Are Generations Real? The History, The Controversy.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 лют 2019
- / thinkfact
www.paypal.me/DaleWinslow
There was a typo in the video. Gen Z should say (2005-2020's), not (2005- 1920's).
Link to the work by Hans Jaeger:
is.muni.cz/el/1423/podzim2013...
____________________________
Link to my UA-cam channel:
/ thinkfact
Link to my Twitter account:
/ dalewinslow
Link to the Think Fact sub Reddit:
/ thinkfact
Link to my Discord:
/ discord
____________________________
Sources and further readings:
-
Imprint Hypothesis
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprint...)
www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publicatio...
-
How stereotyping students became a thriving industry and a bundle of contradictions
www.chronicle.com/article/The...
-
Wikipedia generations:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Ge...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.I._Ge...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_bo...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generat...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millenn...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generat...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cusper
-
William Strauss and Neil Howe info:
1991 book: Generations History of Americas Future.
archive.org/stream/Generation...
Their history:
www.lifecourse.com/about/hist...
The generation Archetype info shown in video:
www.lifecourse.com/about/meth...
Them discussing generations on CSPAN 1991
• Video
Interview in 1998
• The Fourth Turning: Wh...
Rational Wiki info
rationalwiki.org/wiki/William...
-
Karl Mannheim:
www.britannica.com/biography/...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Ma...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_...
www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/m...
-
Arthur Stinchcombe:
www.researchgate.net/publicat...
-
MetLife age range
fliphtml5.com/cgdd/mcig
-
Pew age range
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/...
-
www.census.gov/newsroom/press...
-
French Revolution generation talk:
www.jstor.org/stable/10.5309/...
-
Websites shown in the video over China, Brazil, Germany, Turkey:
www.globaltimes.cn/content/113...
www1.folha.uol.com.br/sobretu...
www.nigelwright.com/de/news-i...
www.gfk.com/de/landing-pages/...
www.researchgate.net/publicat...
____________________________
♫Music by Dj Quads♫
● @aka-dj-quads
● DjQuads
● / channel
● open.spotify.com/artist/2VZrdImbvB03VWApYtBRr3
● djquads
-
Ride Of Joy:
• Video
-
One With Nature:
• Video
-
Bicycle - Reunited by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license (creativecommons.org/licenses/...)
Source: incompetech.com/music/royalty-...
Artist: incompetech.com/
-
Warm waters: UA-cam Audio Library
I think this Generational controversy really needs to be talked about more! I have not seen a single video ever talk about it, or at least well.
My channel has a discord now, if you would like to join there is a link in the description!
@thinkfact, I wish you could join the Generational and 4T group we have on FB.
So what do you think about the Pew dates? You haven't gone into that.
CORRECTION:
Baby Boomers started January 1st 1946 and ended on December 31st 1964.
You should apply better research before presenting it as factual.
@@maxmcgraw3571 there is no one perfect date, that's the point. One could argue that Baby Boomers started immediately upon the end of world War II, the start of the school year which varies from different regions around the US and other countries, or simply the beginning of the year following the War ending.
As someone born in 1998 I've always felt very different from the typical Millennial, but then I did grow up knowing how to work a VHS player and proudly sporting my brand new discman, so I'm not exactly Generation Z either. Just the fact that I exist proves to me that those hard lines are bollocks.
Yeah, the hardlines is such a weird position to have. In all reality, there is so much complexity surrounding our own individual experiences, and as that relates to people around us. To assume just about everybody born within a particular timeframe is going to be innately perceived the same way just comes across as disingenuous.
Yeah, born in 1997 Eastern Europe. I've always thought it was bullshit, but i've legit had a friend the same age as me, from the same country, tell me that they hate millenials. -_-
caught in the middle :)
I'm born in 87 and I hate being called a millennial I'm nothing like those PC pussifde losers
You guys are oversimplifying generations. It’s normal to think generations are BS if you don’t come from the west, because obviously different things happen in different countries at different times, which create different generational boundaries. A kid in the US is living a very different life than someone in Afganistan for example, and it’s hard to lump both into a single gen, so it’s much more effective to have different gens for different countries
No generation is better than another. All play roles in each of the four turnings of history, creating it and then passing on the role when they die. You can’t dismiss an entire generation as being bad as a whole, especially when they’re still young and have lots of time to do great things. As 2005er, I’m rooting not just for us, but for Millennials and all of the above
Who else is a part of Gen "Kenobi"? 1997 here.
hello there
It's a good generation.
me but we only had internet growing up when it could be afforded
Yeah :D
I wish. I feel that 1999 should be in the cusp. :(
I'm still learning new technology but IDK why stuff like Tik Tok and Fortnite are popular.
Love the into the way you scroll through the pictures and end on you. Done very well Dale!
Thanks. I thought it might be a fun animation to start out with!
You are honestly one of my favourite channels on this site.
Thank you both very much! Knowing that there are people who genuinely enjoy my content so much makes all the hard work worth it!
im so glad you are bringing the videos back!
I'm glad you have stuck around to watch them, thank you!
Dude, when I first found your channel, I thought it was kinda weird and I was really sceptical about some of the things you talked about. But now I find myself really enjoying your work and learning new things as well. It's clear you do your research, and I want to let you know that it's appreciated. Keep it up Dale!
Thank you very much! I try to find topics that are either not talked about a lot or ones that I can give people a new perspective on. It's often a lot of work but knowing that people enjoy them makes all the work that goes into them worth it. Thank you very much for the comment and I hope to keep seeing you around. Take care Luke!
I had no idea the whole generation thing went this deep. I think it's okay to use the terms as a convenient term for when someone was born. But the fact that they are trying to generalize a whole generation is silly, especially with such a big gap between them. As always thanks for the video and keep up the hard work!
I think one of the most interesting aspects of all of this is that there is not a lot of material out there questioning it, for the public themselves. A generational terms are just way too oversimplified and are seemingly being molded by people who really don't really to have the credentials to do so. Imprint hypothesis is way better. Thank you for the comment, take care!
What more convenient is calling someone by the 10 yr span of they were born
Ex: he's an 80's... she's a 70's.. etc
A "cohort" (a better word than "generation") consists of people who grew up with a shared cultural experience due to time period (though not nationality, ethnicity, etc.). So maybe it makes more sense to talk about people born in the 1940s, 50, 60s, etc.
