IMHO, when taken simply as a group of people who have experienced a common set of cultural/societal defining events in their formative years, it’s a pretty useful generalization. For example I have no trouble believing literally born with the internet has had a significantly different effect on Zoomers than it had on us Millenials who learned to use it at the same time as our parents.
This is my understanding too. Historically we refer to time periods where life was different. People in the 1500s lived differently than people in the 1800s. It’s mostly technological advances that separate time periods. There used to be large gaps of time before technological advances caused changes in society, but that isn’t the case anymore. The 1980s were much different than the 2010s. People who were born in those time periods have much different life experiences even if they’re close in age.
It kind of applied with the Baby Boomers because there really was an explosion in births after WW2 ended. The GIs came home and their sweethearts were ready to settle down and be Mommies.
But I agree; you can’t arbitrarily say that someone born Dec. 31, 1999 is different from someone born Jan 1, 2000.
It’s such a silly concept. This massive superstructure of division to replace the simple idea that “I have a lot in common with peers in my age cohort”.
As soon as somebody says “technically you are a member of generation___”, you can ignore them. Anyone who puts a generation label at the center of their identity probably doesn’t have a lot else going on.
Contemporary generation labels are the new astrology, categories that use vague Barnum statements that can apply to anyone. Generational labels applied in an historic context can provide new insights, but the more arbitrary the boundary for inclusion the more arbitrary the properties of the group and more likely to confirm bias than provide new ideas about common beliefs or characteristics within the group not experienced or shared by others.
all these ‘generation’ labels are such hogwaash
IMHO, when taken simply as a group of people who have experienced a common set of cultural/societal defining events in their formative years, it’s a pretty useful generalization. For example I have no trouble believing literally born with the internet has had a significantly different effect on Zoomers than it had on us Millenials who learned to use it at the same time as our parents.
Or smart phones. Most people under 20 probably don’t remember the world without smart phones but I can remember 20 years without them.
This is my understanding too. Historically we refer to time periods where life was different. People in the 1500s lived differently than people in the 1800s. It’s mostly technological advances that separate time periods. There used to be large gaps of time before technological advances caused changes in society, but that isn’t the case anymore. The 1980s were much different than the 2010s. People who were born in those time periods have much different life experiences even if they’re close in age.
It kind of applied with the Baby Boomers because there really was an explosion in births after WW2 ended. The GIs came home and their sweethearts were ready to settle down and be Mommies.
But I agree; you can’t arbitrarily say that someone born Dec. 31, 1999 is different from someone born Jan 1, 2000.
It’s such a silly concept. This massive superstructure of division to replace the simple idea that “I have a lot in common with peers in my age cohort”.
As soon as somebody says “technically you are a member of generation___”, you can ignore them. Anyone who puts a generation label at the center of their identity probably doesn’t have a lot else going on.
Wait there is a hogwash generation now. I will never be able to keep up
Contemporary generation labels are the new astrology, categories that use vague Barnum statements that can apply to anyone. Generational labels applied in an historic context can provide new insights, but the more arbitrary the boundary for inclusion the more arbitrary the properties of the group and more likely to confirm bias than provide new ideas about common beliefs or characteristics within the group not experienced or shared by others.