The next generation will grow up where AI was always a thing. I do not think it the existence of that easy button is going to lead to cognitive capability improving (at population levels, individuals will of course vary). That more we can offload to machines, the more we will.
I find that the rare of smart vs dumb people in companies, even tech companies is also pretty scary nowadays. it wasnt perfect in the late 80-90 but execs usually could do the work of everyone, and also manage the workforce. nowadays most execs are placed and don't know of care how their products work, unless it's a startup.
the reason it's interesting is that the lack of understanding and skill results in a "bourgeoisie" class in the workforce, and that isn't correlated to skill, amounts of labor or even cognitivity.
This tends to reduce the utilization of 'overwhelmingly' smart people, who are put to crappy tasks just to make money and ends meet.
There’s already a turn around. It’s the Covid policies at play and refusal to hold back failing students. My local district is already starting to see test scores improve
They’re just adapting to be better at teaching to the tests. Those tests are the yardstick which grade the schools, and the school admins and teachers must pass them sufficiently or else they’ll be replaced with others who will. So there has always been shenanigans where they exploit their foreknowledge of the test contents to help kids be prepared for very specific things, instead of teaching them thinking skills.
Tests that legitimately are attempting to measure the thinking skills of individuals aren’t going to see improvements, I predict.
Their early-years and kindergarten teachers and teaching assistants are a bit more likely to be Millennials, and I suspect that is a factor.
If you assume that the slow drift in poor teaching started with Gen X teachers, then what Millennials would have lost first was some of the communication of the the joy of learning and metacognition, which matters when you are the first generation whose attention span is taking a battering.
It is perhaps harder to teach what you had fewer opportunities to learn.
The amount of hours devoted to sports in US schools is unbelievable. I have friends who are ALWAYS busy with either training or leagues, including holidays. Most of these kids will not be athletes. I understand the team building skills, maybe the monetary benefit of scholarships, but investing so much time and money in something of so little value for 99% of kids once they become adults, doesn’t make sense. I will certainly not be doing that with my kids.
> The amount of hours devoted to sports in US schools is unbelievable... Most of these kids will not be athletes.
The same could be said for a lot of other subjects too.
Physical activity/sports has far, far more benefits than just team building and scholarships. Given that a lot of the conversation seems to be implicating screentime in the decline, I'd guess that if we swapped 10% of school screen time for 10% more sports, we'd probably have a better outcome as a society.
I say this as someone who has done lots of computers and screentime my entire life, and very little sport.
Sorry, I meant general-lone-focus-on-a-screen-during-school-time, in contrast to engaging with what's going on in real life in the classroom (e.g. listening to teacher teach, or interacting with other students etc.)
I have experience as a coach in middle and high school in the US. I can say emphatically that school sports are relatively low impact in terms of time opportunity cost and individual family spending. The "club" or "travel" team private organizations are where the money and time really go.
I am also a parent of a kid who participated with a soccer club team for many years. She is a multi-sport athlete who loved several sports and we found the club experience in soccer actually quite good for her emotional and physical health. I will say that family experience with club sports varies based on the quality of the organization. She also played with her club in falls and her other sport in the spring at high school, so she got to do both. This was fun for her and us.
Assume a kid just wants to get better at some sport. I'm a player development nerd and believe most kids would be better served with 1-1 training with a much lower time investment that just joining a club or travel team. I do 1-1 sessions with players for 30 minutes 2x/week for 6-8 weeks in the fall. Players, of all natural athletic levels, will make about two years of progress compared to just participating on the spring team. That's with one whole hour of time invested. I love working with players this way because I am measurable-metric driven, so a kid can see their progress. I'm also a little bit qualitative about it too, because sometimes, the goal is just to build confidence and comfort.
The approach I'm describing looks like lots of hobbies. Imagine a kid wants to learn piano or guitar or drums. It's basically the same abstract approach. Work with an experienced teacher, commit to a regular+reasonable practice schedule, repeat for 6-8 weeks, and see if it fits and feels good.
The social aspect of being a good club or travel team is nuanced, but I will just say that my kid was incredibly well-served by having a good group of friends not connected to her school. And she had a great group of friends in school.
Follow the money. It's because the schools have figured out a way to monetize spectator sports but not spectator academics. The only spectator events that I recall was a spelling bee that only the parents came to, and if they charged for a ticket, even the parents wouldn't have shown up. If the schools could get money out of the program, they would put money into it.