That actually might be a better word. It definitely makes it sound less like there's a hard line in between everything. And yeah, I think 10 year increments to be much better if we have to stick with the current system, especially considering the acceleration of change in our society both socially and technologically. Thank you for sharing!
I'm not sure people have a shared cultural experience anymore.
Excellent sourced topic. Great idea. Keep up the good work.
Generation Z at 0:27 has the wrong time frame, should it be '2020s'?
Something always slips by, I don't even know how I missed that. Thank you for pointing it out, it should be 2020's.
@@thinkfact wait it's bollocks because I found articles say 2010-now is generation a
Alpha is from 2010.
It ends 2010
Boomers are missing
However, the Silent one, had it's most "style "
Elvis and the Beatles
Along with Buzz Aldrin, etc
What are my thoughts? When I first heard about the concept (probably something like 10-20 years ago) I thought it was mostly bullshit - and today, I still think so. The only real thing was the different baby-per-head rate, and that only covers a fairly small part of what people are like.
On the other hand, how very American this concept is - marketing and politics over science!
I'm happy to hear that people of been critical of it for quite a while. And I completely agree on your final point. If it can be made into something that people can profit off of, there'll be individuals that will do everything in their power to implement it
It's amazing that it's gotten so popular. It's so ingrained into American society that people don't even question it.
I have never taken the 'generations' too seriously.
This generational divide is about as effective at predicting behavior as horoscopes. As counterpoint to both, I have met a "birth twin"-born the same year, month, and day as myself. Despite claims from both horoscopes and generations (we're dead center of GenX), we have virtually nothing in common. If either theory were *remotely* true, we would show notable similarities compared to someone selected at random.
Every time you tend to generalize and encompass lots of people you tend to fail, at least when trying to predict a specific person's behavior through that lens.
I had a "birth twin" that I went to school with. We had literally nothing in common beyond the birthday. So yeah, the arguments of the generations are reminiscent of a horoscope is quite strong. Especially considering Fourth Turning goes on in to see how that generation is innately going to be perceived. How can someone confidently make a prediction for that before they're even born...
You and your birth twin would have exposure to major events at the same point in your life. That is a commonality that is outside of any personal characteristics. And it sets you apart from younger and older cohorts. Yes, Strauss and Howe stretch generational archetypes way too much, but the basic idea that exterior factors make the generation, not the other way around, makes sense to me.
VSauce Reborn and I'm loving it
That's quite the compliment, thank you.
Generation Kenobi? As somebody born in 93 I f...ing love it.
Nice content on your videos you have major sponsors backing you up job well done
I think this concept rides on people's desire to belong in a group, in a way that's similar to horoscopes.
Loved this video! Keep it up!
Thank you very much and you can count on it!
I really appreciate the deconstruction of the 4th Turning nonsense.
Thank you, it kind of blows my mind how it just goes under the radar so often. It's not even a partisan issue, they're people who literally believe this very poor method of organizing people.
*Silent Generation*
Swing Generation
*Baby Boomer*
Generation Jones
*Generation X*
Xennial
*Generation Y (Millennial)*
Transmillennial
*Generation Z (Postmillennial)*
Homelander
*Generation Alpha*
According to Karl Mannheim, a "Generation" is a group of individuals of similar ages whose members have experienced a noteworthy historical event within a set period of time. I think they do exist, but there are no formulas.
The thing is that all bordering generations overlap on each other at the borders, so instead of clear cut borders, there are sort of grey areas that are disputed between two generations. That's why the exact dates of generations are so heavily disputed.
Yes! People need to rethink this! Something that I think we really need to account for is the rate at which technology and society are changing. I may just be ignorant, but I feel like there could be "generations" from hundreds of years ago that spanned half a century. Now, as someone born in 1998, I feel SO distant from the people born in the mid/early 2000's because they grew up with some really important pieces of technology that I think would have drastically changed my childhood and who I am.
I also agree that it's not really fair to specify people as coevals just because they were born within 15 years of one another. I honestly don't even feel like I belong to the same generation as people who were born in the same year as me that do not use the internet heavily or in the same way as me.
In all reality, if we're going to have to stick with a pulse rate system, it should really be in the span of five to even one year, and the years should immediately reflect the school year and not simply January and December.
You're part of a sub generation that more immediately reflects the cultural phenomenon that you have been the most impacted by. Imprint hypothesis over pulse-rate hypothesis. These large groupings that are ignorant towards socioeconomics and geography within a nation and state are just way too over simplified. Which is why pulse-rate is often criticized as being too reminiscent of a horoscope.
Thoughtful!
Thank you!
When you mentioned cusp. That makes the most sense to me as I was born in 84. I often look back to my childhood when I consider my gen and the first 10 years of my life would be muff different for someone 94-04 as you said Internet, cellphones being common. Types of movies were different to me. Just the world around us was somewhat different. The gen after us lives in a greatly different world. Now children have access to alot more information and they are navigating life somewhat differently. I wish the best to the future gens in their time and influence on the world. The problems don't get any easier in fact much more complications arise as we face off with population growth and economical issuses as well as environmental issuses. Good video.
Interesting video on Generations.
I am technically a "Gen. Y" but my tastes in music and general interests are more like a Gen. Xers. (I like the Xennial term, better).
I also grew up in a rural area where we didn't have access to cell phones or the internet and we were about 10 years behind everyone else in the country in terms of pop culture, music, and technology.
This should be interesting, I love your take on things.
I always enjoy trying to cover more obscure topics. This one in particular I have never seen a video, let alone a well-made video, that criticizes the concept of generations. I hope you found it interesting.
Think Fact if you could, which two generations would you switch for the other?
It's hard to say, I think the whole system is too awkward to even work with.
Think Fact it was a dumb question. So anyway how’s your sex life?
I love this video because it explains so well why I don’t really fit into millennial stereotypes or gen Z stereotypes because, being born in 2001, I often fall in the break between the two generations. The fact that generations don’t really describe all people born in the years described makes me feel better about not being “like millennials” or “like gen Z” even though it has been drilled into me at school in almost every class. I often find myself defending both generations despite not knowing which I belong to, if I belong to either at all.
