Evidence showing human attitude to "change"?

[dogjones]

I am having a debate with a very Tory friend of mine who is convinced that "humans these days" are "addicted to change for it's own sake". He laments the "cult of progress" and the fact that the "old/traditional is vilified merely for being old and traditional" and that "men are inventing new ideals because they dare not attempt old ones" and "look forward because they dare not look back".

Yes, a lot of claims and a familiar Tory lament. Of course in my experience, most people abhor "change" and tend to resist it.

But are there any robust studies / papers examining human attitudes to "change", and whether they have changed? How would one measure / test this sort of thing anyway?

 

[Mark6]

How would one measure / test this sort of thing anyway?

Measure amount of moaning about "good old days" among people of age X. Repeat 10 years later, but not with same individuals -- rather, with individuals who now had reached age X. 10 years later repeat again.

That will give you some idea about how attitudes about change are changing (if at all). But it is a very time-consuming project, and no, I do not think anyone has actually done it.

 

[Dinwar]

I'd ask for evidence for two of HIS points:

1) We value change for change's sake (is this true, or is the new stuff better in some objective manner?)

2) We reject the old ways for being old (is this true, or is the old stuff worse in some objective manner?)

Take, for example, my father--he insists that I dress formally for work. If he had his way I'd be wearing a suit and tie every day. That's how things were done in his day, and that's how they should be done, dag nabbit! Problem is, a number of studies have shown that a more informal workplace is better--more efficient, more productive, higher employee happiness, lower turnover, etc. And a more flexable schedule augments this, making the traditional 8-hour work day more or less obsolete. People haven't rejected either formal dress or iron-clad work hours because they're old, but rather they did so because it benefited the company in measurable ways. The trick is getting someone to see that--they usually stick their fingers in their ears and go "Lalalalala I'm not listening!", or "When you get to my age you'll see the advantages of _____".

 

[Cayvmann]

I'd ask for evidence for two of HIS points:

1) We value change for change's sake (is this true, or is the new stuff better in some objective manner?)

2) We reject the old ways for being old (is this true, or is the old stuff worse in some objective manner?)

Take, for example, my father--he insists that I dress formally for work. If he had his way I'd be wearing a suit and tie every day. That's how things were done in his day, and that's how they should be done, dag nabbit! Problem is, a number of studies have shown that a more informal workplace is better--more efficient, more productive, higher employee happiness, lower turnover, etc. And a more flexable schedule augments this, making the traditional 8-hour work day more or less obsolete. People haven't rejected either formal dress or iron-clad work hours because they're old, but rather they did so because it benefited the company in measurable ways. The trick is getting someone to see that--they usually stick their fingers in their ears and go "Lalalalala I'm not listening!", or "When you get to my age you'll see the advantages of _____".

I always got the impression that the older generation was just mad because they had to do all these things, and hated them, but the younger generation doesn't have to. Regardless of effectiveness, they want everyone to have to suffer equally.

 

[Joey McGee]

Maybe if your friend understood the modern theories of evolutionary psychology he wouldn't be so ideological about this.

Why do adolescents move away from their family and care more about their peers? It's an instinct, you can't progress and evolve without that. Guaranteed this is going to lead to problems like gangs, drugs and getting used by people that don't care about you. It's also going to lead to better opportunities and new information. Evolution doesn't care it's just putting you out there.

Some people have a stronger urge to explore, some people have a stronger urge to stick around the homestead. Neither is wrong.

There's also an interesting theory about birth order, I'd look for the interview Shermer did with Frank Sulloway. Basically the idea is that evolution causes us to be more conservative or liberal as a strategy for full-spectrum development. We need both to survive.

Part of this system seems to be that the one needs to constantly antagonize the other in order to keep the whole team alert. This kind of explains (to me at least because this is in no way proven to everyone's satisfaction) why elections are so close in America.

Another way of looking at is is evolution made a spectrum of metabolic efficiency in humans for a purpose. Some people stay skinny easily while other people stay fat no matter what. The idea is that in a time of famine the skinny people die first and the fat people keep the species going, while in times a plenty the skinny people get more done and fat people lag behind a bit.

I don't think anyone would disagree that everyone's goal is well-being and fairness. No matter what your politics are we all agree driving drunk should be illegal. It's the stuff that we can't easily prove the solutions to that we fight over, and we use certain strategies in lieu of the evidence. We call those strategies political philosophies, but in reality, they are naturally selected, memetic, experimental devices.

 

[Dinwar]

I always got the impression that the older generation was just mad because they had to do all these things, and hated them, but the younger generation doesn't have to. Regardless of effectiveness, they want everyone to have to suffer equally.

I never got that impression. My impression was that the older generation thought that doing those things taught dicipline and diligence and everything else, and therefore those who don't go through them will lack those virtues necessary to do a good job. I grew up around engineers, so "fail to do a good job" translates roughly into "murder hundreds of people"; such people tend to be conservative.

Another way of looking at is is evolution made a spectrum of metabolic efficiency in humans for a purepose.