Texas would finally pass it's yearly vote to secesed.
While I agree with you, it's so far and away from anything that could actually happen that I despair over what could be done. It seems like my children's schools change their evaluation criteria every other year to some "new" and "evidence-based" criteria. Do the kids do any different work? No. Do that get evaluated by different standards? Not really. I wouldn't call changing "pass" to "meets expectations" and fail to "not on track for success" to be a substantive change. Forcing equilateral, rectilinear wooden dowels into orifices of constant radius doesn't change the fact that we're playing a stupid game.
Did you intend to point out that "generation" is a singular noun while "their" is a plural pronoun? If so, I'd say that "their" is actually correct and the best way to write this. I think you could also say "its" and that would also be technically correct, but it would be significantly less clear. The current construction is the clearest way to say that the individuals that make up the group, in aggregate, are dumber than their parents, in aggregate.
Yeah, we fucked this one up. No shade but older US millennials (I am one) are the worst parents. TERRIBLE. Idk why but we are. It’s like none of us born in the 80s learned from the everyone before us how not to be:/ But we were the TV generation & it’s interesting to see how our version of social media has impacted our parenting.
Millenials spend time with their kids, way more than previous generations. Especially fathers.
I don't know if you've met people, but most people are terrible! And now these poor role models are spending extra time with young impressionable minds! /s
I tend to find all sorts of generalizations like this so useless. Like, this thing you said seems totally random to me. I know lots of "elder millennial" parents and lots of parents of other ages, and I see lots of variation between parents in "not saying no", but I don't see any correlation by age... Regional and political cultural differences are way more correlated with things like this IMO.
There is an angle to it that is not that obvious. The kids have been part social media and they consult each other and then they go couch surfing upon a disagreement saying no is like saying no to a group of people with the same agenda and viewpoint and they would retaliate.
Personally, I think Millennials are just as dumb, but we had the benefit of catching the tail end of analog and the last bit of actual reality in our formative years before technology took over our lives. Our behavior and habits just got worse after that.
Sounds like you agree with the article, but are just quibbling over what "dumb" means, interpreting it to mean raw biological brain ability rather than test results or academic achievement.
Seriously, I have no idea why the onus is on the generation, the framing should be "education is massively underfunded, teachers are abandoned with ever increasing class sizes and ever decreasing agency, and kids are left with smartphones to fend for themselves in an environment where they may be shot and killed at any moment".
Are you sure about the underfunding piece? Education funding is a larger share of GDP and higher in inflation-adjusted dollars than any time in the past. Maybe the funding is just poorly managed.
Bravo! We’ve collectively cannibalized our ability to vault our children to new highs so we can continue to subsidize billionaires’ nihilistic destruction of our planet under the guise of freedom and economic progress.
Another in a long series of such articles over the thousands of years. One must assume these are written to compensate for the nearly universal experience of the older people being unable to operate all the stuff the kids do as easily as breathing. Totally plausible than a digital and networked society changes the way highly smart people develop the gifts of intelligence; not plausible that all these damn kids are dumb.
western "mass" schooling started in 789, over a thousand years ago, not "thousands".
actual decline started last century (that's for a hundred).
Older people aren't actually "boomers with everything handed to them", it's just you in 30y - more experience, more depth, and slight drop in cognitivity.
for computer science, I find it interesting that almost every Gen z can use and talk about concepts but does not understand how a computer works (be it transistors, kernel, or memory allocation for example).
With AI we all know this will get worse, and it already does. it's not just the prompting - AIs can and will return information with the upmost confidence, even if wrong. A lot of critical thinking is needed, which cannot be found by re-querying or using a search engine (that does the same thing) - information isn't cognitivity.
I can't speak for others, but I do know that my screen time is filled with this news feed and engineering or other STEM videos. I could never study, it just didn't work for me. But I have a good memory so watching videos tangential to my field helped. I ended up with straight As in my last years of uni, supported by 40+ hours/week of YouTube. Still not sure if that's accounting for 2x speed.
