Suomalaisen Päiväkirja

[7Wannabe5]

It's almost like ... we're the same species.

Yeah, I'm the one who is currently more in the pondering agency space. Oddly, this is true even though on day-to-day basis I'm actually pretty happy with my current lifestyle, which is towards the puttering-about opposite of stressful. It's just interesting to me that at this juncture in my life narrative, I can literally put myself to sleep at night by attempting to "big picture" my life in the future, because I am drawing such a total blank. Although, this is also not to imply that I have lost my eNTP with ADD capability to brainstorm up a jillion possible interesting projects and pathways. However, this might be due to the fact that I am more engaged with "interesting" than "great" or "ideal." Like, if I were to pull the handle on the slot machine dealing up my future, I would rather have it come up Cherry/Apple/Strange-Fruit-Entirely-Unexpected than Cherry/Cherry/Cherry. So, I am a bit bothered by my perception of my own predictability.

Despite my belief that we do not have free-will, I believe there are good reasons to act as if we do.

This is why I come out so strongly against disempowering beliefs. "Whether you think you can or you think you can't, you're right." People who think they can't do things that they can do, just need to have their neurons changed.

Yay! Now we are on enough of the same page that I can better explain what I am about. I also agree that there are good reasons to act as if we do believe in free-will, as well as some good reasons to act as though we do not. Empathy or compassion being the good reasons to act as though we do not, and the avoidance of nihilistic depression and/or the maintenance of vivacity being the good reason to act as though we do.

Maybe the main difference in our perspective is that I think it is a few more levels more complex than "just do it" , although I also do believe that environment (very broadly concieved) and genetics (understood to be greatly complex) can influence behavior (also very broadly conceived) can influence chemicals (also understood to be greatly complex and obviously inclusive of sex hormones) can influence neuronal arrangements (also understood to be greatly complex) and this chain can be sub-chained and caused to flow in different manners than those that are most typical.

I see the MBTI as sort of a map of where you are likely to find yourself if parked in neutral in neutral environment, and I see the MBTI model as a very rough, waaaaaay too basic, sort of recipe book for what you might choose to do if you want to be able to "perform" somewhat differently. For example, if I wanted to improve my emotional functioning, it would make the most sense for me to consider the behavior of the "type" that is most like my type except for the one changed variable of improved emotional functioning. It wouldn't make sense to attempt to immediately radically change myself towards one of the highest emotional functioning types which also varies in other characteristics.

However, I also agree with Jacob's take that sometimes some variations on this kind of transformation are not easy to the point of "unlikely to be accomplished under the constraints of within this lifetime." For example, I truly wish that I could be a very good singer like many other humans in my family and social circle, but as my DD33 "kindly" reminded me recently, I am approximately at the fifth (or worse!) percentile of inability to reproduce tones/notes through the utilization of my vocal cords. It would probably take years of diligent training just to get myself to the level of "people don't head directly for the exit of the karaoke bar" when I make an attempt at "Hotel California." And this also holds true for some innate characteristics/abilities related more to temperament. The caveat here being that accepting one's limitations is not an excuse for entirely abandoning potentially rewarding environments or opportunities. For example, maybe, just maybe, I do have enough rhythmic potential to play the tambourine. And even somebody who is quite introverted could potentially find a social role to inhabit in party situations if they were essential to, for example, gaining access to scientific equipment. IOW, innate tendencies to not necessarily pose complete limitations to getting what you want.

There are even means by which any human can change their tendencies in term of wanting what they want, although this may feel more "alien" depending upon factors contributing to sense of self. For simple example, testosterone supplementation and/or engaging in behaviors/situations known to boost testosterone levels will generally tend towards making a human feel more sexual and also want more sexual activity. Smoking old school pot often tends to make humans want food more strongly. Taking amphetamines makes humans want food less strongly and want to move or work more strongly. Strength training tends to increase testosterone levels and taking amphetamines might increase desire to engage in strength training behavior. etc.etc. etc. Obviously, many of these possibilities I have listed are not the most "healthy" or "natural" approach to change, but due to overt dosing being measurable, it is easier to see their short-term efficacy.

