"I don't think it's a problem with a lack of empathy, but a different style," Dr. Rosen said in an interview. "We have to think of empathy as a continuum. The experience that we hear from kids and young adults is they do feel like they're being empathetic."

Okay, so we change the definition of "empathy" to include what the doer "feels like" and to encompass "style".

No wonder this generation is so over-the-top emotional and confident that they are "right". Their definition of "whatever" is always spot-on.

Yeah, I wonder about the study's methodology too. This is one of the difficult things about social sciences; good quality data is hard to get and results frequently turn out to be non-reproducible.

Is there sloppy work in psychology? Sure there is, just like there is in the lube job industry.

But every lay person is grabbing on to this like a rat on driftwood, citing it as reason to pooh-pooh every finding. Sure, some findings are not based on solid science.

But here's Lisa Feldman Barrett, making some good points:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/opinion/psychology-is-not-in-crisis.html

The problem, in sociology and psychology, is the near-impossibility of isolating a SINGLE variable.

That, and control groups. . .

What can I say Bob, it's how we were raised. The meme of a teacher saying 'I like it when my students have a strong opinion . . . as long as it's my opinion' is spot on. Also, once you've done away with objective truth anything goes. Everything is a continuum. No matter how nonsensical. How banana is your toaster. Is it more or less banana than your hat. And remember the absence of a hat is still a hat. Why should specific wavelengths of light have specific names? The sky is a beautiful spaghetti today.

Back in reality land technology doesn't make anyone more or less empathetic. But it can give you a platform to shout out just how big of a douchenozzle you always were. The same is true of the millennials stories. We've always had whinny drama queens. Maybe if people stopped enabling them we would have fewer.

Speaking of whiny drama types...

I should probably take the opportunity to point out a serious flaw in my otherwise-favorite therapist/columnist.

"Transgender tales from the Twilight Zone"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/28/transgender-tales-twilight-zone/?page=all

(I can't copy/paste any of it, unfortunately. What's also odd is that while I found pre-2010 columns of his in the WT, I couldn't find more recent ones in the WT - except this one, even though he's syndicated.)

It's about his opposition to transgender surgery and those who support transgenderism - and those who support gay marriage.

I WILL say he makes good points in the first half - in paragraphs 4, 5, and 7. Sadly, he makes jaw-droppingly awful arguments in the second half - in paragraphs 10, 11, and 12. They remind me of Rick Santorum's analogies. Also, since when is a compulsion to murder on the same level as a desire to share love with a consenting adult?

Not to mention that if people like him want to cut down on the rate of transgender surgery, it doesn't occur to him that his obvious homophobia just MIGHT be part of the problem when it comes to those who can't/won't settle for being androgynous or gay. (Though it IS odd that, as more and more people are slowly finding ways to break away from stereotypes and live outside of sex roles, transgender surgery is going way up. As a well-known feminist wrote in 1977: "If the shoe doesn't fit, must we change the foot?")

Finally:

Normally I like him because he does a pretty good job of blending the old and the new child-rearing methods. Trouble is:

1. He's pretty prejudiced in favor of "Judeo-Christian values." Luckily, he doesn't push people to be religious most of the time.

2. He never talks about the need to give hugs or say "I love you" at least once a week.

3. He never talks about teaching kids to stand up to adults who are just plain nasty, manipulative, or vicious - so long as the adults are not doing anything criminal. (My guess is he thinks kids are TOO good at demanding their rights already, thanks to helicopter parents.)

4. He seldom ventures out of his comfort zone; any problem that doesn't fit into one of about six categories of his choosing simply gets ignored. (Such as what to do when your teen daughter gives birth and refuses to consider adoption.)

So now, sadly, I have another reason to quote him to friends only when I can get away with not revealing the source.

To clarify: In point 4 at the bottom, I meant "he almost never talks about really hard problems like that."

Also, I found out Ben Carson(!) has taken him onto his "medical coalition" team, since he's opposed to Obamacare.