Interestingly enough, Strauss & Howe have actually work with numerous educational programs. That's probably part of the reason why it's so drilled in everybody's head, because schools are being told to think that way. Anyways, you definitely are in an interesting place culturally. But in all reality, imprint hypothesis would suggest that you're actually part of a even smaller more specialized group. You're in the right group once you don't have to explain yourself all that much. Thank you for the comment!
At this point generation labels are predominantly used as derogatory labels put upon by those in other generations.
I'm hoping people can realize the divisive nature of this societal construct and view people as individuals instead of leaning into age based prejudices.
Great video I love it keep it up
Thanks, and thank you for taking the time to watch!
good video. I would also say that no individual can be put in these "groups" because there are just to many individual factors in each and one of us. For instance, appart from all the personality traits that makes us different from each other, theres socio-economical status, parenting, peer relationships at different ages, different points of view, different intelligence values and even plain consciousness of various things. Counting with all the factors that you stated. there are just too many parameters that makes us unable to get grouped into certain specific labeling, i find it outrageous that someone can even think of doing this and claim that it is a theorem and not just a theory that might be applied to some certain individuals, even if there are some common ground. In addition, it gives birth to certain preconception.
I’m very early gen Z (2002) and right now I volunteer teaching kids that are around 11 years old at my church. These kids were born around 6 years after me, and already, they are so different. The biggest thing is that they were born just as the iPhone was invented, and many got iPhones by the time they were 9. Of course I had computers and the internet but I couldn’t take it anywhere I went in my pocket when I was in elementary school! So, first, it makes them a lot more knowledgeable about the world and current events, because of the fact that they were already invested in social media at a very young age. It also makes them a lot less innocent. They hear about horrible incidents online regularly: when I was 11 years old I just used the internet for video games and homework tbh. Plus you have more little kids shopping in the same stores that I shop at as a teenager, that makes me feel really really weird because at their age I was still in the children’s section at department stores.
Oh and they are obsessed with fortnite........ :(
That's a really interesting perspective. My question is though, does accessibility innately mean something was actually accessed at a level that did leave such a monumental impact on them? For instance, if you were five years old when the iPhone came out, you probably still didn't have an iPhone. Meaning you would've had access to certain types of technology even if you're born after it around the same time as people younger than you. Internet accessibility on cell phones is something no doubt that has had an impact on the youth, but by the time they are at the age you were when you got your hands on similar technology, are they so different, did the gap leave that much of a difference? In some cases maybe, in some cases probably not. I think we are very susceptible to identifying things that were different than our own personal childhood, but then again, how different really are we in some cases?
I don't know, it's interesting. Thank you very much for the comment!
In various forums and Facebook groups, fans of the Fourth turning have taken the time to track the turnings and generations in other countries outside of the US.
Like being a gen x (1976) but wish we weren't so overlooked
I'm a cusper... 1984. I feel like an old Millenial or a young Xer. Growing up, I always thought I was Gen X.
Yeah, cuspers really just feel like a patch job on a really bad system as it is. I mean the whole Millennial identity was forced on a group of people when the oldest of them were only about nine or so years old. It's just all weird.
Born in 86 and still relate to this.
xennials are 1977-1983
@@videosladvd7823 Depends on who you ask. The dates for any of these generations are mostly arbitrary.
@@NiamhCreates agree
As someone born in the same year as you (1994), I've always considered myself to be a millenial, but only probably because I didn't even know Gen Z was a thing when I was growing up, and I am too old to be going through a generational identity crisis. I had to mention a caveat when I was teaching generation titles to people from different countries that these generation boundaries only apply to north american/western people, though I would argue that with an increasingly globalized world I think Gen Z and the upcoming generations might have more shared traits.
Your a millenial
Seems like generations mostly came to play in societies with rapid growth in development and revolution-
Another amazing vid 💜💜
Yeah, it seems like Strauss and Howe were really able to tap into a public interest that nobody had really been able to do well. Unfortunately though they injected a very bad idea into society. Something that's just way too oversimplified.
Thank you for the comment, nice to see you around!
Generation Kenobi:
Youngest Generation to remember 9/11
Youngest Generation to have an early childhood not defined by High Speed Internet.
Teenage years defined by High Speed Internet.
Young adult life defined by the fallout of the 2008 crisis and the refugee crisis.
Generation that made memes popular.
First Generation to depend on Smart Phones and social media.
Mid 20s defined by the Coronavirus crisis.
.....
Feel free to tag on other relevant information.
People within a time frame are going to have similarities yes , because of events and trends, but you can’t account for humanity. Which is imperfect and while it can try and help each other , can cause many different experiences onto each other’s resulting in very different psyches regardless of generation.
I was born in 1999. According to Strauss-Howe Generational Theory, I am pretty comfortably in the millennial range. I feel that this label would be pretty inaccurate because it would make the case that I have a shared experience with people in their 30s, which is a bit insane considering that I'm 19.
However, I think it's also insane to assume my experience is shared with 12-15 year olds (if I'm placed in Gen Z). Technology has advanced so much in recent years that the range of ages where people had a very similar experience is getting much smaller. Two people born in 1983 and 1989 are more similar than two people born in 1996 and 2000, and they are probably more similar than two people born in 2002 and 2005. Just thinking of smartphones, someone born in 1995 probably didn't have one until high school at the earliest, while someone born in 2003 may have had one before middle school.
One of the earliest major events I can remember in detail was the 2008 election. Meanwhile, there are probably many people watching this video who not only can't remember it, but weren't even alive when it happened. According to a lot of the other ranges, I'm in the same generation as someone born today. It's just nonsensical.
I think it interesting problem with pulse rate and "fourth turning" is that they don't address the fact that the generations should really start at the beginning of a school year if they're going to use that system. And I think in all reality it would make way more sense to have generations span only about a year to five years at a time. I think there's a lot of ways to do pulse rate better. I think it would be interesting if there was a system that recognizes overlap better. Take a year, create a special range bracket that goes both three years ahead and behind it as some sort of buffer, and use that to create a system that looks that individual years and how much they be impacted by people around them. Going to high school, your going to be exposed to people older than younger than yourself, and you also have siblings that can be taken into consideration. Are you the oldest or youngest, because that's going to impact what culture you are going to be exposed to.