Another very simple example would be that I have done genetic testing that indicates that I inherited the maximum preference for sweet tasting food from both my father AND my mother. Out of the approximately 50 traits for which I have genetic results, this is the trait for which I have the maximum tendency. Luckily, and perhaps not coincidentally, I have no tendency towards diabetes or related metabolic syndromes, and neither does anybody else in my family. Therefore, my personal rational approach towards losing weight if that is something I wanted would follow a different pattern or "recipe" than that of many other humans, because I will never not want sweet food no matter how long I brute force diets excluding sweet food, but I can successfully substitute hard candy or seafood or fruit for mega-muffins loaded with kcals which I might mindlessly consume when all I really want is the crunchy sugar top. Similarly, although a much more complex matter, the fact that my genetic analysis indicates near maximum Competitiveness combined with near minimum Ambition (what??) would likely contribute to a more "eccentric" career or accomplishment path than many other humans. IOW, the more information I obtain, the more predictable my path becomes, but also the better my ability to tweak (not radically alter!) it becomes. I believe that when humans do exhibit radical change, this is likely due to previously having been confined to an inhibiting environment which limited growth and expression. I don't think lack of belief in ability to effect radical change is very contributory to inability to effect radical change, although it certainly may be contributory to inability to effect minor or even moderate change from one's own basis.

[jacob]

Maybe the main difference in our perspective is that I think it is a few more levels more complex than "just do it" , although I also do believe that environment (very broadly concieved) and genetics (understood to be greatly complex) can influence behavior (also very broadly conceived) can influence chemicals (also understood to be greatly complex and obviously inclusive of sex hormones) can influence neuronal arrangements (also understood to be greatly complex) and this chain can be sub-chained and caused to flow in different manners than those that are most typical.

There's a certain blind men and the elephant debate for these discussions because we focus on different things.

This review article provides a good overview: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-019-0621-4

We have personality = temperament (aka disposition) + character = state + traits, but we often talk about just one of those components as if it was the whole personality.

Temperament or disposition is genetic or nature. This can be measured by blood tests and persists through one's lifetime. There's no way to change one's DNA. This component explains whether one is disposed to be overstimulated (introvert) or understimulated (extrovert). Also dispositions towards things like the marshmallow test, etc. All this is independent of culture or [life] experience.

Character is what we learn and what kind of values we adopt and thus what kind of choices we make for whatever reason. For example, Americans are told that being outgoing is good, whereas Finns are expected to only yap when they have something to say. This influences what people practice (or train) and what "goals" they set and thus what kind of personality they form. There may be satisfaction in achieving goals and there is a definite difference in training results. However, the internal reward circuits remain unchanged. This means that a given behavior will be more satisfying to some than others. (Even someone with a sweet tooth can get ripped but getting ripped will not come as natural to someone who doesn't care much for food.)

Basically, character is something the brain can learn cf. playing basketball. Disposition is something the brain is cf. not being able to change one's height. Fun fact: Self-transcendence is also a disposition in the sense that some are more disposed to seek it than others. IOW, they have more control over their character development than others.

State and trait is another way of factoring one's personality. State refers to the degree of temporary emotional responses to a given situation. For example, how anxious or uncomfortable someone feels in a threatening situation or how happy they feel in a rewarding situation. Obviously mastering a situation will decrease state anxiety for that particular situation. Trait is more innate. For example, some people are just innately more anxious than others (nervous nellies) and some are just more conscientious (it comes easier to them) and those are trait components.

