There is a book out about the challenges of the "next generation." Author Keith Howard penned Infantilised: How Our Culture Killed Adulthood, and The Economist provided an informative review.
The book relates a conversation between two generations, an "older boss" and a "younger ... employee":
There is no P in ‘hamster’,” said the boss. But “that’s how I spell it,” the 20-something objected. The boss suggested they consult a dictionary. The employee called her mother, put her on speakerphone and tearfully insisted that she tell her boss not to be so mean."
Mean? The thought of using the right word is "mean?" Beyond that, an immediate thought is who would conclude that the best path forward in any dispute or disagreement would be a call to one's mother? The reviewer seemingly skips over the potential to discuss helicopter parenting, dependency, and apron-string cutting. We'll return to that.
The reviewer instead focuses on the "notion of 'my truth,' a popular phrase intended to rationalize the speaker’s beliefs and shield them from criticism based on facts." The point of "my truth" is apparently an allegation that we are each entitled to our own, and all that really matters is what we each believe. As the reviewer phrases it, "You may say that 1+1=2, but 'my truth' is that it makes three."
In fairness, this myth has roots in the counterculture of the 1960s and childish rebellion against many a status quo since. People holding different views is not new and frankly is not wrong. Views are opinions, and they matter. But there are facts in the world also. Those are not subject to views and perceptions. Protecting one's right to views and opinions does not extend to allowing us each our own "truth."
It may be difficult to hold a rational conversation with someone whose "truth" is contrary to facts. As I read the review, however, it occurred to me that almost everyone has embedded biases, which is likewise not a new or novel conclusion. Bias and predispositions have always existed and persisted. We see it frequently in the litigation realm, and not with any generation more so than another.
The "my truth" can be related to a deep-seated "relativism" that is well explained in The Conversation (The University of Waikato, May 2023). There are those who applaud people speaking "their" truth, and it is "fast becoming a part of everyday speech around the world." The Conversation notes that the phrase has been popularized by the media, noting various current event examples.
But, The Conversation questions, can we have "reasoned debate" in a world where "truth is relative?" Can 2+2 be 3 because I want it to be? Can the world be flat because that is "my truth?" Can I insist on spelling Hampster as I wish (note to reader, the AI super-suggester that I use has no problem with "hampster"). In fact, The great brains at Wiktionary have a definition for "hampster," which is an "obsolete form of hamster." Maybe the "younger employee," above, is not so much about "her truth" as she is about antiquated phraseology?
The Conversation concludes that hearing people's perspectives is positive, no matter whether they "may ultimately turn out to be false." There is a courtesy element there, and there is the chance that differing views may be both rewarding and stimulating to better debate. Nonetheless, while encouraging the expression of perspective and belief, it advocates for retaining some value for "truth."
So, as Joe Hallenbeck (Bruce Willis) reminded in The Last Boy Scout (Geffen, 1991): "Water is wet, the sky is blue." In that vein, 2+2 likely equals 4 (at least in the simple world of math in which most of us reside).
Beyond the debate of truth, at what point is it appropriate to drag Mom into the discussion? Is such a reaction a sign of insufficient maturity? The author of Infantilised suggests that there is a maturity deficit in "young people today." He offers behavioral evidence that suggests some present tendency to cling to childhood and resist the perils of "adulting."
He suggests that this impacts society in terms of various traditional rights of passage for adulthood like marriage, home ownership, and more. And, he seemingly lays some of the blame for immaturity on pop culture, the media, and acceptance or even celebration of such differences. The cited examples are interesting perspectives.
The Economist reviewer takes issue with Infantilised. The review suggests that immature behavior is neither new nor unique. The hypothesis is that today's world of "a camera in every hand" simply facilitates the recordation and sharing of such behavior. While that might resonate as to analogizing the actions of today's youth to the "idiotic things that the Boomers and Generation X did in their 20s," it does nothing to address the concrete example of maturity or commitment one might perceive in the tendency to remain in the parent's abode, the age of marriage, the purchase of homes, and beyond.
What is clear from the review is that the reviewer takes issue with at least part of "the truth" held by the Infantilised author. In doing so, the reviewer expresses his own "truth," at least for the sake of argument. In the broad context, perhaps neither is any more "right" than "wrong," and there is benefit in the open debate?
But, in reality, the "truth" of the Infantilised author is backed by hard data as to milestone achievement (marriage, home ownership, moving out of the parent's house, etc.) Those are measures. They are facts. They are are not subject to a different "truth," though the reasons for delays might be.
That said, beware that many will view your making a call home to Mom for support in a discussion as a signal of weakness, immaturity, and disconnect. Likewise, your dismissal of what the dictionary says regarding spelling or your argument that water is not wet may face significant resistance from various listeners.
I am not saying you are "wrong," but that does not conversely mean that there has to be universal acceptance of "your truth," however absurd. Instead, some may conclude that you are delusional, disconnected, or simply not up to the intellectual challenge.
In the end, know that there is also some potential that your credibility and gravitas may be impacted by the pictures you post to social media, your expressions of "your truth," and any propensity to call Mom to settle (from your perspective) a disagreement.
While the world may patiently hear you out in these regards, and choose not to challenge you for fear of reprisal from a mass gaggle of equally discordant lemmings folks, that does not mean they necessarily buy "your truth" or even respect your thoughts. They may just go along now and tell their friends later about "that guy that needs a tin-foil hat."
Like it or not, there are many perspectives. Unfortunately or not, there has been too much accommodation to individual "truth." The world of law has many opportunities for perspective, argument, and debate; the world of science, perhaps not so much. Everyone knows those two worlds meet often in litigation, and our challenge of deriving the correct answers will be challenged by this "truth" divergence. It will also impact a great array of other workplace questions and concerns. It is worthy of study.
