I read a report recently on predictions for Generation Alpha, i.e. the generation after Generation Z (in turn the generation after the Millennial Generation) very roughly born after 2010. One of the predictions was that they would be both "digital masters" but also "the new old fashioneds" that would be looking to break away from technology more, perhaps as a result of feeling neglected by parents constantly distracted by phones. Examples cited included children placing smartphones on lists of things they wish had never been invented, and the 7 year old in Germany who got 150 people to attend a march with banners like "Play with ME, not with your phones!" Although it is too early to make any predictions that are likely to be especially accurate, and I'm not even sure how widely accepted the Generation Alpha name even is, it is none-the-less interesting from a technology perspective. And perhaps not too surprising since generations often go in cycles, rejecting parts of what defined the preceding generations.
back
4 comments
No one can really even define what a Millennial is, or who falls in to Generation Y/Z. Even "who is a Boomer?", and the tropes of what a Boomer is, fail when looking at my anecdotal data. Also often activist children are heavily influenced by their activist parents. Generational classification and "analysis" is almost as bad as stereotypes.
Unlike horoscopes, where a computer wouldn't be able to predict a person's "sign" from e.g. tweet data any more often than chance, generations really do work as a predictor for some behaviors (or vice-versa.)
Think of it this way: if 10% of every other generation does X, but 40% of a particular generation does X, then that generation really should be known for doing X, even though the majority of members of that generation don't do X! Don't let the easy availability of anecdotal counterexamples to a trend fool you; a trend in a population is a trend even if not literally everyone in that population is a part of it.
Of course, there might well be a better way to divide up the population that serves as a better predictor for the trend, and so "explains away" the generational effect. E.g. changes in racial composition (and so culture) due to immigration over the years; or growth of subcultures as self-reinforcing memetic entities, apart from any generational proclivity toward them; or economic effects pushing people to have different emotional needs (e.g. a change in gender-balance of the workforce will see different types of businesses created to offer self-care to tired workers.)
But, by another lens, all these other effects are "part of" the generational effect; they're the composition of the narrative the generation will tell about itself, and so be remembered for.
That's why I think "era" is a better view for this kind of categorization. It doesn't slap a label on the individuals and individuals can discuss living through that era without implying they did X.
Sure. All "generation $foo" is supposed to mean is "the set of people who grew up in the 15-year era $foo". Saying things about a "generation" is saying things about the effect that that era had on the people who grew up in it.
Supposed is right. But I'm pretty sure, just going off my own initial instincts (which I treat as a ranting racist), the terms used for generations triggers immediate bias in everyone, no matter how woke they are. It's just a bad way to categorize things. Not good for constructive conversation. "Grew up in" is vague enough, then there's a ton of follow up questions: "Exactly how old?", "What country?", "What city/suburb?", "What neighborhood?", "Family income level?", etc., etc. Most people just assume the answers to all those based on where they think people lived at the time, their assumed nationality, their current assumed income level, and a million other things. Only truly interested parties will take the time to resolve all those assumptions in a conversation, assuming they have the time. 2 people trying to have a conversation about their respective "generations" aren't likely to portray anything, even themselves, accurately to each other. Putting individual people, others or ourselves, in camp X, Y, or Z is a bad way to start, period. Talking about trends is great, but pigeonholing any one individual into anything, no matter how accurate, is going to induce immediate rage in them. Doesn't matter if that rage stems from perceived false accusations ("I'm not that thing you think I am") or patriotism ("You say that like it's a bad thing"), it's just not good.
This comment is being down-voted, and I sort of understand why, as it comes off as overly abrasive. Obviously demographers use different years to define generations depending on the study. But I think the last part about stereotyping is worth discussion, even if the comment is overly abrasive.
I was born in a year that traditionally was generally not considered "millennial" by demographers, but since it also did not fit with the years they used for previous generations, modern definitions tend to include my birth year as "millennial". This irritates me, because myself and most of those that I know who are my age don't fit the usual descriptions of "millennials" and we don't like the association. Now, I happen to like millennials. My wife is solidly in the millennial years. I have many friends who were born in the millennial years. But I don't like having the label applied to myself and I don't fit the descriptions at all.