So, sure there is free will but for a given challenge, some will be playing on easy-mode and some will be playing on hard-mode. Now, knowing this one can make more deliberate decisions about how to form one's character around one's disposition in order to form a personality appropriate for the states one chooses to expose oneself to. To some degree this is like picking a career. You can go with your innate talents ... or you can go with what there's demand for in the environment ... or you can go for a combination of both.

[7Wannabe5]

We have personality = temperament (aka disposition) + character = state + traits, but we often talk about just one of those components as if it was the whole personality.

Absolutely true. However, some confusion may result from multiple meanings/usages of the word "character." So, "characteristics" might be better used to avoid confusion with "character" = "consistency of characteristics" which is actually almost certainly largely an aspect of temperament and/or "character" = "exhibition of traits in alignment with accepted social/cultural values." . As in, an ENTP, such as Saul Goodman (of Better Call Saul) or Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man, is a type likely to exhibit varying characteristics (or the generalist ability to don many costumes and wear many different hats), unlike Ike Eishenhower or John Wayne, being XSTJ soldier-salary-man types, who exhibited more of the solid character often found to be sorely lacking in the youth of today.

For example, although I am genetically pretty damn low in leadership state-tendencies, I do display some characteristics or traits superficially or short-term associated with leadership, due to being tall, first-born, intelligent, American, and verbally energetic. However, in any situation approaching the long-term, I am exhausted by being the leader, like those who tend towards introversion are exhausted by social interaction. So, for example, I like teaching situations in which I am partnered (not supervised!) with even an idiotic Bad Cop type who enjoys and is energized by maintaining social order but is maybe incapable of teaching even 8th grade math, so inclined to provide me with boundary defined by respect within that context. This is also the rough basis for most Cute-for-a-Nerd/ Smart-for-a-Jock couplings.

[jacob]

Absolutely true. However, some confusion may result from multiple meanings/usages of the word "character." So, "characteristics" might be better used to avoid confusion with "character" = "consistency of characteristics" which is actually almost certainly largely an aspect of temperament and/or "character" = "exhibition of traits in alignment with accepted social/cultural values." .

Uh oh. Dictionary definitions. Lets stick with the vernacular, eh?

Within the psychological field, "character" is essentially your moral and social values that is beliefs about how one (I) ought to behave in a given situation.

"Personality" is how these choices are expressed.

It might be easier to see the difference if we set up a conflicting situation. For example, Bob is an introvert (disposition) but growing up in the US, Bob understands that he ought to act in gregarious and outgoing fashion and so Bob makes a virtue out of pushing his comfort zones in order to fit and meet his own expectations for success (character). However, Bob doesn't completely manage to hide his exhaustion or lack of patience with other people, so he often comes across as insincere and trying too hard (personality). Next example, Ann is gay (disposition) but grew up in a strongly traditional culture (SD:blue) that considers homosexuality sinful. Ann makes a virtue out of repressing her real preferences (character) and is thus sad about her life (personality).

When therapists talk about "trauma", it's often because character and disposition are out of whack: People believing they should be someone they're really not, that is, a belief that one ought to want something that one doesn't really feel for.

[7Wannabe5]

@jacob:

I grok this, but would note that from my perspective and understanding that which you describe as "character" can almost completely be deconstructd with age or experience. IOW, that which you are positing as 'character" is largely what you "transcend and include" as you develop as an adult along many of the often here mentioned hierarchies. For simple example, if you comprehend appropriate behavior in U.S. and Denmark, you can freely choose to exhibit it or not exhibit it in alignment with your own self-interest or self-aware-self-care or purpose or desire to care for others at maybe around Level Orange/Green/Yellow.

OTOH, there is also a general tendency to give less of a shit as you get older that may not necessarily be reflective of higher level development. For example, senior citizens who know they shouldn't pretend like they didn't notice that some of their items didn't actually scan at the self-checkout, but do it anyways. Or how I believe that I should put on a bra before I go down the hall to the laundryroom, but sometimes I don't, and this is not necessarily reflective of my innate genetic tendency towards being somebody who wouldn't mind living in a nudist colony except for the problems with poison ivy, etc. IOW, I am just being lazy as opposed to finally letting my freak flag fly. Whereas, engaging in the practice of polyamory is more towards finally letting my freak flag fly, although still not quite a perfect fit.