There's a lot of nuance to this. They should consider what we're "staring" at. Is it AI slop content like our parents seem to enjoy? Or more than that? Likewise for social media: maybe consider why in a society where it's prohibitively expensive to do anything and there's a loss of third spaces people are turning to online connections. And beyond that, connections to people from different backgrounds and locations. I can talk to somebody from the other side of the planet online without effort. We can learn of eachothers' hardships and experiences instantly. I think this got shown very well when rednote happened and American + Chinese teens/young adults mixed together en masse for the first time.
I worry that as a smart person you are too optimistic about what your fellow youths are staring at. TikTok and its copycat short vertical video sites are primarily full of content designed to make you dumber, whether it’s prurient content, simplistic and stupid political/cultural takes, or fads. And it of course comes with a joke of a promise that if you waste your own time making the same garbage, then you too can have a career as an “influencer”! I don’t think any of this is giving the benefits your YouTube viewing has.
I’m sure this is true. Much of millennials, and I mean older and younger, have been starting to hit that inflection point in recent years where we are the leaders in the professional and familial worlds. We’re now sandwiched by adults who are both younger, without kids, and older, aging out. It affords one additional abilities to reflect and sometimes to come to perennial conclusions or faux wisdom; things that we think are now true but have always been (because we all have main character syndrome).
That being said there appears to be a difference in attention spans that I find unnerving, especially as a parent of a Gen Alpha. I could also be suffering the same inability to see my youth through the eyes I have now, but I definitely do not recall the lack of attention that they experience.
Have to remind my 8yo figuring out entertaining yourself (without screens) is something that needs to be practiced. To be fair, I find the modern workplace is just as bad for adults and makes it terribly hard to disconnect. It used to be the case for more tech industries, but with modern tooling it’s gotten worse. The pandemic, with the adoption of remote work apps, really seems to have fueled that one, but it was probably inevitable. In either case, I now have 2 phones so I can at least put the work one away at 5 and shut off.
> The declines cut across attention, memory, literacy, numeracy, executive function, and general IQ.
Problem can be with the tests. Are they testing the correct thing? Are there any increases with other tests? Are there any functions they haven't tested?
Maybe they're faster, quick-thinking multitaskers. Their brains are augmented with always-online smart devices. They have constant access to knowledge and have better educational materials. They must be smart in a new way.
Why “must”? To accept your argument as written, it sounds like you would consider it impossible for the typical intelligence to decline from one point in time to a future point in time.
I tend to believe the argument made in the article because when I see someone young try to fact-find, the effort usually begins and ends with a Google AI overview. They then accept that unilaterally and are incapable of independently analyzing or verifying what it claims. Hell, they don’t even click its meager “citations”!
Multiple studies have found that Gen-Z is more gullible to scams.
All of this points to critical thinking weakness and learned laziness. A belief that everything should be easy and simple. I think it even explains some of their common political beliefs in both parties: absolutist opinions are more popular than ever, rejecting nuance.
The context of what I remember reading, sorry for not providing sources, was that Gen-Y was harder to fool than Gen-X, but that Gen-Z reversed the pattern, since Gen X and Boomers have the most years of experience.
Sure, the data isn't great since they didn't do the same survey 15 years ago, but it would be impossible to really do since the type of scams being run were so different 15 years ago.
Gen-Z just didn't get the advantages we millennials had. We programmed the VCRs or set up the PCs for our parents when we were 10 because we were there when things were pretty simple to understand. Gen-Z were kids when Windows 7 was out. Much tougher to gain mastery over stuff that's so complex. Windows or macOS (or even the fine details of iOS or Android) are to them what the television set itself was to (non-electronics tech) millennials -- something complex that we can only operate but cannot diagnose or understand its function at any deeper level. Functionally equivalent to magic.
This article is a rehash of a New York Post article that quotes Dr. Jared Horvarth who testified before Congress. His testimony [1] references PISA, PIRLS and TIMSS scores.
What if, after few generations we realise that the test system we are using all along to test the intelligence were too technical and didn't consider the actual human intelligence?
P.S. Every generation thinks that next generation is dumber than the previous generation in some area and still we are making progress with every generation.
Can you support that last clause? I havent witnessed “progress” being produced yet by the cohort that grew up with tablets and Chromebooks. And I don’t hate them. I do feel bad for them, though. They didn’t choose their upbringing.
It points to poorly designed and unproven "educational technology," or EdTech as the potential culprit. Rather than suggesting a luddite regression, it merely calls for proving the efficacy of EdTech prior to large rollouts.
