No Wrench

I’ve currently in the middle of Anya Kamenetz’s book Generation Debt, and while I’ll get to a larger discussion of what I think of the book and what it says later, there was something in it that caught my eye and tied into my early post on narcissism. On page 93, Anya is waxing on about the motivational troubles that our generation sometimes seems to have.

We were raised to dream big. When we face real challenges, our chronic dissatisfaction can itself be a stumbling block. We spend too much time and borrow too much money shooting for the stars.

It is a different take on the issue than the authors of the study took and it is one that does hold more concern for worry. Our generation is different in a lot of ways. We are the first generation that has been raised with technology. When I was 6 years old, I started using personal computers at home learning on my dad’s IBM XT. The first five years of my life were the only times when I was not fully enmeshed in a technologically connected world.

One of the largest things that this has done is that it has drastically shrunk the difficulty involved in sending work overseas. Everyone has, most likely, had to deal with an Indian technical support call-center at some point in the last few years. That is just one of the most visible facets of out-sourcing. And the truth about out-sourcing is that it is barely working right now. Cultural differences are too great, language barriers are still fairly high, there are significant obstacles. But that is all going to change. The financial implications are just too great for it to not be successful.

What is being seen right now if the just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the global spread of business and jobs. And that brings me back to the part about my generation here in America. There is no precedent for this. Consider that someone graduating from a four-year college in the early 1980’s was most likely going to walk into a job that would pay them reasonable well, probably had health care and some sort of retirement, and which could potentially last them a life time. Consider that those facts gets more and more true as you travel back through the 60’s and 70’s to when our parents were graduating. The future that we were brought up to live in is not the future that we actually live in.

The paradigms have shifted, now, where the important thing is not necessarily the college degree, but the ability that an individual has to hone their skills and then market them in a rapidly changing environment. Interestingly enough, I think that being narcissistic may help here as well. Anya mentions that we’re spending too much time and money creating churn, and that is probably true right now. Any new situation requires some reorientation. Adapting to the new economic climes is going to be rough, but in the end, a strong sense of self and the belief that you have vital skills is going to be key. If you can’t tell yourself that you’re a special person, then no employer is going to take a chance on you either.

The L.A. Times published an article today on a non-peer reviewed study that showed increased levels of narcissistic tendencies amongst current college kids. They made tentative associations with the self-esteem training that kids got in their pre-college education all the way back to nursery school.

Considering that I’m a few years out of college, I am probably right on the borderline of the generation that they’re talking about. I don’t remember ever singing songs about being special in nursery school, but I do recall being repetitively told that we could all be anything we wanted if we tried hard enough.

It was something that I actually took to heart. I grew up with a fairly high degree of confidence that I could do anything if I tried hard enough. It also breed a high level of competitiveness, since someone being better than me was an indication that I wasn’t trying hard enough. I am routinely accused of being cocky or arrogant because I exude confidence about my abilities.

But I think that this is somewhat different from what the authors of this study are discussing. There is a difference between believing one is capable of anything and having expectations of things being delivered to you because of your special nature. The worrisome nature of the second viewpoint is that it doesn’t lead to people succeeding in life. It leads to people making unrealistic decisions about life because they expect certain things to be given to them. In the current job market, a college degree is not the career builder it once was. Even a graduate degree can spell tough going outside of the academic world. (I’ve actually just started reading Generation Debt, which is an anecdotal look at how economic conditions for Americans who are currently coming of age are getting worse.)

With all that said, I don’t know if I have quite the same doom-and-gloom feeling that the organizers of the study have. A lack of self-confidence is often considered a large reason that people cannot get ahead or be successful in life. So now two-thirds of college kids have higher narcissism scores than they did in 1982. Isn’t self-confidence at least partially associated with narcissism? If you’re going to trust in yourself and your abilities, doesn’t that involve a certain amount of self-love?

Look at the three sample questions that they list from the exam.

1. “If I ruled the world, it would be a better place.” Given the current set of jokers who are running America, is this really an unrealistic statement to make. It is also an ambivalent statement. For example, I think the world would be a better place if I was in charge because I care about things like global warming, corporate corruption, the growing disparity in income levels, the lack of comprehensive health insurance, the rising cost and diminishing returns of higher education, and so forth. Is that such a bad position to take? Of course, it could also be that I think the world would be a better place with me in charge because I could make all the people who piss me off pay. Two very different takes, one motivated by intellectual confidence and political involvement, the other by a sense of entitlement. But there is no way to interpret which meaning is intended.
2. “I think I am a special person.” Wasn’t this the entire point of trying to teach people self-esteem as kids. So that they would think that they had unique value?
3. “I like to be the center of attention.” I’ve got to say, there is no bigger rush than being on a stage in front of hundreds of people and knowing that their attention is all on you. I love the feeling, mostly because I’m confident enough to enjoy it. If the statement said something like “I compulsively attempt to be the center of attention in every situation,” it might indicate a problem. But liking the feeling of being the focus of people’s attentions wouldn’t seem to indicate a problem to me.

Now I haven’t seen the entire test. I’d love to see it, but it doesn’t appear that the “Narcissistic Personality Inventory” is available online. I’d love to take it and see where I score on it. I’d bet I would score well above the 1982 average as well. But I wouldn’t take that as a sign that there was something wrong with me. I’d take it as a sign that I know my own worth and I am willing to put value on myself.

Researchers today released results from a study that analyzed 68 other studies and came to the conclusion that taking individual vitamins does nothing to improve health. It’s not a surprising result, but it is another interesting case of the intersection of two things in my life.

I also just finished reading The China Study, which is a summary of the health survey that T Colin Campbell did in China, analyzing the effect of diet on health. The results of Campbell’s findings can simply be summarized as eating a whole foods diet rich in vegetables with no or almost no animal protein guarantees a healthier and longer life.

One of the thing that Campbell argues against in his book is the tendency for Western medicine and the Western health industry to fixate on single-nutrient solutions to health problems. The impetus for much of this seems to come from studies that focus on food. For example, a study that shows that people who eat a diet that is rich in Vitamin A have lower levels of free radicals leads the health industry to stock shelves with Vitamin A supplements that promise to reduce your free radical levels. But, Campbell argues, this sort of science by reduction doesn’t work. We have no idea of how different nutrients interact inside the body and while is might seem that diets high in Vitamin A have more protection from free radicals, it maybe that the Vitamin A is only effective when it is consumed in concert with a host of other nutrients that are included in foods high in Vitamin A.

This sort of reductionist nutrition is highly popular here in America, because it allows people to continue maintaining an unhealthy lifestyle while feeling like they are doing things to be more healthy. Everyone wants the latest miracle supplement that will allow them to continue consuming foods high in saturated-fat, animal protein, refined grains, and cholesterol but suffer no ill effects. And the health industry has built a billion dollar industry on the back of people looking to spend their way out of making healthy-positive choices.

And now this study comes out and confirms everything that Campbell was arguing in his book. Vitamin supplements do not work. You’re not going to get the benefits of Vitamin A unless you eat a diet that is naturally high in Vitamin A. The secret to good health that Campbell confides in his book and which this study bolsters is simple: eat unprocessed plant foods.