[jacob]

I grok this, but would note that from my perspective and understanding that which you describe as "character" can almost completely be deconstructd with age or experience. IOW, that which you are positing as 'character" is largely what you "transcend and include" as you develop as an adult along many of the often here mentioned hierarchies.

Yes. That is what I was saying or trying to say. Character is what one is "building". E.g. a morally strong character, a helpful one, a pushover, etc. In terms of capacity for self-transcendence some people keep building/changing their character over a lifetime, whereas others are still "a young girl/boy on the inside" with the same morality/reasoning skills of their 14-16 year old self.

Character is also what becomes "destiny" in the long run. I think eneagrams capture/describe character-types whereas MBTI capture/describe disposition-types. Since there's a tendency for disposition to influence (the direction of building one's) character, there's some correlation between the two.

Add: For example, ERE1 per se is a character-building system that is appealing to INTJ, INTP, ETNP, ENTJ, INFJ, and ISTJ dispositions (not to be exclusive, but we rarely see anyone else around here) and roughly proceeds along the ERE WLs in terms of development.

[7Wannabe5]

I think eneagrams capture/describe character-types whereas MBTI capture/describe disposition-types. Since there's a tendency for disposition to influence (the direction of building one's) character, there's some correlation between the two.

I see the types themselves as moderately overlapping*, although the general Enneagram model does include more "character building" suggestions and the MBTI model does break-down and order the "humours" more distinctly. I also sometimes find it easier to apply the Enneagram model to humans I know well, because its lack of specifity stretches better to encompass the wider variety of potentialities we can recognize in those we know well. Although, this might just be towards saving myself the trouble of splitting the difference between the 5^5 different MBTI possibilities available given option of lower-case for lower tendency and X for neutral tendency and addition of A/T for assertive/turbulent; so I just want to wave my hand and say, "Helper-on-cusp-of-Achiever-ish, and exhibiting development towards Artist."

*Maybe because the similar naming conventions suggest this? ENTP is The Visionary in Jessica Butts verions of MBTI car model, and Type 7 is The Enthusiast in Riso's version of the Enneagram model. ESTP-The Doer, ESFP-The Performer, ENFJ-The Giver, ENFP-The Inspirer, and ENTJ-The Executive may all also have some tendency towards testing as Type 7- The Enthusiast. Since I am towards neutral in extraversion, The Visionary or The Visionary towards INTP-The Thinker identifies my tendencies better than the overall Enthusiast grouping which contains many individuals who are much more inclined towards literally swinging from the chandelier than is my tendency. For example, my youngest sister is almost like a tiny version of me costumed like a 12 year old hipster boy with a MUCH more tightly wound spring, so much more physically and socially manifesting Type 7- Enthusiast/Explorer than my tendency. So, while I have maybe vaguely and cheerfully wound my way to stand in front of the New Titles shelf at the local library and responded to a text message from a G.O.M., she has hopped from London to Costa Rica while making out with a former member of Bikini Kill, designing a t-shirt, planning a party, and clocking 60 hours with her NYC law firm. I just hostessed her for a week, and it was exhausting for me to even make token attempt to keep up with her. So, maybe I am agreeing with you?

For example, ERE1 per se is a character-building system that is appealing to INTJ, INTP, ETNP, ENTJ, INFJ, and ISTJ dispositions (not to be exclusive, but we rarely see anyone else around here) and roughly proceeds along the ERE WLs in terms of development.

I believe that ENFP and INFP types are also somewhat well represented on this forum, and let's not forget Henry. Basically, ERE appeals on some level or line to full range of rational types, many idealist types, and also ISTJ because so close to INTJ. ESFJ- The Caregiver and ISFJ-The Nurturer maybe least likely types to land here (or maybe most likely type to flee quickly if they did land here.)

