Psychologist Philip Zimbardo asks, "Why are boys struggling?" He shares some stats (lower graduation rates, greater worries about intimacy and relationships) and suggests a few reasons -- and he asks for your help!
About the speaker:
Philip George Zimbardo (born March 23, 1933) is a psychologist and a professor emeritus at Stanford University. He is president of the Heroic Imagination Project. He is known for his Stanford prison study and authorship of various introductory psychology books and textbooks for college students, including The Lucifer Effect and The Time Paradox.
Blaming a pastime like videogames or porn is essentially blaming the men themselves for a lack of self control or ambition. Feminism blames society in general (particularly women, but all of society has allowed the gender equality wars to reach this point), and the men are not directly blamed for their behavior. They/we don't have much decision in how women behave.Sure, not all women are this way - that would be absurd to believe. Nonetheless, my desire for an emotional relationship has died.
After watching this and Gary Wilson's talk all I have to say is: Welp, time to delete these 125 GB of porn from my hard drive.
>implying I don't lead an avid social life
feminist propaganda, cant believe people take this shit seriously
>implying you do
1) It's sex, not gender. learn the difference2) Juvenile insults are not a refutation.
Women's roles in business, education, and relationships change drastically over the past 50 years. Did they think that men's roles would remain static?
The pinnacle of our existence is not realized in a marriage relationship, as Dr. Zimbardo and the whole of popular culture would have you believe. When you measure the worth of an individual by their relationship status, your evaluation can be greatly distorted.
You're a fucking idiot.1.)"gender" was used in implication of the speakers status as a member of the masculine sex. You did not understand this. You're a fucking idiot.2.)Insults work. For example: You're a fucking idiot. And as for refutation, my words to this whack job are indeed appropriate. His research is biased, he's a mangina(look that up) and he's fucking ridiculous. I'd love to see his "research". -it's probably finger painted in menstrual blood.p.s.You're a fucking idiot. =P
More pathetic insults and no arguments. Yeah, I'm totally the idiot here.
The argument is that he's a hack and his research is bullshit. The guy wants attention, you might as well be watching reality t.v.You're passive-aggressive, an idiot and cynical. -That's not an insult. That's true. You are a fucking idiot. It's only an insult if you take it as derogatory in meaning. But my intention is to make you realize you're a pathetic, whiny, shit-brained-cunt. So that you know what you are. And I hope you do change. But you won't. Why? Because you're a fucking idiot.
"The argument is that he's a hack and his research is bullshit"Saying it doesn't make it so, dumb shit. Give evidence. yawn. it's like talking to a child. you know what, fuck it. I'm not even trying anymore.
So, what, is it wrong to be a nerd? I never liked Zimbardo so I'm definitely biased against him, but I really disagree with what he's saying here. Certainly excessive gaming and internet use can lead to social withdrawal, but that's an extreme case, and does not apply to the majority of men (or boys). I agree with other commenters that say that these "causes" that Zimbardo puts forth are actually effects of a changing social structure. Things change, some people change more than others.
Where are his resources? Oh wait, it's a powerpoint, it must be accurate.
Relationships seem less appealing when you see that over half of marriages end in divorce, doesn't sound like the life i want to live.
Yeah because most of them are children.
he has a doctorate in pyschology you moron
great, Zimbardo. alarm me and then don't tell me the solution. =/
who wouldn't want to be miserable for 1-10 years and then lose half their stuff. you'd be crazy not to want that!
You're a fucking moron.
Zimbardo just drops a bunch of meaningless statistics and tries to turn it into some meaningful thesis. How many people are dropping out, total? Where's the context? And social science just doesn't work the way he's claiming. Gangs are proof of men ALWAYS preferring male company? What? WTF is he talking about? No causal chains, no proof. No brain scans, no scientific process. A bunch of BUNK, masquerading as science.
Statistics are all that he needs. They are the most powerful proof you can give. Besides he said it himself. Its not his job to see why its happening and how to fix it. He is just saying that it is happening.
Actually the man has a point. When presenting a theory you need to provide evidence for it and citations that show of where you got that evidence.
And he's not just some random doctor of psychology either. You'll find his name located in every Intro Psych book that is made these days.