In the end it isn't a big deal. I have no plans to ever call myself a millennial. But it is worth cautioning against stereotyping individuals because of the year they were born, as I unfortunately see many people do.
You might like: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/words-were-wat...
It's definitely some level of stereotyping, but there definitely appears to be a divide with friends (especially from college) who are a few years older than me, and those who are a few years younger. The older group finished college and entered the work force just as the internet was really beginning to churn, when it was interesting but not necessary, when it was still easy to ignore the digital world socially and economically. As a result they seem to be much less plugged in online than my friends who are just a few years younger.
Millennial has turned into a slur, so at this point I think the terminology needs to be superseded. The term originally meant birth between 1982-2004, with the caveat that the end of the generation might be up for discussion while the next generation was still growing. Now all of a sudden you have people calling anyone born in the 80s a "millennial", usually as a means to disparage them.
When I first heard the term, it seemed to be describing people born around 1988 or later. But I think it depends on locality, and my impression is the line is when cell phones became quasi-universal during high school.
Agree.
You sound like you were born in 1981 or 1982. I noticed this phenomenon as well, and it led me to conclude that "millennial" (and, to be fair, most other generational labels) really functions in common usage as an epithet, ie. anyone younger (or older) than me that I wish to denigrate by stereotyping them.
Is someone born in 1977 or 1979 fundamentally different? Are they really more like, say, Steve Jobs (i.e. the previous generation)?
Generations are basically agegroups that share for a part the same cultural experience, e.g. the same mass media, cartoons, educational trends, etc. Research shows that these overlaps in culture lead to several predictive trends in behavior and opinions.
It's normal you don't associate personaly with every trend. Especially if you lived in some local bubble or if you are on the edge of some defined group. That doesn't matter and I would just ignore it. This isn't about any specific person.
If you divide people into generations, most of them are not in the center and maximally separated from the adjoining generations. The thing about talking of generations is that it implies being near the boundaries is much less common than being far from the boundaries, which isn't true.
Being out of step with your peers is a separate issue.
> Research shows that these overlaps in culture lead to several predictive trends in behavior and opinions
What kind of research? Can you give references?
Think of mixing colors.
If you mix 50/50 red & blue, obviously that's purple.
When it's 80/20 red & blue, that looks more red than blue but looks purple but not the same as above.
When it's 20/80 red & blue, that looks more blue than red but looks purple but not the same as above.
It's a classification using a gradient, not an integer so yes, the boundaries are hard to tell but are still there.
Wavelength values are linear. The labels cause all the arguments.
*Continuous
That sounds righter. I'm not a math person :/
> Generational classification and "analysis" is almost as bad as stereotypes.
Sometimes there genuinely are very big changes between generations. E.g. Brexit, which is much more widely supported by old people than young people.
Well said. Not to mention that where you where born (geographically) and what social sector makes lots of cultural differences. For example, in late 90s in Argentina my mother washed clothes by hand and didn't own any game console. As you can imagine, even if I was a teenanger during the year 2000 my culture and life experience was differrnt than a middle class American of my same age.
Millennial is anyone 35 or younger.
As the namesake suggests, "millenials" are ideally people who were young-adults around the 00's. That generally means born from the early/mid 80's to mid-90's.
Gen z were/are young adults during the '10s. Gen alpha will be young adults during the '20s.
Generally a person's pre-teen/teen/early 20's are very formative so the shared experiences that a generation will have probably do form a real connective tissue within the age cohort that separates them from those with different experiences. A binary (anyone less than x years old is a y) isn't so useful to describe such a phenomenon.
Generations are supposed to be longer than 10 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials
1982 - 1996, that is more than ten years. But the people in that range would have shared formative experiences during the '00s. Thus the moniker millenials.
Hmm, curious as to whether there is any real evidence for this or whether its wishful thinking - not seen any among my kids (2010 and 2013) and their friends. My elder son did decide to give up screens for a month after reading an article about the idea, but that's the nearest I've seen and he is definitely back on them now, and of his friends, he's the only one apparently whose parents don't let him play Fortnite...
Generations are supposed to be longer than 10 years.
That sounds like a good read if you can find it again. :)