It's quite clear that my lack of innate J or Te is primary to the lack of appeal of some aspects of ERE1 for me as eNtP-A. However, this may be in part due to some not thoroughly deconstructed cultural gender training, because adopting a more J character or Te behavior set strikes me as becoming too adult masculine in my functioning in a repulsive way. Like I don't want to do it for the same reason I don't want to grow a beard or a penis or wear a padded shoulder power pants suit in a cold sterile metal penthouse (blech!)

[suomalainen]

I don't have the bandwidth to think about, let alone respond to, the responses above (which didn't require my participation anyway!), so I'll brain dump a few things that have been bouncing around up there that don't require nearly as much processing power. Maybe I'll return to solving free will in my retirement.

When you open up firefox, you get a bunch of suggested links. A few days ago, there was one about Arnold Schwarzenegger says a happy life boils down to four words, which, spoiler alert, are Stay Busy. Be Useful. I like this. It touches upon the idea of a web of pleasant distractions or engagements, if you prefer, without getting too mired in detail. Similarly, it adds a dimension of sociability and purpose that is perhaps a bit less ambitious (and less prone to disappointment and burnout) than making a difference that makes a difference.

***

In sort of that vein, @ertyu challenged me over a year ago to consider why this happens to me:

This want -> do -> should transition still happens to me and I experience it as quite distressing, but now that I'm more aware of this happening, I've been working hard to consciously let it go when the feeling arises.

It's been quite busy at work for over 4 months and it's to the point where I can't ever get ahead of my to-do list. It just sits there. So this started to drive me nuts:

Put these two things together, and I need to get things done quickly and efficiently so I can cross them off my list and not have this list of obligations hanging over my head.

And one day, I just realized: stop trying to get stuff done and cross it off your list. Accept that every day you have stuff you'll need to do and you'll just work on it. This change from ... accomplishment to process, is a theme that has come up in this journal quite often. But I feel like I'm finally implementing it, and it has been for the better. Now, I just work and take breaks as I need to and stuff naturally gets done, but I'm not trying to be *finished*, cuz I'll never be finished. I'll just get some stuff done, knowing that more stuff will be there tomorrow. This is great retirement practice, as I know that I won't be "done" when I can retire. Something will come up that will need to be dealt with.

Also, funny enough, a pattern I find useful to adopt when I have to work on something I don't want to work on: I set the timer on my work phone for 10 minutes, and I work until the ringer goes off. I set the timer for 5 minutes, and I walk in circles around the house/condo until the ringer goes off. Rinse and repeat. Works like a charm.

***

In June, I quit alcohol. I replaced it with soda and candy. In August, I quite caffeinated soda. I stress eat / drink. So, my weight didn't come down when I quit. I wrote earlier in this journal about CICO being a basic thermodynamic equation, and I've thought and read a lot more about it since then. While nutrition "science" is not quite as clear-cut as other sciences, it does seem some themes are becoming more and more clear. The one relevant to me is this idea that the problem with the modern diet or the SAD is a combination of calorie density and hyperpalatability. It seems the former is more important than the latter, but individual variations are such that generalizations are hard. What it means for me is basically candy. Chocolate to be specific. And cheese. And the cheese delivery mechanism known colloquially as "bread". I can eat these two things in giant quantities and still want more. The funny thing is that I can *feel* my body disliking the effects they have on me as I'm eating them. The difference to when I'm avoiding those foods and eating more vegetables is stark. So, I've now cut out candy. We'll see how long it lasts. But it feels good, a week in. The cravings the first day were brutal, but another thing I came across is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LUm51Z-Ii0 in which Nikki Glaser talks about quitting alcohol by reading a book. The thing that caught my attention was