Pulse rate is a bad system, but it's hard to motivate people to adopt a system of identifying each other that's harder and more complex. Imprint hypothesis would create many more generations, but it becomes inconvenient to use in a conversation if you want to talk about many people in time. Thanks for the comment!
Thanks for this; very interesting.
I think people's acceptance of this ties into the natural human tendency to want to belong to something larger than ourselves - and what appears more natural than something seemingly tied to the familial rhythms of birth, and time and place.
Unfortunately it really does break down for many of the reasons you mention, most simply, these "generational" time spans are just too damned big! I do think your suggestion of smaller "cohorts" of 10 yrs or less makes more sense, as well as further qualifications of specificities such as region etc.
I was fascinated when this generational theory first appeared when I was in university in the early 90s, and still am, but have long since seen some of its limitations. But of course smaller "cohorts" or "tribes" can exist. For example I was born in 1966 and I feel that many born roughly around the same time as myself were hugely impacted by entering the school system in the early 1970s amidst a period of great educational reform and upheaval. This is just one of many, smaller ...micro, examples. Anyway would be very interested in seeing any further discussions on this subject.
Thank you for saying applicable correctly. Most UA-camrs don’t
I was born in 1997, but I don't really identify with millennials much. I think your relations with siblings and cousins can really affect what generation you consider yourself a part of - I'm the oldest of all my siblings and cousins, so naturally I consider myself at the start of a generation and not at the tail end of one. I do have some "millennial" traits - I distinctly remember my family having a big VHS tower, and much of my life was before smart phones - but I feel more of an affinity towards the "Gen Z" label than anything else.
You bring up an interesting point that I actually cut from this video. Siblings can have an interesting impact on individuals identity. If you are the youngest sibling, you're going to most likely be exposed more to cultural phenomenon that resonates with people older than you, but if you are the oldest, you're more likely to be exposed to cultural phenomenon that resonates with people younger than you. I do believe that could play an influential part in the cultural identities surrounding generations.
Thank you for sharing!
I was also born in 1997, but I don't feel like l quite belong to Gen Z, mostly because my little brother is a poster child for that generation. He was born in 2008, and we barely have anything in common with each other, regarding the media we grew up with, our experiences, etc. I even remember 9/11, thanks to being born early in the year, meanwhile my brother had to ask me what was it all about.
Brilliant & lovely (the video was pretty good too)
Haha, well that's a compliment I will definitely take. Thank you. :)
i like your 1993 to 1998 generation. I can relate!
So long as one of us get to name it. Haha
I do think that generations do exist but how we are structuring them is very haphazard. I do think that generations were more determined by events around them and the changes in their environment so that in the past 20 years would not have been very accurate. In the past a generation may have been more forty or more years. And I think in more modern times a generation in this sense would be maybe closer to ten years. I think social events like wars and recessions have played a part in shaping generations and I think technology greatly shapes generations now. On some charts I fall in the Millenial but I don't really fit in there, and in others I am Gen X, and if I had to pick one I would definitely fit there better. I like the idea of these 'cuspers' who have attributes of both 'generations' but as you do this what is actually happening is those generations are breaking from twenty years to ten years. While I do think there are generalizations that one can make about a group of people in a specific bracket you are always going to have outliers and if that bracket is too wide or too narrow it begins to become meaningless because more people are outliers that actually fit into those brackets.
I definitely think that's an important point. Generations most certainly exist, especially from a cultural context, it's just the challenge is creating an effective and convenient means of identifying them. I think making cuspers more mainstream could have some sort of positive impact, and could eventually even condition more change. I definitely think smaller time frames would be much better, 10 years and be significantly more accurate than 20. It's just hard when the mainstream is reluctant to break it down further, and that could be in part because they don't see it as a problem. It's hard to say, but I do hope a more critical discussion over generations becomes more mainstream.
Thank you for the comment!
I think each generation is smaller as a result of how connected we are to living history now.
@@ladyrose7793 no I'm not in the same generation as my mom it's every 20 years when you are born that's the generation you are in I found articles saying different years started a year
i was just scrolling by and saw your face under melenials and i didnt think this was one of your videos at first so i was shocked lol. hey buddie how you been man?
Haha, that might have definitely caught some people off guard. I've had people tell me that they have initially confused my thumbnails for Vsauce thumbnails in the past and so forth, let alone other channels. I've been doing well, I hope you have been well too.
I was born in 1962 so, depending on how you look at it, I'm either a young Boomer (if you use 1964 as the end date) or an old Gen Xer (if you use 1961 as the start date). Or I'm a cusper. So confusing!
The Baby Boom 1946-1964. Accordingly, the term “Baby boom” was used to describe a block of time (1946-1964) where an extraordinary birth rate post WWII occurred; not returning to pre-War level until 1965 was observed in the United States. Consequently, or perhaps because of the passage of time since the phenomenon, there has been much ado over the naming as well as, what years comprise this or subsequent generations i.e., Gen X 1965-1980, or Millennials 1981-1996 . As a result, there has been a departure (by some) from the original reasoning behind the “Boomer“ descriptor. Seemingly, in an effort to reorganize the various generations according to subjective experiential and sociologically driven desire, to categorize and redefine cohort groups into something neater and tidier according to them. Fortunately, everyone has the right to their own opinion concerning these somewhat petty items. However, it could be argued that if it were not for the original Baby Boom observation and subsequent naming of that phenomenon, it is entirely likely that conversations concerning these matters would be very different, maybe even dry and inconsequential.
www.statista.com/statistics/296974/us-population-share-by-generation/
www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/FT_19.01.17_generations_2019.png
www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/defining-the-generations
Another thought as to why Generational Theory is appealing. Particularly for older cohorts (Boom, X), we subjectively feel an accuracy to these classifications. Gen Theory gives the feeling legitimacy. History becomes less arbitrary. But there is something metaphysical about it. It’s bleeding into Jungian archetype territory. Where we perceive universal truths subjectively, to great effect. But the proof will elude the scientific method.
