Per Harvard: Gen X is 1965-1984, Millennials is 1986- 2004, Boomers 1945-1964. Thoughts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was born in 81 and prefer “elder Millenial” (thanks for that Iliza Schlesinger).

But you're not. You are a Gen Xer.

Plenty of sources use 81 as the starting year for Millennials.

Eh. You’re still closer to X than a millennial.

I’m not sure why you’re arguing w this person. Every source I’ve ever seen about generations has millennial starting at either 80, 81, or 82. I’ve never heard of it starting in 86 like OP claims. So typically, the entire time I’ve been aware of generations (20 years or so), millennial has been defined as starting a those born in the early 80s. So if they ARE a millennial then how are they closer to gen x than millennial?

No one claimed it starts at 86.

Check the title of this thread

OP here. It was a typo on my part. Harvard states it starts in 1985. However I typed in 1986 by accident. Sorry about the confusion.

[Anonymous]

1973 here and solidly Gen X. My younger siblings 1977 and 1980, both had similar generational experiences as I did. Just my observation- it seems like kids born in the 70s and early 80s seem to have more in common with each other rather than to someone born in the mid-60s. I know I'm not that far from 1965 but I feel more connected to someone born in the 80s.

[Anonymous]

Nobody in Europe cares about this what generation you are stuff. American just like to invent "things," that are not things.
Apart from the Brits, who lost the Greatest Generations!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

By Cmglee - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=91612069

This one makes way more sense. It’s laughable to think someone born in 1985 has had an upbringing remotely similar to someone born in 2004. The Harvard article’s reasoning seems to be, “If Boomers span 20 years, then all generations should!”

I was born in 1974. Do I magically have more in common with someone born in 1965?

And there is no chance someone born in 1964 feels culturally connected to someone born in 1947

I agree, if only because of the difference in the prevalence of TV as an influence.

Why are kater generations getting shorter and shorter ?

If that means Later — I’d say that it’s because technological leaps and significant cultural shifts are happening faster and faster , so that the band of people with similar significant cultural shifts in common is getting smaller / shorter.

[Anonymous]

For those of us born between 1980-84ish

I still remember this article ten years later

https://slate.com/human-interest/2011/10/generation-catalano-the-generation-stuck-between-gen-x-and-the-millennials.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

By Cmglee - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=91612069

This one makes way more sense. It’s laughable to think someone born in 1985 has had an upbringing remotely similar to someone born in 2004. The Harvard article’s reasoning seems to be, “If Boomers span 20 years, then all generations should!”

I was born in 1974. Do I magically have more in common with someone born in 1965?

And there is no chance someone born in 1964 feels culturally connected to someone born in 1947

I agree, if only because of the difference in the prevalence of TV as an influence.

Why are kater generations getting shorter and shorter ?

If that means Later — I’d say that it’s because technological leaps and significant cultural shifts are happening faster and faster , so that the band of people with similar significant cultural shifts in common is getting smaller / shorter.

m
I agree with your take (and yes I meant later)

But it seems a bit much to refer to 15 years than then even less as a generation .., not many people have kids that young … maybe they should start using cohort or something else rather then generation … AI is making advances for sure but we are not human IPhones quite yet …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm early 80s and don't really identify with either group. I wan't old enough to experience the 80s as a teen or 20 something which seems to be pretty formative for gen x, but I wasn't a digital native which seems like a defining thing for at least the younger millennials

Same. Also all the Gen Xers I know who were born in the late 70s claim you can’t be Gen X if you are born in the 80s, so I’ve never identified that way.

Being on the cusp between generations makes you realize how dumb strict generational divides are. Especially because a lot of the things people consider generational are hugely impacted by where you grow up, your SES, and how you are raised. There are just a lot fewer commonalities than people think, even around stuff like tech adoption or social media.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Might be nice for people to stop acting as though they know the experience of people they haven’t met.

That is such a Millennial thing to say!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was born in 1957 and just lived my life without ever being judged and called a name until fairly recently. Now I’m a Boomer and a Karen because in a WASP. I’m liberal and educated.

Calling people a Karen is racist and sexist. Sorry you're dealing with that.

[Anonymous]

I was born mid 1964. I don’t identify with either boomers or Gen-x. Kids were born in 1997 and 1999 and tend to lean toward Gen-z.

[Anonymous]

I can’t get through this whole thread, but if nobody has mentioned the authors, Strauss and Howe yet, it’s a shame. They wrote the seminal book on American generations and their cyclical nature throughout our history. They have them mapped out and gave them their names. Unless this Harvard study is directly refuting their work for a specific and valid reason, I’m sticking with Strauss and Howe.

[Anonymous]

Born in 79 and always felt gen x even though i was on the younger end. Bought my first CD (in the long box) at 10 and remember rotary phones. But also had AIM and naptster in college. When i was 19 i was going to shows at the Black Cat and 930 Club w friends in their late 20’s so definitely geared fully X.

Oregon Trail is the correcr name for the shoulder years. It was the most universal pop culture reference for all of us that used those first computers in school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those of us born between 1980-84ish

I still remember this article ten years later

https://slate.com/human-interest/2011/10/generation-catalano-the-generation-stuck-between-gen-x-and-the-millennials.html

This article appears to pertain to people born 1977-1981, so I don’t know why you’ve chosen those dates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1981 here. Definitely feel like I’m caught between the two generations because of technology. I remember going to the library to do book reports and history reports when I was a kid because I needed to use actual books and the Dewey Decimal System. But I also had AOL for all four years of high school (1996-2000).

It’s insane how much changed in about 10 years from 1989 to 1999. It was much more change than compared to the 2009 to 2019 period.

I agree with this. I was born in 1979 and I don't feel like I fit into either one.

[Anonymous]

I was born in January 81 by many definitions I'm the oldest Millennial. I got my first cell phone and social media in graduate school, so after I was an adult. At the same time, I had high speed internet, ICQ/AIM and Napster in college, unlike Gen X.

My brother, 5 years younger, got his first cell phone and social media in high school. It led to a totally different growing up experience than I had.