Not quite. Humans have a range of metabolic efficiencies; people with different efficiencies haven't died off for various reasons, but evolution didn't have any reason. (I don't doubt that you get this, I just had to say it.)

 

[Joey McGee]

Not quite. Humans have a range of metabolic efficiencies; people with different efficiencies haven't died off for various reasons, but evolution didn't have any reason. (I don't doubt that you get this, I just had to say it.)

You smarmy do-gooder you! Actually you're right, it's important we use the right words and context when talking about science. It's just so easy to mess up. I recall Dawkins correcting Randolph Nesse (evolutionary medicine legend) on this very point in their interview. I don't feel so bad if even Nesse still gets the verbiage backwards from time to time

 

[Dinwar]

Eh. It's something I'm trying to wrap my head around (do we need to use 100% proper terms when discussing things amongst ourselves, or are colloquiolisms allowed?). I'll have to post something later on, get everyone's thoughts...

 

[Bishadi]

I am having a debate with a very Tory friend of mine who is convinced that "humans these days" are "addicted to change for it's own sake". He laments the "cult of progress" and the fact that the "old/traditional is vilified merely for being old and traditional" and that "men are inventing new ideals because they dare not attempt old ones" and "look forward because they dare not look back".

Yes, a lot of claims and a familiar Tory lament. Of course in my experience, most people abhor "change" and tend to resist it.

But are there any robust studies / papers examining human attitudes to "change", and whether they have changed? How would one measure / test this sort of thing anyway?

the acceptance of funny scientific models, based on the per se 'credible' sources.

particle physics all the way thru to homosexual choices, aint a choice because psychologist have published the choice is biological but cannot provide scientific evidence except by the opinions of measured choice.



there are bunches of examples.

heck, "creation" is still believed based on ignorance being held


Change is occuring all over the world but few within the communities of science are capable of keeping up with the fringe of current acheivements

 

[tsig]

I am having a debate with a very Tory friend of mine who is convinced that "humans these days" are "addicted to change for it's own sake". He laments the "cult of progress" and the fact that the "old/traditional is vilified merely for being old and traditional" and that "men are inventing new ideals because they dare not attempt old ones" and "look forward because they dare not look back".

Yes, a lot of claims and a familiar Tory lament. Of course in my experience, most people abhor "change" and tend to resist it.

But are there any robust studies / papers examining human attitudes to "change", and whether they have changed? How would one measure / test this sort of thing anyway?

O tempora, o mores.

This sentence is now used as an exclamation to criticize present-day attitudes and trends



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O_tempora_o_mores!

 

[dogjones]

Measure amount of moaning about "good old days" among people of age X. Repeat 10 years later, but not with same individuals -- rather, with individuals who now had reached age X. 10 years later repeat again.

That will give you some idea about how attitudes about change are changing (if at all). But it is a very time-consuming project, and no, I do not think anyone has actually done it.

Yeah, that would be one way. Nice.

 

[dogjones]

O tempora, o mores.

This sentence is now used as an exclamation to criticize present-day attitudes and trends



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O_tempora_o_mores!

Sure, but Wiki got the origins of the phrase wrong. It is actually a bastardisation of a sixteenth-century Japanese expression of disgust, popular with old people, at a newfangled method of cooking.

First documented as sparking an ugly incident in the court of Tokugawa Ieyasu, the correct delivery was to bolt upright, hurl one's chopsticks aside, upend one's bowl contemptuously onto the floor, and shout

"No tempura! No more!"

 

[jayh]

Hey you kids get off of my lawn!

I have a perspective here partly because I'm 61 years old and been through both sides of this. To some extent people do solidify in their adolescent years (which has evolutionary significance as a process of bonding to the tribe). Food, music, and other emotional experiences from this time tend to become established as preferences.

New is not always better, but it often is. Old is not always better but it can be as well. Much of the confusion about new is that people (especially, but not entirely young ones) will follow it with enthusiasm until it either (occasionally) proves itself, or (often) fizzles out as the unforeseen issues present themselves. That's the nature of progress.

There will always be the two extremes, the stuck in the mud fuddy duddy who refuses any change, and the starry eyed ones who are suckers for anything 'new').

Most of us are a mixture. I work in computer technology, use a digital SLR camera, but do not own a computerized car.

 

[JJM 777]

"humans these days" are "addicted to change for it's own sake"
(...)
in my experience, most people abhor "change" and tend to resist it.

Some basic values are hard to change. Once a non-nudist, probably always a non-nudist. Possibly later a vouyeurist, more probably than a real (read: impotent) naturist.

 

[jayh]

Some basic values are hard to change. Once a non-nudist, probably always a non-nudist. Possibly later a vouyeurist, more probably than a real (read: impotent) naturist.

Dunno 'bout that. My wife was in her 40s when we met, and adapted pretty quickly-- maybe about 10 minutes

 

[dogjones]

Some basic values are hard to change. Once a non-nudist, probably always a non-nudist. Possibly later a vouyeurist, more probably than a real (read: impotent) naturist.

Totally salient point! freakshow