Growing economic inequality, if left unchecked, is going to make this an increasingly tough proposition. Wonder why the author of the article did not focus instead on encouraging older folks to be "a little more kind" by, for example, rescinding all of the exclusionary zoning laws that are making it so difficult for younger people to buy their first home? After all, what would be a better way to set an example for their children than practicing what the author is asking them to preach.
Don't think you need to be this sanctimonious, as those two things aren't mutually exclusive. A child raised with a sociological imagination will eventually come to understand a housing shortage is unjust.
The phrase "eventually come to understand" isn't cutting it for me since I'd like to buy a house in the next year or two. But thanks for trotting out the word "sanctimonious" because I haven't seen that one in use since I studied for the SAT several decades ago.
This reminds me of some points in Stephen Covey's Seven Habits. If you foster attributes of primary greatness, such as kindness, and honesty... Then, your actions will reflect who you are, and you will more likely achieve the success you are looking for.
Doing actions for the sake of social and economic success is far less effective than doing things that can result in social and econmic success because that's who you are. Therefore, we need to foster these attributes into ourselves AND our children, and not teach them that success is all that matters, what matters is building proper, and great character.
> Psychologists find that kids born after 1995 are just as likely as their predecessors to believe that other people experiencing difficulty should be helped—but they feel less personal responsibility to take action themselves.
Awful lot of assumptions derived from this vague line by the author. You say they're unlikely to donate to charity. Try asking why. I have a theory: they want to donate, but literally can't because they have no money! I'd change my mind if I see an opposing study with money as a control between generations.
Prents can teach kids to be kind to their siblings or atleast to their parents if no siblings. Also they can set a better example and be kind to the kids and not make their lives unnaturally painful with arbitrary limits such as screen time.
11 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 28.1 ms ] threadDoing actions for the sake of social and economic success is far less effective than doing things that can result in social and econmic success because that's who you are. Therefore, we need to foster these attributes into ourselves AND our children, and not teach them that success is all that matters, what matters is building proper, and great character.
Awful lot of assumptions derived from this vague line by the author. You say they're unlikely to donate to charity. Try asking why. I have a theory: they want to donate, but literally can't because they have no money! I'd change my mind if I see an opposing study with money as a control between generations.