[Scotty]

"If 5 out in 80 teenagers do this, then 50,000 out in 800,000 do this" - it's all a game of numbers and percentages which doesn't really help

Ummm... Really hate to burst your bubble here:

Empirical Rule

As well as the general observation that real-life surveys/studies fit that. 

For those too lazy to read the article:

In statistics relating to real-life, it has been observed that 68% of all entries fall within one standard deviation of the mean, 95 within two, and 99.7 within three.  It really does help, provided the sample size is large enough to be representative.

[Mobius]

I'm not questioning the validity of the empirical rule for its general usage, I'm simply saying that you don't need numbers when studying psychological matters like this.

Also, don't forget the personal knowledge people have prior to reading or compiling the stats, which is also various. If I tell you that Italian teenagers living in Naples are likely to commit more crimes than teenagers living in Rome, would you understand the social context behind this statement? By applying the same logic to American stats you'd get even more generic results, because the region-to-region and even town-to-town differences can change virtually everything.

[NGTM-1R]

I'm not questioning the validity of the empirical rule for its general usage, I'm simply saying that you don't need numbers when studying psychological matters like this.

Then you don't need anything, since, you know, that basically rejects any conception of science being involved.

But you don't even know they're wrong?

You're telling me there is little evidence, and almost everyone is running anecdotal... so how can you claim one is right over another?

Because we have numbers. Specifically, numbers of how long people have assumed that each generation is less whatever than the previous one. The shelf-life of the concept has expired in much the same way all its contemporaries have long since been disproved or outmoded. Science marches on.

[Blue Lion]

Because we have numbers. Specifically, numbers of how long people have assumed that each generation is less whatever than the previous one. The shelf-life of the concept has expired in much the same way all its contemporaries have long since been disproved or outmoded. Science marches on.

So you're only evidence is "people have thought that forever, therefore it must be wrong"?

[Scotty]

I thought we were talking about the severity of the "issue."  Besides, when has time ever mattered to science ?

[peterv]

In sociology the results of the statistics in a nation are useless when are used to describe the situation in a neighbourhood. It's a matter of scale. When the sample is to large it's usufull only to advertisers.

[NGTM-1R]

So you're only evidence is "people have thought that forever, therefore it must be wrong"?

Your straw manning is cute, but not effective.

No, our evidence is that people who had no understanding of how a society functions or social sciences thought that, therefore it is extremely unlikely they were correct.

[Blue Lion]

So you're only evidence is "people have thought that forever, therefore it must be wrong"?

Your straw manning is cute, but not effective.

No, our evidence is that people who had no understanding of how a society functions or social sciences thought that, therefore it is extremely unlikely they were correct.

Wait, unlikely or wrong? You seem to be spending more time discrediting them than shoring up your own arguments.

Where is the evidence contrary to them?

[peterv]

I'll repeat this without the example:

From propaganda and debating techniques:

Demand a simple answer when this is not possible.

[Blue Lion]

I'll repeat this without the example:

From propaganda and debating techniques:

Demand a simple answer when this is not possible.

Ok wait. Everyone is spending time pounding on these guys for being crotchety old men who don't see the vast superiority of today's youth.

Oh they're making generalizations, local anecdotes, etc etc etc. They have no numbers to back up their claims.

So where are your numbers?

"Ah that's complex. You're only asking cause you know you're wrong."

[peterv]

Where are your numbers BL? And where is your opinion by the way, the one that you have to backup with the numbers i'll ask for (they'll be many, i assure you).

We're not debating on absolute truths here, and i'll appreciate from you to show me a place were something like this
actually hapens.

[General Battuta]

I'm not questioning the validity of the empirical rule for its general usage, I'm simply saying that you don't need numbers when studying psychological matters like this.

Also, don't forget the personal knowledge people have prior to reading or compiling the stats, which is also various. If I tell you that Italian teenagers living in Naples are likely to commit more crimes than teenagers living in Rome, would you understand the social context behind this statement? By applying the same logic to American stats you'd get even more generic results, because the region-to-region and even town-to-town differences can change virtually everything.

SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP UNTIL YOU GET AN EDUCATION.

You can't just spout garbage about things you think you understand.

Let me take apart your asinine argument line-by-line. (It's the argument that's asinine, not you. Treading that fine line!)

"you don't need numbers when studying psychological matters like this" -- yes you do. How else do you address them? Write some poetry? Talk a bit about what you saw on the street corner? ALL SOCIAL SCIENCE IS STATISTICS. It is the only way to draw conclusions about a population.

"Also, don't forget the personal knowledge people have prior to reading or compiling the stats, which is also various." We call that 'design bias' or 'interpretation bias' and it's not a criticism of statistics. It's a separate problem that can be compensated for, just like drag on an airplane.

"I tell you that Italian teenagers living in Naples are likely to commit more crimes than teenagers living in Rome, would you understand the social context behind this statement?" Boy, if you did a correlation between local socieconomic educators, level of education, unrest, average income, AND CRIME, using some goddamn STATISTICS, you would understand the social context!

"By applying the same logic to American stats you'd get even more generic results, because the region-to-region and even town-to-town differences can change virtually everything." WHICH IS WHY IF YOU WANT TO DRAW CONCLUSIONS ABOUT A PARTICULAR REGION OR TOWN YOU USE A SAMPLE REPRESENTATIVE OF THAT REGION OR TOWN.

Elementary, my dear Mobius.

Now let's go back to other misinformed things you've said!

Those studies are specific, too specific, because they're not widespread. They take many variables in consideration, but the problem is that they don't analyze that many teenagers. As result, all major assumptions come from the classic "If 5 out in 80 teenagers do this, then 50,000 out in 800,000 do this" - it's all a game of numbers and percentages which doesn't really help... and you know why? Because there are many problems, not only one, leading to certain behaviors. Vague assumptions would end up with something like "Videogames are bad for children and teenagers", and we all know of bogus this assumption is due to the various nature of games (genre, series, etc. etc.).

By "accurate" I mean "about 100% reliable".

Far from accurate stat = several thousand people

Partially accurate stat = several hundred people

Very accurate stat = several dozen people

Do you know what a representative sample is?

Come on. Define it for me. Make me day. TELL ME WHAT A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE IS.

Then explain to me how to use it to draw accurate conclusions about a population.

Give me the equation that tells you the sample size (N) you need to draw conclusions with a degree of accuracy (P) about a population of size X. Go on.

Look, all you're doing is attacking bad research design. Massive, flaming strawman. If you want to attack the basis of social sciences (statistical observation), learn something about good research.

Your argument is basically '**** science/statistics. We can conclude everything we need to from common sense. In fact, math makes this less accurate and is unnecessary.'

gb2the1450s.

...

You know what? Go read "Research Design and Methods: A Process Approach", by Borden and Abbot. It addresses every one of your misperceptions in excruciating detail.

[Blue Lion]

Where are your numbers BL? And where is your opinion by the way, the one that you have to backup with the numbers i'll ask for (they'll be many, i assure you).

I haven't made one assertion about any of this.

(mostly cause I haven't the damnedest clue what the hell you guys are trying to argue)

What I've noticed is a ton of people picking away arguments of "the old guys" for not having numbers while not showing a shred of evidence themselves.

We're not debating on absolute truths here, and i'll appreciate from you to show me a place were something like this
actually hapens.

If you're not debating absolute truths, what are you debating then? Generalizations? Local trends? What?

Now if you were going to ask me what I would look for in a debate such as this (you didn't but I'm answering anyways), I would look for:

Teen crimes rates
Teen gang rates
Teen sexual activity
Teen pregnancy
Teen drug use
Teen depression and suicide rates
Teen emotional disorders
Teen educational grade reports
Teen dropout rates
Teen "discipline" rates in schools
Teen work rates (numbers of hours, length of time working at one, number of write ups, disciplines)
Teen graduation rates

I could go on and list more, but it's almost pointless. No one has really listed a good comparison for grading two generations against each other.

