Young people in the workplace don’t have the skills to debate, disagree and work alongside people with different opinions, and the lockdowns are to blame, Channel 4’s Chief Executive has said. The Mail has the story.
Speaking at the Royal Television Society’s Cambridge Convention, Alex Mahon said “particularly post-pandemic” Gen Z youngsters “haven’t got the skills to discuss” and “haven’t got the skills to disagree”.
She said this phenomenon, which was being seen in the workplace, was a “dangerous step change”.
The Channel 4 boss cited the time youngsters had spent “being out of colleges” during the pandemic, meaning they had not been exposed as much to “people with a difference of opinion”.
Gen Z usually refers to people born between the middle to late 1990s and the early 2010s.
Ms. Mahon told the Royal Television Society Cambridge Convention: “What we are seeing with young people who come into the workplace – Gen Z – particularly post-pandemic – with this concentration of short form content [short videos on services like Tik Tok and YouTube] is they haven’t got the skills to debate things.
“They haven’t got the skills to discuss, they haven’t got the skills to disagree and commit because they haven’t been raised, particularly with being out of colleges to have those kind of debates, to get to the point where you’ve got people with a difference of opinion to you and you’re happy to work alongside that, and that is a really dangerous step change in my view that we are seeing.”
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Science was always a problem for the left, all that empiricism, rationalism etc. No it had to be abolished and be replaced by computational modelling/meta studies, superstition must win.
Democracy and freedom of speech too.
Hurt feelings trump hard facts.
“How can we stop science being captured and undermined by partisan, anti-intellectual ideologues? That’s the question no one is sure how to answer right now.”
Well, the answer to that is straightforward and simple – don’t support these now pseudo-scientific comics by either reading or purchasing them. When a publication seeks to take science backwards it no longer belongs in the scientific realm.
And I do wish these comics would define “harm.”
‘The Science’ like ‘The Arts’, do they include Real Scientists and Real Artists or just activists.
Covid pandemic of lies was just one example of the death of science. Covid folly and evil was extreme manifestation of long term wrong direction in a number of areas.
It’s a function of who is participating. Academics fight tooth and nail for figurative scraps from the table, whether that’s their first assistant professorship, the chance at tenure or research grants. They will set aside any more noble goals in order to get ahead, so they are easy marks for this kind of toxic and manipulative ideology.
Authoritarian societies are very similar. Only a select few can be the party officials, so people will readily debase themselves for a seat at the table.
The dogma the journal defends is that there’s no structure to society or to human nature that’s immutable and innate. The ultra-individualist dogma. Anything that threatens this is intolerable. Science takes apart, never leaves intact. Everything must be reduced to atoms.
If this is so, suppressing counter facts is a good thing. The article puts a counter example: the family is a good thing. If it is, research showing otherwise is morally and factually wrong. As CSLewis said, If witches exist, they ought to be put to death.
That’s a step in the right direction. Things could be further improved by refusing to publish any Correlation in infinitesimally small group detected! science babble, regardless of who is conjectured to profit politically from it.
Hey, did you know that monkeypox is spread almost exclusively by — oh wait a minute, completing that sentence might bring harm to a marginalized community. Never mind.
Very good.
Not really. For one, this statement isn’t really true. Monkeypox isn’t almost exclusively spread through gay sex orgies in general but through so-called prolonged, closed contact with an infected person. It’s just that there’s currently a monkeypox outbreak mostly among the members of the group of people partaking in such orgies because the virus is spreading among them and due to their shared hobbies, they’re happily infecting each other and there’s little risk that people not belonging to this particular group will ever get infected with it.
Then, this is about sociological junk science of the kind where a so-called researcher arbitrarly splits a small population in two (or more) groups using a predetermined criterion, say, sex or skin colour, and then determines the distribution of some property among members of each group. Invariably, there’s going to be some difference which is then reported as research result, usually based on the claim that the relative frequency of the property in each group would really be the probability of the property occurring in the much larger group of all people on this planet who would have been in research groups blah (eg, women or men, black or white people) had they been part of the experiment.
Whoever came up with editorial policy probably very well knows that all of this, no matter what it claims to show, is junk science. Henceforth, the editors will only accept junk studies if the outcome is compatible with their political preferences. That’s a step in the right direction because it tacitly implies that the scientific value of all of these studies is zero. A subset of them can be selected for publication for political convenience without this selection process causing harm to anyon but the political faction whose junk science is being censored.
Prolonged close contact and broken skin, as I remember (and of course if you have this prolonged contact with broken skin with several different people, you increase you chance of infection). Remind you of anything (and I’ve heard about some of the injuries in these hospitals)?
And no offence intended…
What I was trying to get at is that monkeypox isn’t technically a STD but that this particular outbreak is socially self-limiting (+/-) because the virus is circulating among the people frequenting dark rooms where it can spread much more easily than in other social situations.
Global health emergency it ain’t, I suspect.
People with a fashionable psychological disorder indulging in related behaviour who mustn’t have their feelings hurt?
I understand these journals already do something similar with research that may inadvertently be pro-life. Such is the state of “the science”. Trouble is, people tend not to do anything until it is them that is affected.