goldomark said:
Me? Not hardly. I'm not of English decent, even a little. I, personally, just picked up the language as it was presented to me. My people had nothing to do with its formation.
Stole? You seem to forget that whole Norman invasion thing, in which it was kind of pressed upon the English.
But, really, it's all spoils of war from a long time ago.
Yes, let us look at that for just a moment...
"Just 48 percent of 1976 to 1978 seniors said it was very important to have a lot of money, compared with 62 percent of the teenagers between 2005 and 2007."
What hasn't been defined here? "A lot of money" is vague - how were the questions asked, both back in the 70s, and today? Do they match? And, have you noted that economic realities have changed significantly between 1976 and 2007? Was any correction made in the numbers for that? The article does not say. If we take into consideration the squeeze put to the American middle class, this may merely reflect the changing times those youth live in more than anything else. Basically, they may be correct - perhaps back in 1976, the prospects and expectation for having a comfortable life with less money were greater than they are today.
Heck, 2007 was half a decade ago! The people who gave those answers are not really kids now, and their ideas may well have changed now that they aren't in school. Nor does this data speak about the high-school kids of *today*.
"About 39 percent of the more recent graduates said they didn't want to work hard, compared with just 25 percent of the oldest cohort."
Well, hold on one second. There's a bit of mental hopscotch there: "Having a lot of money is important" + "I don't want to work hard" does not equal the entitled, "I expect someone to just hand me money for nothing." It may instead be interpreted to read as a sort of fatalism - "Yeah, it is important to have it, but I'm not going to get it, so why work hard?"
Social polling data is often fraught with interpretation issues. It can be read to say all sorts of things. Even the quoted author says, "That type of 'fantasy gap' is consistent with other studies showing a generational increase in narcissism and entitlement." (emphasis mine) Note that, "consistent with," in science-speak actually means, "does not contradict." Failing to contradict a premise is not support of that premise.
Also, note who they're asking - high school seniors. But from what areas of the country? Even just noting they are seniors indicates that we're talking about folks who haven't dropped out of school, and maybe not those who chose a vocational school over standard high school, so some important demographics may have been selected out of the samples.