Even if you had all that data and compared it to another generation's youth you could STILL argue that it wasn't a complete picture of that set of youths because it didn't factor in things like technology rates, current economic and political climates, wars, social movements etc etc etc.

How large an age group do you select? 10-18? 19? 20? 13? Do you track the rates of those kids along their youth or do you take a snapshot at a certain point in time?

Pithy summary: You can't grade a generation's youth with a quick value or letter grade. For guys who sat there and said "every generation says the current youth are 'worse' and they're wrong", they're completely ignoring that their generation will probably be saying it about the next and all in all it doesn't matter because you can't prove it anyways.

[peterv]

O.K. you need to read the first post of this topic. The use of a device that forces people under 25 away from public places. 

Our opinions about this fact is what is debatable. These were the ones i was interesting about.

The statistics that you're asking about are easy to find, goggle them.

[Blue Lion]

O.K. you need to read the first post of this topic. The use of a device that forces people under 25 away from public places. 

Our opinions about this fact is what is debatable. These were the ones i was interesting about.

The statistics that you're asking about are easy to find, goggle them.

1. That device has barely been mentioned (if at all) in the last 5 pages. That is most certainly NOT what the current debate it about.

2. I can find these stats all over, but you didn't finish reading apparently because I can get all of them and it still wouldn't provide an complete picture. And even if it did, there is no real way to grade it against previous generations.

[General Battuta]

Those studies are specific, too specific, because they're not widespread. They take many variables in consideration, but the problem is that they don't analyze that many teenagers. As result, all major assumptions come from the classic "If 5 out in 80 teenagers do this, then 50,000 out in 800,000 do this" - it's all a game of numbers and percentages which doesn't really help... and you know why? Because there are many problems, not only one, leading to certain behaviors. Vague assumptions would end up with something like "Videogames are bad for children and teenagers", and we all know of bogus this assumption is due to the various nature of games (genre, series, etc. etc.).

There's another problem too. Statistics could be made up and false because people have it in their nature to lie and have hidden agendas, and maybe these people know that there are people out there, like some on this forum, who put too much trust into statistics and only go by statistics and nothing else and if they can get enough people to believe in statistics, they can brainwash people into thinking that nothing is wrong and therefore hide a problem. For example, false statistics could be used to hide things like global warming and convince people it isn't real so oil companies can continue their primitive "fossil fuel burning" work without interference so they can keep being greedy and getting money at the expense of people's health and the environment, for all we know. Or maybe governments might make up false statistics to hide a cover-up or conspiracy.

I would trust my experience over a statistic if I had the choice between the two since statistics not only are not always accurate or very specific and are black and white, but could be false and made up too for all I know. Just go to different websites and you will see different statistics of the same thing. One website actually lists New York as the #1 most polite city on Earth and I'm sure that is utterly false, while other websites would say differently about a statistic and maybe say it is the #5 rudest city. There's one hole in the argument of blindly trusting statistics over everything else, but if some people want to be number crunching gullible robots, then it's their problem, I guess.

How do I know the people who made certain statistics are not lying? I guess some people have a lot of faith in statistics like it is a religion. There is more out there than just academics and statistics. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out and to know that just because something is written doesn't mean it is fact, whether it be scientific or religious.

Cognitive heuristics frequently make you their *****.

[peterv]

1. That device has barely been mentioned (if at all) in the last 5 pages. That is most certainly NOT what the current debate it about.

2. I can find these stats all over, but you didn't finish reading apparently because I can get all of them and it still wouldn't provide an complete picture. And even if it did, there is no real way to grade it against previous generations.

read my posts. Severall times i tried to bring the subject back to the conversation.

And i had to answer to really sily questions, like "if there's no pain were is the violence?"

I never attempted to grade any generation.  Trashman accused me for doing that, and i found pointless even to answer to him. I don't even think that a generation is worse than another and as the matter of fact the one that sowed me this event on the internet was my father.

You're accusing me for something i never did.

