Are Teenagers the Dumbest Generation Ever?

"Are Teenagers Really the Dumbest Generation Ever?"

Paradoxically, the only thing that is truly constant is the concept of change. This notion generally tends to apply itself to every possible idea, whether tangible or abstract, and continuously evokes the question of whose moral standpoint, whether based on intellect, or on intuition, is truly correct. Similarly, it is clear that in today's era time's law of change has created a schism between two generations with polar personal influences, ideologies, foundations for principles, and moral standpoints so substantial that it induces controversy, and a sense of apprehension as one tries to compensate for the misdemeanors of the other. A schism of such magnitude between two generations forced to live together has inevitably brought about the butting of heads, most scandalously through the pervasive media that reaches everyone who is in direct contact with immediate society. Dr. Mark Bauerlein, author of The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future; Or, Don't Trust Anyone Under 30 and professor at Emory University, kindles the flame that is the battle between generations; however, it is vital to consider that the fire had already been there, and Bauerlein, a strict believer in one of the opposing sides, had fed the fire gasoline. Of course, with tendentious media such as this, society is forced to respond; who is in the right? Who is left to blame? Does Bauerlein perhaps make a valid point, or is he entirely mistaken in his judgement of a technology-controlled generation? Is it presumptuous to assume that this preoccupation with social medias can be construed as stupidity, or is it entirely valid in its claim that teenagers have lost the susceptibility and ravenousness for knowledge that had been present in generations that preceded them? It is a heavily biased discussion often based on generalization, where both sides need a prospect for thorough review to be able to make a point that upholds validity, not just from opinion, but from fact. Bauerlein's book elicited an uproarious response from the public, thus we are able to observe and analyze a contentious argument for either side, both of whom present valid points.

Susan Jacoby, author of The Age of American Unreason, claims, "The scales of American history have shifted heavily against the intellectual life so essential to functional democracy." Like Jacoby, many intellectuals of the previous generation share the paralyzing trepidation that perhaps this new concentration of leaders and lost the provocative taste for learning and cultural strive like that of their predecessors, labeling superficial concepts like popular culture "vacuous" and "disturbing," as well as using them as a definitive label of the generation that takes part in such a nondescript and mercurial part of society. Now there is a point to consider. How can one definitively label such a thing as popular culture? Generally, the concept is regarded as something that, by nature, is vacuous. It holds no validity in society other than its possibility to provide a certain juncture of mindless recreation. One must contemplate the feasibility of such a popular culture, especially among the younger generation; popular culture often provides an escape from the hardships of life. Teenagers today are among the most stressed that they have been for years, and, as a source of relief, they turn to asinine behavioral patterns to relieve the tension; albeit, the reliever acts as more of a numbing sensation rather than reliever, but a coping method nonetheless. Popular culture is also among one of the most capricious factors in society, for what is popular today, may just be a completely irrelevant part of society the very next day. Like all adolescents, the particular concentrated group in question possess tendencies towards fallacious behavior that may give off the impression of unintelligence, or recalcitrant characteristics, but, in reality, are simply mistakes that are better understood as phases, or the conclusion of an experiment with no prior experience. Discerning that fact the topic at hand is, in fact, "popular" culture, there is an uneasy conclusion that occurs. The popularity of such media would not have risen to such a point of celebration and idolatry if it did not have a supporting base to catapult it to such extremities. The logical conclusion leads one to assume that, if the popular culture delineates a lack of ideals and does not accurately display "useful" subjects, then perhaps the audience for which it is intended possesses the same regard for inane media, and a disregard for more functional and beneficial knowledge of the society of which they are a part. The popular media of previous generations did not include vapid concepts such as "reality television" or "gameshows", but rather the cultural media that, to this day, remains a classic reminder of "better" days.

The discussion of the topic of reading for pleasure is also discussed, and, yet again, there is an uneasy conclusion that must be faced, as Cheryl Wetzstein says in her article, "As a lifelong, insatiable reader, I share Mr. Bauerlein's alarm about the peculiar reading habits of American youth. I also share his concern that the next generation doesn't seem to value having a 'contemplative mind.'" The continuous rise in lack of reading for pleasure is intimidating. It raises a pressing question: how can the source of entertainment for over thousands of years suddenly be regarded with such disdain and disapproval from the generation that seems to need it the most? The obvious answer is, of course, negative. The desensitization of the key factors in the strive for educational success has taken a toll on the ability of the average teenager to participate in studious and intellectual activities, among which is reading. It is an disturbing revelation to assume that the only source that this general detachment from traditional entertainment can stem is, in fact, one of the greatest achievements of our time: our technology. The constant social connection that is present has caused a tremendous shift in personal interests. As stated by a host during an interview with the audacious author of The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future; Or, Don't Trust Anyone Under 30, "Well a new book proclaims, don't trust anyone under 30. The point being...

(Whispering) They're not that bright. Shhh, don't want to hurt their self-esteem." What was once a society based on the hunger for knowledge, and the correlation of knowledge to power, is now civilization based on narcissistic ideals; consequently, personal interests seem to conquer