In the meantime, check out Rosemond's two-year fight for free speech - which he won:

https://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en#hl=en&q=kentucky+%22john+rosemond%22+2015

About that, from 2013:

...During the radio interview, Rosemond was asked whether he – a licensed psychologist in North Carolina and self-professed evangelical Christian – is being targeted.

“I think that is a reasonable question to ask – and I think it is reasonable to say the John Rosemond is a ‘heretic’ in the field of psychology,” he replied. “He does not adhere to, march to, or promote what I call the psychological ‘party line,’ especially where the raising of children is concerned – and I’m bad for business.”

Rosemond went on to say that by Kentucky’s definition, other published advice-givers like Dr. Phil and Dear Abby are breaking the law as well – but “those folks are good for business,” he notes.

“They lend to the impression that when you have a problem with a child, you should to seek professional help ... and I’m trying to help parents avoid having to do that,” he explained. “I’m trying to help parents solve problems before they get to the point where professional help is needed.”

Oh, and speaking of awful analogies and lack of empathy...

Vox Day, whose remarks got quoted by Dr. Helen Smith in her book "Men on Strike," was quoted again in Smith's May 28th column "Are Women without Kids Failures?"

Vox Day said: Most of the mothers I know used to proudly declare they never wanted to have children. Not some of them, not many of them, MOST of them. That is why the correct response to a young woman declaring that she doesn’t want to have children is to laugh at her, because bearing children is the prime raison d’etre for every woman. The woman who fails to do so is, quite literally, a failure as a human being.

Dr. Smith responded: I don’t think men who have no children are “failures,” nor do I think women who have no children are “failures.” I think that people make choices in life that are right or seem right for them at the time. People are autonomous beings who may or may not want children. While I agree that our culture is a negative one that often mistakenly tells women to go only for careers and other pursuits rather than have children, I do think there are some women who do not want them. This choice may be wrong for some but not for all.

I had a friend in college who didn’t want kids. She is happy today many years later without them. That is her choice. It should be everyone’s to decide what is right for their own life. To call that a failure for that decision seems extreme. What are your thoughts? Should men or women without kids be said to be “failures”?

Vox Day responded (here's what I was referring to at the top):

I like and respect Dr. Helen, but I disagree with her here on two grounds. First, one's success or failure as a human being are not determined by whether or not one is happy. That way lies, quite literally, madness. I'm sure John Wayne Gacy was quite happy when he was raping and killing little boys, and that was his decision about what was right for his own life, but I don't think we would be well to describe him as a success as a human being.

(snip)

Many of the comments at Dr. Smith's blog, unfortunately, agreed with Vox Day. Thankfully, some did not. Here are six short good ones, IMO:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.support.childfree/tyYocsavhTc

And one extra:

"Rush Limbaugh doesn't like 'em. Refuses to have 'em for that reason. Four marriages, more money than God, and no kids. FAIL!!"

"Vox Day said: Most of the mothers I know used to proudly declare they never wanted to have children. Not some of them, not many of them, MOST of them. That is why the correct response to a young woman declaring that she doesn’t want to have children is to laugh at her, because bearing children is the prime raison d’etre for every woman. The woman who fails to do so is, quite literally, a failure as a human being."

I've noticed recently what you are talking about. There is an odd phenomonen, that started in the 1980s, in which the far ends of social conservatism and sex-negative feminism go around the back and meet each other on matters having to do with sex. One of their shared viewpoints is that the only legitimate purpose of sex is to reproduce. Sex for any other reason, or any sex that doesn't result in pregnancy, is somehow depriving society of something -- exactly what isn't at all clear, but it's really really important, as they will tell you.

An extension of this is that the Prime Directive of every human being is to reproduce. Those who are not in the act of reproducing, either bringing about pregnacy or raising children, are held to be a drag on society. This extends to people who are too old to have children -- according to the philosophy, such people have selfishly exceeded their natural lifespans, and society should rid itself of them.

