absorption is attributed to "your" generation, or else you are basically exhibiting the kind of self-absorption researchers are talking about. A good measure is whether or not your attitudes are motivated by affect or reason, are you immediately offended or hurt? Then you are probably more concerned with your own sense of self than what is true.

"Sincerity and truth are the basis of every virtue" - Confucius
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Here is a video that attempts to introduce "Strategic Self-Presentation" and talks about several "truth-avoidance" and "accountability-avoidance" strategies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QfElEEQFqs
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
There is actually a whole host of "truth-avoidance" and "accountability-avoidance" strategies that serve the individual to avoid any threat to their identity.

This is a good one: "Personally I don’t believe in generational character." (You don't believe doesn't mean not true)

And if that doesn't work, try to attack the messenger: "I’m surprised this form of bigotry is considered acceptable." (Has nothing to do with whether it is true or not)

Or you can always puff up your own identity by attacking an opposite identity: "but they all had good jobs and nice lives and everything already handed to them"

Actually the generation before the boomers were less narcissistic than the boomers. It is a slow incline up to the 60s where it exploded. That's when people became "liberated" from the old ethical systems. They began indulging more in acts aimed solely at personal satisfaction. e.g. "free love"

Now we have wholly self-absorbed people dominating our entertainment world. Take for example; Jersey Shore or more acutely "My Super Sweet 16". The 60s marked major changes in society to do with our focus. Women's lib, despite it's positive consequences, meant women were less family oriented and became more self-oriented.

Commercial advertising switched gears from telling you about the product to pumping self-image. It's actually pretty hard to find a TV commercial that doesn't directly or indirectly seek to manipulate the viewer's self-image.

Part of the problem with self-presentational concern is that those high in self-presentational concern CAN'T admit it. They are in absolute denial over it. To say that they are high in self-presentational concern merely seems to them to be an attack on them. In order to protect themselves against these attacks they engage in "truth-avoidance" and "accountability-avoidance" strategies, which is all part and parcel of being high in self-presentational concern.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Narcissistic self-views actually decline with age (http://a-s.clayton.edu/bgoldman/Psy3560/fostercampbelltwenge2003jrp.pdf)

What is a narcissistic self-view? Let's say for example some researchers do a bunch of research and determine that your generation is the more selfish of the last three. Well maybe you identify strongly with your generation and feel compelled to overemphasize, exaggerate or otherwise "puff" up you identity. Under the circumstances you'd probably feel the need to defend your identity and may do so without any support except your own actively reconstructed and anecdotal memories.

"Well I know MY generation is not self-absorbed, because I am one of them." "The people I talk to in that age-group do not seem selfish to ME"

I, ME, MINE, rinse repeat. According to Twenge et al's research the use of personal pronouns and personal anecdotes increases relative to narcissism.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I'm with Jason123 - I'd like to see what's achieved by each generation rather than what say they'd like to do.

That said, I really don't think the current generation is all that selfish. As a general rule I'd say they mostly seem less selfish than my generation were at the same age. Although, in all honesty I really think selfishness grows with age - whether it's earned is another question all together.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Personally I don't believe in generational character. Everyone is an individual. I'm surprised this form of bigotry is considered acceptable.

All that said, I really can't stand old hippies. The boomers are the worst, most insufferable generation ever...

You know, if we're gonna go there.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I'm 28 and I make $10.04 an hour. I'm making the best of my particular situation. Sorry if I come across as self-absorbed. Guess I am just tired of listening to insolent old people bitch over the price of a can of beans. Might as well give the cans of beans to the blue hairs for free since it probably costs us more than we are selling them for because we have to diligently listen to the elderly prattle while they write their checks or count out pennies.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Absolutely not.

I think the old people with the kung fu grip on Medicare...that can't see the fact that their grandkids need healthcare are the most selfish generation.

The young kids can't find jobs, their parents are losing their jobs and these old folk on Social Security and Medicare can't support a little help for their grandkids?

How selfish is that? We are paying into SS and Meidcare and we won't get it cuz the bluehairs are sucking it dry with their viagra prescriptions... but the same viagra taking old geezers don't want the Gov to support birth control.

#justsayin
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
The boomers may have developed more social conscience because they didn't have to worry about the material world. Probably no generation in history has been as privileged as the boomers. They may not have had iPads, but they got to experience ever-increasing wages, low unemployment, and culture that's catered to the large demographic for decades. The millenials grew up in more difficult times, so like the greatest generation, they may be more self-centered. Also like the greatest generation, millenials will have to suffer through the economy their parents crashed and fight the wars their parents started.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
To be more specific "pressure" means a threat to one's identity. I've tried to think of simple ways of putting this and the best I can say is this:

Imagine you are in the company of your spouse and a bystander. The bystander observes how you and your spouse relate to each other and makes one of two comments. Think about what your reaction to either comment would be.