I'm glad someone had finally mentioned cuspers; I hadn't heard of them before, but they're useful for this rather flawed generational system. My oldest brother was born in 94, so would fall in your cusper as well; & it makes sense. He grew up with a computer in his house by the time he was in high school, he used cell phones, & all that. However, I believe there should be a second cusper between Millenials & Gen Zers; one between around 1999-2004. The best way I can describe this is using mostly UA-cam to frame it.
Some call thestretch of around 2010-2015 as sort of the "Golden Age of YT" where independent creators really could succeed. The bigger creators tended to be born in the early 90s or earlier, but the younger viewers tended to be born in the late 90s to early 2000s. After 2015 things changed; I don't want to necessarily say that YT became more "commercialized" since it's always been a commercial venture, but due to changes with the YT landscape, people like the Paul bros. could more likely succeed than someone like Tobuscus. The tone had changed, anyways. These new stars tended to be from that early to mid-90s cluster, (including their critics; people like Pyrocyncial or iDubbbz) & grew up with that earlier YT in thelate 2000s & early 2010s. Those who grew up on the first half of the 2010s YT are younger & haven't made waves in terms of content, but those born in 05 & beyond are growing up under this new post-2015 YT, again after the reported "Golden Age" had ended.
And YT compared to the global population is a relatively smaller example, but there definitely is a cultural riff between basically everyone in American high schools as of September 2018 & those in middle or elementary school. Stuff with iPhones for example; many in our mini-cohort didn't have access to proper iPhones late middle school oftentimes, those in the younger cohort of 05 & beyond have tended to have greater iPhone access from a younger age. And I think many of my friends agree that we're in a confusing position in terms of generations, since our cultural experience does bleed into "Millennial" & "Gen Z". I'd argue many would feel closer to Gen Z, but again, there is a barrier between the younger members of Gen Z & "us".
Your comment here ultimately seems to make a case for imprint hypothesis. In all reality, we shouldn't have to rely on cuspers because they are a patch job on an already poor system. That said, they're better than nothing. Your argument would make a case for multiple smaller sub-generations of generations that have experienced a cultural phenomenon more similarly with each other. Of course UA-cam may have played a very influential role in your life, but it wouldn't be the sole source of cultural input that would probably categorize you or anybody. Though it may be influential.
You do a great job here putting together a phenomenon that I've noticed myself on youtube.
All that said, I believe you have worked out a lot of the logic as to why the system needs to be adjusted. It's just knowing which way to adjusted that would be best. I think five-year generations if we have to keep some sort of pulse rate system would be better.
It's always nice to hear from you!
Think Fact Thank you! And yeah, I agree the current generational theory is broken & should be done over with. There is a value in explaining certain shifts & trends amongst certain demographics, but in nature any sort of labelling will have to be for a very specific group, in terms of age, social standing, geography, etc. for instance, the Lost Generation. We now mainly use it for people who lived through WW1, but originally it was for a generation of American & Europeanauthors dismayed with the world after experiencing WW1. You got a lot of works with a very similar tone & outlook (Babbitt, Great Gatsby) .
Generations should be used on a more micro level opposed to macro.
Second cusper 1999-2004? I see that it is convenient to put the range from 1999 to 2007 as gen z because gen alpha starts in 2010 aprox
2005 to 1920? Hmmm
I wish I could time travel like them and fix that typo. Haha
I am a Cusper, born in 1980. I do not feel like a Gen Xer. I grew up seeing them as a separate group from where I felt I belonged. I feel more like a Millennial...
Don't forget the term Strawberry Generation to discribed easily bruised Chinese and Taiwanese Millennials or the boomerang generation also ascribed to Millennials due to nebulous employment prospects
Actually almost included that into the the section where I talk about Armenia and Vietnam. But I decided to go with more obscure examples. Thank you for bringing it up.
@@thinkfact thanks
The cosmos gives us the perfect generational marker. Jupiter aligns with Saturn roughly every 20 years. the last 3 were in the years 1961, 1981, & 2000. The next one will take place in December of 2020.
@thinkfact, I wish you could join the Generational and 4T group we have on FB.
So what do you think about the Pew dates? You haven't gone into that.
We actually call what you call Swing Generation, War babies.
Now i wonder what would be the age range of the cuspers gen z/ gen alpha
Strauss-Howe successfully apprehend the feel of a generation. But intuitively from our own experience, it seems the opposite ends of 22 years is too wide of a gap to share generational experience. However, I think one might find that persons at the extremes of cohort still somehow have more in common than their preceding or successive generations.
You are brilliant.
Yeah the "baby boomer" time frame is really wrong. You aren't, but the general perception of when it was is wrong. I am the youngest of 4. My 3 siblings were rocking out to 50's music at the same age that found me digging the Beatles. Completely different world for me at 6-8 as compared to them. Baby boomers that were indeed small kids between 1945 and about 1953 have a completely different outlook and everything than what I do.
Also, all the hatred directed at "millennials" is often undeserved. I recognize spoiled brats, but they have existed within all generations, not just one.
Combining the generation concepts with other conditions like geography and so on might help to create better smaller categories, as well as sub-generations and cusps. But beware of the trend among millennials only to accept "biological" or other "physical" determinants and not "pulse and rhythm." Boomers and others in the "Consciousness Revolution Awakening" (Strauss and Howe term for roughly the mid-sixties through the 70s) helped our culture transcend such a narrow focus of reality and lead us toward more "mystical" discoveries. That should not be ditched, even though we also want to embrace a factual basis for assertions.
The system has issues with it regarding outliers and potential mishaps throughout it. So far though, we dont seem to have many other ways to create a convenient sociological shorthand to use for dealing with the massive averages throughout the different age groups in society and predicting what will be useful to market to them and study them in terms of a baseline. While it is culturally restrictive and inflexible beyond the statistical mean, it is still the best shorthand hypothesis we have to operate from for now. Even the idea of decade based cohorts over the idea of quarter-century long generations is so far really a modification of the basic premise of each set being brought up reacting to the previous set and their actions. Perhaps what would be best is to refine the model by combining the imprint theory and the cyclic theory or at least better reconciling them to better account for cultural shift, and the large amount of outliers who dont share the same presumptions as their counterparts.