(starting at 3:08) we've been brainwashed by tobacco and alcohol industries to believe that quitting is really hard. and quitting alcohol is hard if you have an addiction, you can like die from it obviously, but with tobacco it's part of their propaganda to tell you that it's hard to quit smoking. they are the ones pushing that message which seems like why would they tell people it's hard? but they're doing that because if it's hard you won't quit so that has been their message to be like it's so hard to quit smoking it's so hard, when really it's not. you know the withdrawal symptoms of not smoking lasts up to two weeks I think it's less than I think it's like seven to 11 days and the discomfort caused by wanting a cigarette is the same discomfort as being a little bit hungry you're a little bit annoyed it's like it's not insurmountable it's it's uncomfortable but it's it passes after seven to eleven days I think it is and then it's all even when you're going through it it's not that bad but it's it's the psychological effect of thinking it's hard that makes it then hard.

That really resonated with me because that was my experience with first alcohol, then coke (the caffeinated soda), then sugar. A few uncomfortable days and then it's over.

***

In connection with my attempt at better eating (by cutting out candy), I've been lifting light - just one set of 10-20 reps of various push/pull movements. I'm not really attempting to get swol, just trying to add a bit of joint strength to establish habits for long-term mobility. This also feels good. It's just enough to feel like you've done something, but never so much that you're noticeably sore even the next day, let alone for multiple days.

[Western Red Cedar]

A few days ago, there was one about Arnold Schwarzenegger says a happy life boils down to four words, which, spoiler alert, are Stay Busy. Be Useful. I like this. It touches upon the idea of a web of pleasant distractions or engagements, if you prefer, without getting too mired in detail. Similarly, it adds a dimension of sociability and purpose that is perhaps a bit less ambitious (and less prone to disappointment and burnout) than making a difference that makes a difference.

I really like the framework of staying busy and being useful. It pairs well with the notion that mood follows action, which I've found true in my personal experience.

Netflix has a three part documentary on Arnold that accompanied the release of his book. It was really well-done and worth checking out. He also did a round of podcasts discussing his book and ideas a couple years ago. I don't get the impression that you are swimming in free time, but something to add to the "someday" list.

[Mousse]

And one day, I just realized: stop trying to get stuff done and cross it off your list. Accept that every day you have stuff you'll need to do and you'll just work on it. This change from ... accomplishment to process, is a theme that has come up in this journal quite often. But I feel like I'm finally implementing it, and it has been for the better. Now, I just work and take breaks as I need to and stuff naturally gets done, but I'm not trying to be *finished*, cuz I'll never be finished. I'll just get some stuff done, knowing that more stuff will be there tomorrow. This is great retirement practice, as I know that I won't be "done" when I can retire. Something will come up that will need to be dealt with.

I don't know if you read "Four Thousand Weeks" but parts of it explore this topic further in ways you might find interesting (or very annoying, who knows ). I enjoyed reflections like time is not something you "have", it's something you "are" because life is a series of moments. There's a lot around the futility of trying to get everything done before you can finally relax or start living your "actual" life.

I do remember you saying you have very little personal time in a week, so yeah the "Someday" list if that sounds interesting I suppose!

I'll add "Stay busy. Be useful." to my list of thoughts to consider as well, I also like it a lot. It's to the point without overwhelming ambition or pressure (which I don't personally find helpful).

[ertyu]

the change from accomplishment to process is part of the deinstitutionalization of oneself that people find they need do when they stop working that gets talked about here every now and then. The result-oriented output-per-unit-time is very much a capitalist, efficiency-oriented, profit-motive driven mindset, whether it is in the factory where more widgets per hour means less worker cost per widget and higher profits, or in a white-collar environment where the machine still needs to tick and cogs still need to feed deliverables to each other for the wheels to keep turning.