A) You two make a horrible couple, just seeing you together makes me lose faith in monogamy.

B) You two make a great couple, just seeing you is enough to restore my faith in monogamy.

In circumstance (A) your identity within the relationship is threatened by this bystander and if you have significant concern for how you appear to others will have a tendency to become defensive of that identity. Conversely, if you are intrinsically motivated to be with your partner and self-image doesn't factor into it, you'll probably just ignore the bystander.

Circumstance (B) is a little different, it is flattering and a re-affirmation of your identity. But there is a catch; while it re-affirms the good quality of your relationship it may also signal too high a status, something that is itself socially undesirable. You may have a tendency to diminish the good quality of your relationship and qualify it with a statement like "We get along now, but it hasn't always been this way." That is an effective way of diminishing the self-image associated with the affirmation. If this is not done then there may furtile ground for future criticism of the identity e.g. "Oh, you think your relationship is soooo great!" By diminishing the good quality of the relationship one avoids having to defend it as well. Ultimately this is all geared towards developing and maintaining a positive appearance.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
@KCanathema

The difference lies in the motive for those "morals". People frequently ascribe to ethics which they do not intrinsically hold to be true. Consequently they only uphold those "morals" when it is personally beneficial to.

In evolutionary psychology it is basically assumed that the only kind of altruism that exists is reciprocal altruism. Which means they are only altruistic or "moral" when it benefits them to be. There is actually a long history of human literature that struggles over the question of how to be truly moral and it has been concerned with issues of identity since Heraclitus. This tradition is generally called Religion & Theology. The primitive man's psychology.

But modern psychology has zeroed in on the same strand of thought. That whether the behavior is motivated by self-presentational concern makes the difference whether it is a stable quality in the person or something that will drop away under peer pressure. As long as it remains socially beneficial to be seen as an "environmentalist" then it also remains an identity that will sought after by people seeking status.

Social interactionist perspectives view how social identities become differentiated from each other over time and define the boundaries between them. The difference between identities is typically exaggerated while the similarity within a group-identity is generally minimilized by its members. Our modern world has many overlapping, conflictory and non-conflictory identities. All seems well because people are seeking status and one usually attains status by upholding the values of the group, but if one does not own these values intrinsically then they will drop away under pressure.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
So the previous generations bemoan the new generation's morals or lack thereof. Wash, rinse, repeat in another ten years.

In every generation there are the selfish, the generous, the kind, the cruel, etc. Frankly I find my students to be a lot more morally developed than their parents and grandparents.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Part of being pre-occupied with fame is maintaining a positive self-image or differentiated social identity. Which provides the motive for getting involved in social activism. Rather than a genuine concern that might evolve out of more intrinsic motives.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
The Narcissism Epidemic: Living In The Age of Entitlement <-- Great Book!

Twenge's research was something I stumbled upon when my father bought me the epidemic as a gift. It precluded a bunch of study into different branches of academic psychology. I had been studying mostly evolutionary psychology but realized that there were other descriptive methods that were highly potent and rivaled the success of evolutionary psychology. Ultimately they are all complimentary to each other but I appreciate familiarity with them all. My current area of interest is modern social interactionist psychology which draws on the earlier work of Cooley and Herbert Mead. i.e. The Looking Glass Self, Self-Determination Theory, Dramatism/Dramaturgy.

Basically; it's about maintenance and differentiation of social identities, group dynamics, but more importantly the conscious and subconscious dynamics psycho-emotional dynamics of the mind, studying that along side neuroanatomy. My two main sources are: The Handbook of Self and Identity by Mark R. Leary and Neuroanaomty Through Clinical Cases by Hal Blumenfeld. Crazy interesting stuff!
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
maybe not the most, but the most who are out of the whole group. I've met some very giving loving young ppl, but the majority of this generation are self centred and expect the entire world to go their way... BUT parents have allowed this so "reap what you sow"
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
It would be much more interesting to see what actual actions people in each generation take rather than trusting what goals they claim to want to achieve. Perhaps some generations are more honest or more in touch with what they really want.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Login to comment.
Click here to access all of this post's 24 comments




Email This Post to a Friend
"Millennials: The Most Selfish Generation Ever?"

Separate multiple emails with a comma. Limit 5.

 

Success! Your email has been sent!

close window
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
 
Learn More