Given the "reading wars" dragged on for over a century, I'm not optimistic this will be resolved anytime soon.
I actually took it out of my reply below, but agree that “curriculum format” is much to blame. Thankfully our school district largely did away with screens this year (last year there was a huge parent outcry regarding the policy). They used to do everything on screens, to the point where they had to log into portals at home to play garbage “learning” games. Mind you, I’m talking about grades k-3. It was abhorrent. A lot of that was driven by the curriculum program they adopted from what I understand.
Thankfully they only get 30 min/day on the laptops now. I’m sure the teachers still use their smart screens (considering the chalkboards are covered in static material now), but somehow that seems less bad.
Wow that’s a lot worse than I expected. I’m very fortunate enough to have been able to put my children in a Waldorf school, which is very low tech and embraces the chalkboards heavily.
Indeed - all the graphs in that link show lower test scores for longer "in school cpu use". But the longitudinal comparison (2012-2018) show almost no change (except for zero CPU use, which they didn't really explain.)
The reading wars are a great example of founder effects distorting fields. Early educators supported whole word so it just “stuck” in spite of science and abundant real world evidence.
> proving the efficacy of EdTech prior to large rollouts.
Pretty much everything in education is fad-based, not evidence-based. And what's even more depressing is that the same failed fads, things like open-plan classrooms, keep coming back when the generation that saw them fail the first time retires and a new generation cottons onto the fad.
Outside of non-evidence-based health I can't think of any other field that's so strongly governed by fads.
Some of it seems to be education-related though, and parents had insufficient influence there. The Chromebook generations are just handed a device and told this is how we do school.
But I’m not really sure how much is education and how much is everything else. We don’t have a control group of kids who have EdTech educations but don’t have brains addled by TikTok (etc) into having no attention span and manipulated by algorithms into having whatever beliefs best optimize “engagement.”
Everyone can see that GenZ isn’t all right, everyone knows that children shouldn’t be raised by makeup tutorials, Jake and Logan Paul, and now ChatGPT, but we as a society are doing little to stop it. And what little we do (social media bans for example) are incomplete and have to be questioned on whether they have bad consequences for adult freedom and privacy.
This isn’t directly related to the article but if Jared Cooney Horvath argues that learning “depends on sustained attention and interaction with other people”, where would that place some of the newer schools that rely a lot on AI to teach and hire human guides or coaches instead of teachers?
There are many things to point at and blame without evidence. Is it increased class sizes, or teachers having to move from teaching to managing classrooms, or lack of arithmetic skills built on rote learning of multiplication tables replaced with “methods”, or maybe, just maybe, it’s all the Teletubbies fault.
This article and ones like it will without a doubt be used against all of us Gen Zs to dismiss our opinions and sow hatred, no matter if the person in question is still in high school or pushing 30.
Talking about this in generational terms ("people who were born between years X and Y") and not causal terms ("people who were exposed to this and that type of education") is inflammatory and pins the declining test scores on all young people in general, as if it's their existence that's wrong. The generational divide isn't that good anyway, because one chunk of Gen Z has been exposed to studying in a post-COVID, post-AI world, while another chunk did basically the same thing as the Millennials, just with the internet being widespread.
I don't see a lot of "Gen Z sucks" out there, but there definitely is some. Most of what I see is articles blaming the Boomers for everything, and the Boomers having it easy. But AFAICT, my own Gen X is in a better position than Boomers were. For example, I bought my first house in 2000, so had similar appreciation as the boomers over a much shorter period.
American politics seems to be all about blaming problems on other groups. It's most obvious in the anti-immigration rhetoric, but the generational rhetoric is very similar.
83 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 28.9 ms ] threadA few overwhelmingly smart people who had that as a hobby, and the very sad rest.
the reason it's interesting is that the lack of understanding and skill results in a "bourgeoisie" class in the workforce, and that isn't correlated to skill, amounts of labor or even cognitivity.
This tends to reduce the utilization of 'overwhelmingly' smart people, who are put to crappy tasks just to make money and ends meet.
Tests that legitimately are attempting to measure the thinking skills of individuals aren’t going to see improvements, I predict.
Their early-years and kindergarten teachers and teaching assistants are a bit more likely to be Millennials, and I suspect that is a factor.