[AxelHeyst]

And one day, I just realized: stop trying to get stuff done and cross it off your list. Accept that every day you have stuff you'll need to do and you'll just work on it. This change from ... accomplishment to process, is a theme that has come up in this journal quite often. But I feel like I'm finally implementing it, and it has been for the better. Now, I just work and take breaks as I need to and stuff naturally gets done, but I'm not trying to be *finished*, cuz I'll never be finished. I'll just get some stuff done, knowing that more stuff will be there tomorrow. This is great retirement practice, as I know that I won't be "done" when I can retire. Something will come up that will need to be dealt with.

I've been following your thread about this with interest as I try to crack a similar nut. I realized I was deferring living my life to the far side of FI (I'll be able to do all the things I want to do when I $X) and had absolutely zero excuse to not be living an ideal version of my life literally today. I also noticed how I was setting myself up for failure when doing visioning exercises or lifestyle-centric planning: I was implicitly asking myself questions like "what do I need to be happy?" and "what will I do when X?", questions that assumed I didn't already have all of the resources I needed to exist in a state of sufficiency. The answers to these questions had the shape of "I'll be in X environment (which I don't have right now), my bank account will be Y, my relationships will look like Z," etc.

I've started asking myself questions like "How can I approach this day and this week so that it's the ideal version of this day and this week in terms of the things I care about?" and I got answers like "Sleep well, eat clean, exercise hard, ignore bullshit, be industrious but structured in my work so it doesn't smear into too much of the rest of my hours, engage in creative self-expression, read, be compassionate and treat others with kindness, have courage and integrity, ..."

--

I'd tweak the Arnold advice to "Stay engaged, be useful" because at least for me 'busy' has negative associations with overwork, false urgency, freneticism, hyperactivity with low effectiveness, etc.

[7Wannabe5]

I agree that it is very important to become present to the possibility of living your ideal life today. IME process vs. project is related to whether you are currently tilting off of flow towards anxiety or boredom, and meta to this would be your general tendency to tilt more one way or the other plus some context. For obvious example, if your preference is towards novelty, variety, change, or the interesting, then your Ideal Day/Life will include a mechanism for shaking things up. If you are indulging in chocolate and cheese, commonality being high fat sedation, then you probably want to chill out more towards process and fish oil capsules.

[Henry]

I believe that ENFP and INFP types are also somewhat well represented on this forum, and let's not forget Henry.

I gave in and took an on-line MBTI test. It came back INTP-T. My turbulence was in the red zone and said it can stoke negativity. So obviously this fucking test is two leprosy sized balls of bullshit.

[suomalainen]

Counterpoint:

Pre-retirees more often plan to spend their free time traveling (79%), exercising (71%) and spending time with loved ones (71%), while those that have reached retirement list watching TV as their top activity (83%).

https://www.massmutual.com/global/media ... _study.pdf

In the similar vein of TV-time being the top activity, my high-school senior has the easiest classload one could imagine. He plans on taking a "gap year" and I'm making him do some research on his options (work, school, work/school; in the US vs in Finland). He recently made a comment to someone that "my dad is pressuring me to get a job" and when he made that comment, I was like, "What are you waiting for? You're 18. Your life has already started. Why wouldn't you get a job now?" I could not wait to get a job and get some money and move out of the house and start my own life. I spent one summer at home after I started college. After turning 19, the most I've ever spent with my parents was one week at a time. Get out. Go. Live. Henry's ambo is coming for you soon enough.

[delay]

Thanks for sharing the research on what retirees actually do! Matches what I hear from old retirees. When you get older your world shrinks. You enjoy getting up and doing routines. The older you get the less well you deal with change.

In the similar vein of TV-time being the top activity, my high-school senior has the easiest classload one could imagine. He plans on taking a "gap year" and I'm making him do some research on his options (work, school, work/school; in the US vs in Finland). He recently made a comment to someone that "my dad is pressuring me to get a job" and when he made that comment, I was like, "What are you waiting for? You're 18. Your life has already started. Why wouldn't you get a job now?" I could not wait to get a job and get some money and move out of the house and start my own life. I spent one summer at home after I started college. After turning 19, the most I've ever spent with my parents was one week at a time. Get out. Go. Live. Henry's ambo is coming for you soon enough.