You bring up some interesting points, most notably the notion of trying to combine the two systems. I think the big issue is being able to use different sizes of group identity to discuss things in as intellectually honest of a manner as possible. There are benefits to large groupings, but certain questions can be inappropriate at such a massive scale. Given that, I think it would be interesting if there was a sort of standard that was established that would immediately identified whether certain questions are appropriate or at least going to present an accurate picture of people if done at a particular scale or not. There're not really a lot of resources out in the public concerning the stuff, so it's hard to even get a grasp on what is already being talked about.
Anyways, thank you for the comment!
I think that fourth turning seems similar to Chinese astrology , as it assigns personality characteristics according to the year in which one is born .
I think the major flaw in this system is that not everyone within a generation reproduces in their 20s. If a boomer couple leaves off having kids until their late 30s then, while their kid might technically be a millennial, he or she is likely to display Gen Xer characteristics. Granted these are the exceptions and the system was probably conceived on generalities, but it is useful to keep this in mind especially now, when millennials (and likely Zoomers too) are having kids later in life if at all.
Is it just me or is the sound slightly out of sync?
But to the point: I think, for everyone his or her "generation" consists roughly of the people in a specific age range around their own age. (To me, my "generation" is atm something like born 7 years before me to 3 years after me, and I think that the frame will widen as I get older). Also, even the definition of "generations" varies as you already put it. In Germany, for example, the baby boomers generation does not start in 1943 (obviously there was no baby boom in end and post war Germany) but rather somewhere around 1955.
Also, there is some divide between "Eastern German" generations and "Western German" generations, at least in my POV. (Simply due to the fact that they lived in very different states. For me as the son of two "Eastern German" parents who grew up in the western part, the memory of the former German divide is far more present than for most of my class mates)
I had some issues exporting it, that might've contributing to it.
That's an interesting perspective on the matter. I feel like I have a mildly similar experience considering that both of my mother's parents are from an entirely different country, Canada. Though of course not the same, there are some notable cultural divides between both sets of my grandparents.
But yes, I would argue that organizing a generation would involve some of the major attributes of imprint hypothesis. Notably your geographic region, socioeconomic status, and around the time you were born. Of course there is some room for overlap, but I think this would be a much better starting point than any pulse rate system.
Great video. Categorizing people in mass as such seems a little fascist in nature. Probably not a good idea. I wonder how the Amish people feel about generation classification. Also are you Edward Norton's son?
Thank you, I appreciate it! Really, they're just terms for other people's convenience not really our own. Governments come of businesses, they shouldn't be cultural markers. If anything, the Amish definitely would have a different system I would assume. I am not, but I'll definitely take any Edward Norton comparison as a compliment. Haha
20 year span of generations isn't accurate imo. This is mostly based on birth rates and marketing. If someone has a kid when they are 16 they wouldn't be the same generation. They should be 10-12 years with crossover years since there are cusp years of which there are similarities between generations.
Like any cultural title, a generational title is just a convenient shorthand for talking about people who behave in a similar fashion. In my mind the term 'millennial' refers to a certain kind of privileged youth who experiences all the same challenges we did growing up but dramatizes and magnifies them to a ludicrous extreme - it has nothing to do with the year they were born, though the age of these people tends to be similar.
When I grew up they called us "generation x" and implied we had no identity. That never defined me or anyone in my social group, and I never identified with such a notion, but some social scientist somewhere declared it to be true and the media parroted it, like they always do, so it became our moniker. At the end of the day, social titles are used by the people who don't like you, to lump you in with other people they don't like, because that's easier than thinking and convenient when arguing ideas.
These generational units have definitely become extremely prone to stereotypes. We'll start seeing them go after "Gen Z" more intensely once they begin leaving college. In all reality I don't even think it's appropriate to even attempt to start labeling the attributes of a generation until they've actually all grown up in pulse-rate. Fourth turning actively started trying to predict the traits of millennial's before they were even born, and subsequently Gen Z. It's really bizarre, but because it creates this identity to easily latch onto to discuss the large group of people conveniently, it's going to be hard to push against.
@@thinkfact I will not deny that when we heard we'd been labelled 'the generation with no purpose' in the media, it had a psychological effect on those in my social group - it was demoralizing.
Waiting for someone to start reping 90s kids and for someone to tell them theyre not that special and quote" im born in the 2000s and ik what that is"
There'll definitely be a trend shift once more people born in the 2000s will come of age and start voicing their opinions online, and you'll most likely start seeing that much more frequently then.
Born in 2002. I am not a millennial.
Nobody should have to be. It's part of a bad system.
The thing I strongly dislike is how many people overgeneralize generations, and latch on to these silly eye-rolling stereotypes of each generation.
That's part of the reason why this system is so bad and it's so popular. These terms/identities have become mainstream, but they really hold no bearing on the people that they're being forced onto. It's no surprise that the majority of the research looking at these generations is marketing related. "Millennial's are ruining X industry." The wording is ridiculous it creates hostility by forcing blame on an arbitrary group of people.
Real generations are marked not by when people are born, but when they hit puberty. So to be a stereotypical baby boomer you had to hit puberty before the civil rights bill was passed into law in 1964. People born after 1951 aren't the same boomers that my parents are.
I was 15 in 1991 (born in early 76), when Smells Like Teen Spirit first hit the airwaves. I was right in the middle of a massive shift in youth culture, which means everyone older than me behaves completely differently towards music to everyone younger than me. Because of this middle ground, there's very little cohesion between people from my class at school. Everyone from my class mostly associates only with people older or younger. All of my friends from school days are younger than me.
Gen X born before 75 are typical 80s, and Gen X born after 76 are typical 90s. Those two years in the middle are both and neither. There's a huge difference in approach to all kinds of things. I'm right in the middle and have seen both sides so I can tell you that they are two completely different generations.
Why was 91 significant? Because that's when the cold war ended and the Middle East wars began. The 80s was a time of excess as America sought to win the hearts of communist Russians away from the poverty of communism over to the fun and abundance of capitalism. But once that war was won and the USSR fell, the western world stopped supporting excess across the board and the grunge era began. It was like the end of Disco. Anything 80s was suddenly hated and mocked. Mullets were the easy target for comedic abuse, along with Carltons 80s dance style on the Fresh Prince of Bell Air. I got to see the good side of the 80s when I was 13, and then saw the absolute mockery of it when I was 15. People born a year before me didn't watch the mockery of the 80s, and people born a year after me saw nothing but the mockery.