If you assume that the slow drift in poor teaching started with Gen X teachers, then what Millennials would have lost first was some of the communication of the the joy of learning and metacognition, which matters when you are the first generation whose attention span is taking a battering.
It is perhaps harder to teach what you had fewer opportunities to learn.
Say "people born between YY and YY" or "people aged between YY and YY" instead.
The same could be said for a lot of other subjects too.
Physical activity/sports has far, far more benefits than just team building and scholarships. Given that a lot of the conversation seems to be implicating screentime in the decline, I'd guess that if we swapped 10% of school screen time for 10% more sports, we'd probably have a better outcome as a society.
I say this as someone who has done lots of computers and screentime my entire life, and very little sport.
I am also a parent of a kid who participated with a soccer club team for many years. She is a multi-sport athlete who loved several sports and we found the club experience in soccer actually quite good for her emotional and physical health. I will say that family experience with club sports varies based on the quality of the organization. She also played with her club in falls and her other sport in the spring at high school, so she got to do both. This was fun for her and us.
Assume a kid just wants to get better at some sport. I'm a player development nerd and believe most kids would be better served with 1-1 training with a much lower time investment that just joining a club or travel team. I do 1-1 sessions with players for 30 minutes 2x/week for 6-8 weeks in the fall. Players, of all natural athletic levels, will make about two years of progress compared to just participating on the spring team. That's with one whole hour of time invested. I love working with players this way because I am measurable-metric driven, so a kid can see their progress. I'm also a little bit qualitative about it too, because sometimes, the goal is just to build confidence and comfort.
The approach I'm describing looks like lots of hobbies. Imagine a kid wants to learn piano or guitar or drums. It's basically the same abstract approach. Work with an experienced teacher, commit to a regular+reasonable practice schedule, repeat for 6-8 weeks, and see if it fits and feels good.
The social aspect of being a good club or travel team is nuanced, but I will just say that my kid was incredibly well-served by having a good group of friends not connected to her school. And she had a great group of friends in school.
While I agree with you, it's so far and away from anything that could actually happen that I despair over what could be done. It seems like my children's schools change their evaluation criteria every other year to some "new" and "evidence-based" criteria. Do the kids do any different work? No. Do that get evaluated by different standards? Not really. I wouldn't call changing "pass" to "meets expectations" and fail to "not on track for success" to be a substantive change. Forcing equilateral, rectilinear wooden dowels into orifices of constant radius doesn't change the fact that we're playing a stupid game.
Hope for grammar is fast fading, anyway.
I don't know if you've met people, but most people are terrible! And now these poor role models are spending extra time with young impressionable minds! /s
We, the older generations, have failed them.
Can you give an example of that?
"Kids These Days" don't even know how to operate a perfectly standard smartphone without help.
actual decline started last century (that's for a hundred).
Older people aren't actually "boomers with everything handed to them", it's just you in 30y - more experience, more depth, and slight drop in cognitivity.
for computer science, I find it interesting that almost every Gen z can use and talk about concepts but does not understand how a computer works (be it transistors, kernel, or memory allocation for example).
With AI we all know this will get worse, and it already does. it's not just the prompting - AIs can and will return information with the upmost confidence, even if wrong. A lot of critical thinking is needed, which cannot be found by re-querying or using a search engine (that does the same thing) - information isn't cognitivity.
There's a lot of nuance to this. They should consider what we're "staring" at. Is it AI slop content like our parents seem to enjoy? Or more than that? Likewise for social media: maybe consider why in a society where it's prohibitively expensive to do anything and there's a loss of third spaces people are turning to online connections. And beyond that, connections to people from different backgrounds and locations. I can talk to somebody from the other side of the planet online without effort. We can learn of eachothers' hardships and experiences instantly. I think this got shown very well when rednote happened and American + Chinese teens/young adults mixed together en masse for the first time.
That being said there appears to be a difference in attention spans that I find unnerving, especially as a parent of a Gen Alpha. I could also be suffering the same inability to see my youth through the eyes I have now, but I definitely do not recall the lack of attention that they experience.
It feels like big tech has leveraged personal mobile devices to monetize the interstitial moments that we used to be bored in.
And this doesn't seem like it's working out well for the next generations' attention spans.