And by accepting that even if you provided those numbers you'd still wouldn't provide an complete picture, you're helping me make my point about absolute truth's, thankyou very much.

[Blue Lion]

read my posts. Severall times i tried to bring the subject back to the conversation.

You mean the part where you started talking to me about early 20th century economists? Yea that was spot on target.

And i had to answer to really sily questions, like "if there's no pain were is the violence?"

Yes silly me for asking why you're calling a device violent when it causes no pain, making it merely "annoying" Since, you know, that was the entire basis of your argument in regards to its use.

Unless you had some other argument against its use besides the fact it inflicted pain (which you never proved the frequency did)

I never attempted to grade any generation.  Trashman accused me for doing that, and i found pointless even to answer to him. I don't even think that a generation is worse than another and as the matter of fact the one that sowed me this event on the internet was my father.

You're accusing me for something i never did.

"It can become stupid ( Europe after WW1, France before the revolution, Russia before and after the revolution,   ancient Rome,  ancient Greece etc. etc.)"

Not grading them eh? What do you call calling one generation dumber than another?

And by accepting that even if you provided those numbers you'd still wouldn't provide an complete picture, you're helping me make my point about absolute truth's, thankyou very much.

You're thanking me for continuing to argue a point I've been making since the argument switched from the sound device to whether teens of a certain time are better or worse than others? That I've somehow finally come around to it?

[peterv]

You mean the part where you started talking to me about early 20th century economists? Yea that was spot on target.

O.K. thats below the belt and pointless. I didn't say that i haven't post for other matters, i said what i said, read it again in good will please.

Yes silly me for asking why you're calling a device violent when it causes no pain, making it merely "annoying" Since, you know, that was the entire basis of your argument in regards to its use.

Once again, i urge you to read the definition of violence. Not pain, violence. And as for pain, read again the article and the testimonies of several of other guys in this thread. And read again my posts, my point was not wether the device causes pain, it was wether it violates basic human rights.

"It can become stupid ( Europe after WW1, France before the revolution, Russia before and after the revolution,   ancient Rome,  ancient Greece etc. etc.)"

Not grading them eh? What do you call calling one generation dumber than another?

Below the belt again and pointless again (and i'm still calm). It was about societies, not generations, i believe that you've missread.

You're thanking me for continuing to argue a point I've been making since the argument switched from the sound device to whether teens of a certain time are better or worse than others? That I've somehow finally come around to it?

Isn't it obvious what i'm thanking you for? And who exactly switched the argument, do you recall?

[Blue Lion]

O.K. thats below the belt and pointless. I didn't say that i haven't post for other matters, i said what i said, read it again in good will please.

You told me you kept trying to bring it back on point. Since almost back at page 9 you've made almost no mention of the device at all. The idea that you've somehow tried to steer this argument back to the device is just flat out wrong.

Once again, i urge you to read the definition of violence. Not pain,
violence. And read again my posts, my point was not wether the device caused pain, it was wether it was violated basic human rights.

I did.

"Violence is the expression of physical force against self or other, compelling action against one's will on pain of being hurt."

Without 'pain of being hurt' there is no violence, it's just a damn annoying sound.

To argue a violation of basic human rights you have to show how you can't stand there. But you can't. There is no wall or fence to block your access. No one picks you up and carries you off. They don't shoot you or threaten you life.

I can go sit in front of that store for as long as I like and I can hear the sound. How is it a violation of free assembly when I can assemble there freely?

They could play polka music to drive you off, you wouldn't argue polka music is a violation of human rights, would you?

Below the belt again and pointless again (and i'm still calm). It was about societies, not generations, i believe that you've missread.

You listed very specific points in time. You're calling a society stupid, that means you're calling all those generations stupid.

And completely beside that point, you're ok with grading an entire group of generations but somehow grading one is way too far?

If you're telling me everyone in Europe at that time was stupid, wouldn't the kids be stupid also?

Isn't it obvious what i'm thanking you about? And who exactly switched the argument, do you recall?

You actually switched arguments.