I remember hearing some of this in the 1970s, but I thought it was a philosophy that died decades ago. I guess no bad idea ever really dies.

It extends beyond just having kids. There is a specific number of kids you are supposed to have (1-2). If you have more then you are destroying the planet and depriving others of resources and if you have too few you are a genetic failure and depriving others of resources.

This is also not biblically based. Yes, go forth and multiply is in the bible, but it is not the only thing in the bible. A number of Christian based societies had 1/3 of their population non-reproductive.

This seems to be part of authoritarianism. Which is probably why parts of feminism and conservatives agree. They are the busybody segment that never tire of telling other people how to live their lives.

and if you have too few you are a genetic failure and depriving others of resources.
_______________________________

I don't see how anyone can claim that, especially regarding those who have always done as much as they could for society. Besides, even if you DO have kids, there's always the chance that, as you age, the kids will grow into ungrateful, mercenary adults who want you to die as soon as you retire or become near-helpless, because otherwise, you're "depriving" THEM.

As more than one person has pointed out, very often it's the couples with kids who do the least for their communities because they're so wrapped up in their kids' needs. On top of that, what if your kids are perfect but suddenly die in auto accidents in their late teens? There goes all that money and other resources!

I would guess that most people like Vox Day - the outspoken ones - either resent the workplace competition that comes from childfree women (women with no children currently make up about 1/5 of women under 50 in the U.S.), and/or they're secretly bitter and jealous. Example (from the link I provided):

galt2014:
"The psychological read is so easy to make here. Guys who subconsciously or consciously resent their muledom (fatherhood) hammer away at guys who made a different choice. They absolutely hate seeing proof that they had another option and their hamster is off and running. The only thing left to do is to completely negate the legitimacy of the childless (Sorry, dads, but we're going to ENJOY our short lives. You be the miserable hero--a pat on the head for you, good boy. Happy fathers are not a part of this discussion, btw) Louis CK is a great example. He had a completely humorless and vitriolic bit simply railing against childless people, like he wanted them dead almost. It was DURING his comedy routine so not just an aside on a talk show or something. Now, here's where it's interesting; Guess who divorced shortly thereafter? Guess who regularly did bits seriously lamenting fatherly duties and lamenting his boredom with his wife and lack of sex life? All the information is right there. The miserable have to attack those who chose differently. Happy people wish the world the best."

Lenona,

The claim with too few kids is that you aren't preparing the next generation that will work to support your current one.

The reality is both claims (too few and too many) are pure authoritarian bullshit. Maybe there are too many people in Tokyo or New York City. But guess what, there are miles and miles of empty corn fields in Kansas. There is plenty of room and there are plenty of resources. The real issue is what kinds of people you have. A couple with twelve kids that they take care of are not a drain in any way shape or form on anyone else. And a single mother that beats her only child who is supported by welfare creates a huge drain on those around her. The number of kids has nothing to do with it, the kinds of people everything.

And you are right that the happy make the world a better place. The unhappy make it worse. I'll go even further and say you have a moral obligation to act happy even when you don't feel happy. Not even god cares how you feel. The rest of us care how you act.

I explain in "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck" that there's an annoying tendency to demonize technology, and to sneeringly judge people who are on their phones or devices when they're together instead of talking to each other.

I don't "sneeringly judge" people who are on their phones or devices when they're together instead of talking to each other, but I do find it peculiar. Of course, perhaps they find it equally peculiar to see people who are talking to each other when they're together ("Look, do you see that? How weird that those people are actually talking to each other instead of using social media.")

I'll go even further and say you have a moral obligation to act happy even when you don't feel happy. Not even god cares how you feel. The rest of us care how you act.

Posted by: Ben at October 10, 2015 9:01 AM
______________________________

Miss Manners would agree. She once said, in effect, that if your spouse died eight years ago and you STILL can't put on a happy face at parties you've been invited to, stay home. End of story.