Have to remind my 8yo figuring out entertaining yourself (without screens) is something that needs to be practiced. To be fair, I find the modern workplace is just as bad for adults and makes it terribly hard to disconnect. It used to be the case for more tech industries, but with modern tooling it’s gotten worse. The pandemic, with the adoption of remote work apps, really seems to have fueled that one, but it was probably inevitable. In either case, I now have 2 phones so I can at least put the work one away at 5 and shut off.
I would argue that its a function of raw effort in varying domains.
Problem can be with the tests. Are they testing the correct thing? Are there any increases with other tests? Are there any functions they haven't tested?
Maybe they're faster, quick-thinking multitaskers. Their brains are augmented with always-online smart devices. They have constant access to knowledge and have better educational materials. They must be smart in a new way.
I tend to believe the argument made in the article because when I see someone young try to fact-find, the effort usually begins and ends with a Google AI overview. They then accept that unilaterally and are incapable of independently analyzing or verifying what it claims. Hell, they don’t even click its meager “citations”!
Multiple studies have found that Gen-Z is more gullible to scams.
All of this points to critical thinking weakness and learned laziness. A belief that everything should be easy and simple. I think it even explains some of their common political beliefs in both parties: absolutist opinions are more popular than ever, rejecting nuance.
Could it not be that they're, I don't know, generally younger? And have less experience?
Sure, the data isn't great since they didn't do the same survey 15 years ago, but it would be impossible to really do since the type of scams being run were so different 15 years ago.
Gen-Z just didn't get the advantages we millennials had. We programmed the VCRs or set up the PCs for our parents when we were 10 because we were there when things were pretty simple to understand. Gen-Z were kids when Windows 7 was out. Much tougher to gain mastery over stuff that's so complex. Windows or macOS (or even the fine details of iOS or Android) are to them what the television set itself was to (non-electronics tech) millennials -- something complex that we can only operate but cannot diagnose or understand its function at any deeper level. Functionally equivalent to magic.
[1] Written Testimony, Dr. Jared Cooney Horvath, PhD, MEd, Neuroscientist and Educator Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation https://www.commerce.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/media/doc...
P.S. Every generation thinks that next generation is dumber than the previous generation in some area and still we are making progress with every generation.
https://www.commerce.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/media/doc...
It points to poorly designed and unproven "educational technology," or EdTech as the potential culprit. Rather than suggesting a luddite regression, it merely calls for proving the efficacy of EdTech prior to large rollouts.
Given the "reading wars" dragged on for over a century, I'm not optimistic this will be resolved anytime soon.
https://www.lexialearning.com/blog/the-science-of-reading-vs...
Thankfully they only get 30 min/day on the laptops now. I’m sure the teachers still use their smart screens (considering the chalkboards are covered in static material now), but somehow that seems less bad.
This link shows the longitudinal drop in 2022 for the US - almost assuredly pandemic related https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=38. Otherwise the scores are higher than ever.
Pretty much everything in education is fad-based, not evidence-based. And what's even more depressing is that the same failed fads, things like open-plan classrooms, keep coming back when the generation that saw them fail the first time retires and a new generation cottons onto the fad.
Outside of non-evidence-based health I can't think of any other field that's so strongly governed by fads.
But I’m not really sure how much is education and how much is everything else. We don’t have a control group of kids who have EdTech educations but don’t have brains addled by TikTok (etc) into having no attention span and manipulated by algorithms into having whatever beliefs best optimize “engagement.”
Everyone can see that GenZ isn’t all right, everyone knows that children shouldn’t be raised by makeup tutorials, Jake and Logan Paul, and now ChatGPT, but we as a society are doing little to stop it. And what little we do (social media bans for example) are incomplete and have to be questioned on whether they have bad consequences for adult freedom and privacy.
Talking about this in generational terms ("people who were born between years X and Y") and not causal terms ("people who were exposed to this and that type of education") is inflammatory and pins the declining test scores on all young people in general, as if it's their existence that's wrong. The generational divide isn't that good anyway, because one chunk of Gen Z has been exposed to studying in a post-COVID, post-AI world, while another chunk did basically the same thing as the Millennials, just with the internet being widespread.
American politics seems to be all about blaming problems on other groups. It's most obvious in the anti-immigration rhetoric, but the generational rhetoric is very similar.
Discussion at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46947424