As children, this has a huge effect on the developing personality as they start moving away from their parent's influence and become their own people. And it's this factor, the time when children begin entering adulthood, that really separates the generations. Imagine hitting puberty right at the end of WW2 in Britain. You'd have a completely different run into adulthood to someone hitting puberty in 1938. Yet they are considered the same generation. Makes little sense. But it is a simple way of looking at the human race, so I guess we're stuck with it.
What comes after Gen Z? Baby Busters?
Madness, that's what comes after.
So where does '83 fall?
I found sources saying different years started generation z one was 1994
People actually wrote papers like that? An age range of about 20 years? Marketing & advertising (for any product from food to entertainment) techniques differ by several factors. Location, age, time (of year even), source of raw materials & other things.
Yeah, it's a bit peculiar to say the least considering that the most popular system is arguably one of the worst.
Makes more sense to look at it by the decades for example 90’s babies are different from 80’s babies . I was born in the 90’s and have nothing in common with kids born in the 2000’s
All such generational labels seem to me to have more to do with marketing strategies, which include political campaigns.
Considering that the founders of "millennial" have worked so vehemently in the sphere of marketing, I think they make the case for that themselves. For better or for worse.
Cool. Now there is a word for it; "cusper". I am a boomer technically, tho being born in 60 I am right near t cusp of t next generation starting in 61. All three of my grandfathers received military deferments, so didn't go overseas in WWII, so all three of my parents were born during WWII, a time when very few people were being born at all.
That it's pretty interesting. I have two grandparents that were born rate during World War II myself, and they are in a weird area in terms of generational identity.
The whole of demography is very imprecise and paints with wide strokes; this isn't just a characteristic of generational groupings. To point at the obvious: not all people of a certain race, ethnicity, sex, or whatever have the same beliefs, opinions, or experiences, yet these demographics are used (and abused) all the time in marketing and politics, to obvious effect. Even though an individual of any demographic is just that, an _individual_ with their own beliefs, put together with millions of others based on some otherwise arbitrary characteristic, you'll find patterns that can be exploited when marketing. Just like with any other set of statistics, though, observation of the whole set says absolutely nothing about an individual data point.
The (unfortunately very common) lack of understanding of the applicability of statistics is one of the most persistent problems when discussing social and political issues.
Anyway, the idea of generations creates demographics based on the alignment of life stages (usually childhood) with social events. This is a grouping based on age which does not change, as opposed to talking about age ranges, which will contain different people every year. This way, you can group the people that were growing up during the Great Depression (say, those born in 1930) separately to the people that were of working age when the market crashed (maybe born 1915 or earlier), even though in 1990, they'd all be considered elderly.
Because societal events will impact people differently based on what stage of life they were in at the time, you can assume opinions, values, or whatever to cluster based on that. Again, this is only useful when looking at (large) groups, not individuals, but that's the frame necessary when planning advertisements, a political campaign, or company policy.
As for any woo about predicting the dispositions of future generations... These kinds of analyses might hold some water when it comes to predicting political persuasions of future voters, but those are people already alive experiencing the same societal events that we currently are, just with a different perspective... And we can ask them what they think about them. That's a bit different than saying what my great-grandchildren are going to think when I don't even have kids yet.
That's not to say I don't think history repeats itself in an archetypal fashion (collective observation of human action is the source of archetypes, so this is tautological), but the idea that it's cyclical and regular based on generations is absurd, IMO.
I think you bring up a number of really good points. I would just say I think the biggest challenge is being able to tackle our own cultural if not our biologically influenced means of communicating in a unit based system, in order to be able to create models that better represent reality. Our own language creates hard cut off lines, and sometimes things just don't exist in the way that we communicate. Much of the work over imprinting, or organizational theory in general is being able to challenge our own perception, to try our best to make our language reflect how things are, rather than try to make things reflect how convenient our language can be. Words are extremely good at generalizing, but we can find ourselves becoming extremely lazy when it comes to wanting to motivate ourselves to use terminology that more accurately reflect something. For the sake of not getting too wordy and redundant sounding, I just think we need to challenge how are own language can influence how we think things exist.
There is so much context to take into consideration, it is not hard to see how we as a species are slowly coming to terms with ourselves needing to challenge how we speak over things like race and gender and such.
Anyways, thank you very much for the comment! I appreciate it, and I hope to keep seeing you around!
@@thinkfact It really is a biologically determined necessity. We simply don't have the processing power to consider every possible axis anew when looking at things in an everyday manner. There's just too much information; we wouldn't be able to do anything else if we were to try to consider it all.
While it's certainly a good thing to look for better, more applicable ways of looking at things, we're limited in what we can do in an everyday context or what we can communicate to people without the same specialty (sometimes that specialty is 'being me'). It's all a matter of utility.
My point is that I agree we should have better tools for looking at these things, but I don't think such a tool would be any more applicable outside its scale than the ones we have now; looking at groups of people will never tell you what an individual is like, and looking at an individual will never tell you what the trend of the crowd is. Methods of looking at both scales are necessary, though.
I've been subscribed for years now, so I'll definitely be around. Thanks for making another interesting and engaging video!
15:15 "I know for me, someone born in 1994, I am in a proposed cusper"
That pretty much explains this entire video's existence
I would have thought that a cusper was a cucumber that was still good enough for a stir-fry but a bit too far gone to be in a salad
Generations aren't real, but the debt we get from baby boomers and gen x definitely is
As. Gen X, i paid over a million dollars into medicare and social security so far. If you want to look at who is bleeding the system, look no further than the liberals / aka socialists who are allowing illegals to swarm into the country and take from these funds. Here in NJ USA, our democratic Governor just gave millions of dollars to send illegals to college. I drive a 24 year old car so i can have tuition money for my 2 kids so they do not have to go into debt to get a college education.
"We do not inherit the world from our ancestors, we borrow it for my children." I think for the most part, there are a lot of complicated moving pieces and it's hard to pinpoint where exactly things went wrong because often there's so much to it. Some policies are really only short-term solutions, and other policies required immediate loss for long-term prosperity.