It seems the times are changing and young people have less freedom. In a way freedom is the opposite of safety. There are 14 year olds who have not spend an hour without adult supervision. You write that you are "making him do some research", which can be read as a sign your son is not as free as you once were.

The cost/reward balance of work may be different. Perhaps a youth who works can afford less additional things than they used to. Or perhaps the youth do not desire material things as much as the older generation. The increased rents mean moving out requires a larger number-of-hours-worked-per-week commitment, or it may not work at all.

Maybe the jobs that youths used to do, like filling grocery shelves, cleaning cars, delivering newspapers are not as readily available. Much is displaced by the internet, outsourced to immigrants, or looked down upon. Working in an Amazon warehouse is a full time, demanding and draining job. The present idea of a successful career is a degree, an unpaid internship and then a high potential job. I wonder if there are statistics on the percentage of teenagers who work.

Or perhaps this is overthinking it. A Roman author described the youth of his time as listless and lacking motivation. Being as wealthy as the Romans does not only have upsides!

[7Wannabe5]

"What are you waiting for? You're 18. Your life has already started. Why wouldn't you get a job now?" I could not wait to get a job and get some money and move out of the house and start my own life. I spent one summer at home after I started college. After turning 19, the most I've ever spent with my parents was one week at a time. Get out. Go. Live. Henry's ambo is coming for you soon enough.

It's not just your kid. It's a generational trend that is now well documented. Technology has been increasing the trend towards individuation and longer life spans for many generations. People are also having fewer or no children, and this also increases the number of years spent in adulthood. Average educational level continues to increase; number of Millennials with college degree is much higher than number of Gen X with college degree.

These trends result in stretching out the years spent in all phases of life including childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood (phase prior to marriage/having children.) Gen X was an exception to the rule, due to the happenstance of some trends like divorce and women joining the workforce in droves occurring in our childhood. The result was that Gen X actually had a shorter childhood (end marked by median age of first sexual experience) than the Boomers, but a longer adolescence/young adulthood (end marked by median age of becoming a parent.) The Millennial generation corrected back to the overall trend, so had much longer childhood and somewhat longer adolescence/young adulthood than Gen X, and Gen Z is simply continuing to stretch this period out even longer.

Realistically, you should expect some of your children to still be somewhat financially dependent upon you until around age 30, basically you are somewhat on the hook through grad school and a few years of self-reflection. If you toss them out to work not-yet-fully-educated at age 19, they will not be with members of their upper-middle-middle-class peer group. Based on my nieces and nephews, their peer group if not in college will be doing something like Dance Troupe internship in Chicago, living on a sailboat and working on permaculture project in Panama, or backpacking in Europe. If you choose not to provide them with financial support now deemed appropriate for their peer group, the tendency will be for your sons to stay stuck in low-paid positions (because 19 will be more the adolescent clique formation age for them, their manager at Denny's will introduce them to cocaine and the motel where the recently immigrated prostitutes live) and for your daughters to shack up with older French trust-fund men who own sailboats or Vegas based hip-hop video producers.

[chenda]

I came across some astounding facts a few weeks ago which said in 1975 over a quarter (28%) of all women in England and Wales were married by the age of 20, over three quarters (77%) were married by the age of 25, and more than 9 in 10 (91%) were married by the age of 30.

Obviously cohabiting partially explains this but I find it absolutely mind-blowing how young married couplings were. Today less than a third of women have ever been married by the age of 30.

[Henry]

Based on childbirth rates, it won't be an issue that there are no letters past Z to describe generations.

[jacob]

Based on childbirth rates, it won't be an issue that there are no letters past Z to describe generations.

There's an entire Greek alphabet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Alpha