back
2 comments
This article reads like every other article about generation<variable>. In the early 2000s people at my university were also 'fully at home in cyberspace, moving seamlessly between the "real" world and the one online.' and they (according to articles like these) didn't like humanities classes, preferred to not have leaders, spent too much time in front of devices, agreed with various trendy campus politics of the day just like they did in the early 1980s or 70s or 1997. Nothing has changed.

Of course these terrible articles wouldn't be complete without a misleading picture to project the author's politics, not the generation<variable> politics. Every summary is the same too 'time will tell if this generation can confront these big challenges, which are the exact same challenges of the last 4 generations meaning workplace automation, increasing living costs, pandemic illnesses, environment problems...'. You could write an abstract function to just spit these articles out every 10 years, changing the varibles to whatever headlines of the moment.

Interesting view. The issue you raise of "misleading picture" is important.

Hopefully, this iGeneration research project will address these types of weaknesses head-on, possibly in the limitations section of their report? For instance, when the authors explain their data collection process and analysis methods, it would be useful if they describe the steps taken to minimize or at least acknowledge possible biases that may affect validity.