Interesting, but what if we could harness the power of previous generations to promote progressive social change? I'm interested in focusing in on structural differences within each generation and of how social consciousness is both enabled and suppressed by capitalism. I propose that since ww2 there is a thread of socially progressive thinking that is passed culturally via generations especially from Boomer to the Gen-X and then as Millennial. Mannheim's theory is worth focusing on here as he suggests, generations are born out of moments of shared crisis. This current generation, 'Generation Covid' interest me most.
I made a long post above about how I think generations are formed. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts?
I've always found the popular generations to be quite silly. You and I are "the same generation," but you can't remember a time without internet, and I didn't have a home internet connection until I was a teenager. I'm firmly in the "Millennials" range no matter how you split it (1988), but I don't identify with the entitled, avocado-loving hipster stereotype applied to us.
I think that's and interesting problem because sometimes it feels like generational terms are really used for the convenience of everybody else but ourselves. I don't think anybody really goes out of their way to intentionally try to leave a negative image of themselves for the people around them, yet these easy to use labels have become just that for so many people. I'm just getting to the point where I don't even like to call myself a "millennial," mostly because I feel like it's just something they give people a false impression about who I really am. And why would you call yourself something that doesn't really describe you or may mislead someone.
Generation z 2004-1920? That must be a typo
Yeah, should have been 2020
not crazy about the background music, sorry, I find it distracting. Love everything else!
Yeah, I wish I could just have videos without background music but I feel that on average that would have a more negative impact towards peoples ability to get through an entire video, especially ones this long. Thank you for the feedback.
Hello Dale. I have been watching your channel for years. Your channel provides great content. You deliver what you say well with sincerity and good humour. Your work is entertaining educational and often helps people understand themselves better thus in turn help heal the world. You are a hardworking young man and deserve to earn from your study hard work and artistry. The world is a better place because of individual like yourself. I wish you all the success with your channel. Come on people of UA-cam, get behind this young man and help support him. We need people like Dale in control of the world. Help to make that possible and patron this smart individual and channel. He is one of the “good guys”.
BTW - Your video “What everybody should know about skin colour and race” ua-cam.com/video/FpuRomBygyQ/v-deo.html is one of the most important videos on you tube. The whole world would be a better place if everybody watched that insightful short but powerful liberating video.
Individual like you deserve to win.
Thank You
ProgressivePsyche
It's nice to see you here! Thank you very much for the kind words! Creating these videos has been an enormous amount of work, but knowing that people enjoy them so much as always made it worth it. If creating content does become a viable way for me to sustain myself, I would love to continue to make videos! I'll keep pushing along, hopefully everything will workout. But I know I will always be in good company. ;)
I actually plan on remaking that video one of these days. Add more to it and updated it a bit both aesthetically and information wise. I definitely think it would be worth it!
I appreciate the comment, I hope to keep catching you around!
Tech advancements, historical events, are roughly 15 to 20 years apart
tbh I found sources say 1994 started generation z
No 1995 or 1996
14:44
Resonate. Not resignate
I mean I identify pretty damn strongly with the millennial generation, but then again I was born in 1988
Yeah, individuals born more towards the middle of the given generations will most likely resonate more with the trends.
Think Fact Which makes sense. Especially because generations I’ve noticed don’t get defined until the middle of the defined generation are already in their late teens. I don’t think I heard the word millennial until I was like 21. I remember hearing a couple alternate terms such as the Echo Boomers and Generation Y during my freshman year of college though.
I think all millennials have much in common; the difference between smart phones and desktop or laptop computers is small; the point is that they are good at networking and dealing with new technology. By the way, you can join a generational forum (that Strauss and Howe founded but later deserted) here: generational-theory.com/forum/index.php
I am a part of Generation X we all together different from baby boomers and millennials. All though not an exact science with plenty of exceptions it seems clear that there are things that define and describe each generation.
I think that's a good point, but what I am wondering about is if we are taking change over time, and simply associating it with people in arbitrary time spans. Obviously things happened in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, 90s that will make people born within it different, but couldn't the same be said for five year increments? And within those increments, can we really say somebody born in rural Iowa living on a farm their whole life is really all that culturally similar to somebody born in the heart of New York City? I don't know, but it's interesting. Thank you for the comment!
The only thing in life that matters is Not "Gens" but rather we learn from mistakes and make things better for future "gens".. When I speak about "gens" it includes all Human and Animal and for that matter Vegetable/Plant.. We as Humans are not doing a very good job currently of managing the planet. Huge task we have been given but should be doing much better. My take.
At that scale, it seems that it would make more sense to have a generation represent everybody alive at a certain point in time. There's definitely a lot to be said about humanities impact on the environment. That said, I'm interested if generational thinking could be in any way beneficial towards tackling environment related issues. Interesting. Thank you for the comment!
I like the idea of doing something with the overlapping nature of generational cohort theory. I mean, just because Woodstock and the moon landing happened when you were 9 doesn't really mean it would have made an impact on development in and of itself. Otherwise, your other points in this video only show me that you either haven't read the books or - you're just being disingenuous. Strauss and/or Howe have literally addressed everything else you've said here. Please try a strong-man approach to your argument next time.
I think everyone should be cautious about these things... But then again, I'm naturally skeptical. The whole concept of Generations has always felt more like a marketing ploy to me anyway.
I think you missed a big part of why we use generations to begin with- the sections were divided to be used in our society not a global one.
And no one said it was going to be used on micro level but a macro one. To deny there is a not a zeitgeist in a 20 yr group of births is just silly, of course there is!
I liked your channel before this post .. this somewhat changed my view.
The trouble is not that there are similarities of people close to the same age, but that groups like millennial saying someone born in 1980 has should be grouped with someone born in 1996 but not born in 1979. It's problematic at time. Good groups would that really say something should probably be more specific.
At any rate, thank you for the comment and your thoughts.
Gen x is divided into sub groups such as latch-key, mtv, & c. Between gen x & milinneals are gen y, or cuspers.....
The sub groupings are true, though I am curious whether it really solves the problem or merely minimizes its impact. It's also hard considering how rarely they are used. It would be interesting to look more into. Thank you for the comment.
I think of my own Gen X as Space Agers, which ended, fittingly, with the Challenger disaster