Sfdebris.net

Like most people I do get the occasional reminder dangled in front of my eyes that time is indeed finite, and today was one of those days: did you know that Generation Z is over and done with? We are now into Generation Alpha. I didn't know that.

Millennials are now the pre-pre generation.

Its just damn weird to think of that, y'know? Especially with how many of us have been happily using that dumb Boomer meme without I think it truly clicking that we are rapidly becoming old ourselves.

So what do you reckon will be Gen Alpha's legacy? What world will they inherit or craft? I personally would say that Millennials have gone down in history as the ''post-Cold War/War on Terror Generation'', Gen Z have gone down in history as the ''Internet/social media Generation'', and Gen Alpha will probably go down as the ''Green Generation''. It'll be them who grow up in a world where renewable energy and the environment is truly starting to be taken seriously.

The bulk of Generation Beta when it comes along may not even have any frame of reference at all for our most common smells: gasoline, diesel, cigarette smoke, coal. Now that is a weird thought.

Bleak, soul-less, impersonal, dehumanising - that's the world they'll get, and they'll be right behind creating it.

If we're going to be talking generations, the first thing that should be noted is that these groups are almost entirely arbitrary and differ completely from sociologist to sociologist, and even country to country. For example, Strauss-Howe has Millennials going from 1982-2004 and their so-called Homeland Generation going from 2005-???? (presumably mid-2020s).

If you're going to try and estimate the legacy of a generation at the beginning (don't, it's a fools errand), you either end up writing a horoscope or just apply what you want to happen to the next generation.

TGLS wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 4:37 am If we're going to be talking generations, the first thing that should be noted is that these groups are almost entirely arbitrary and differ completely from sociologist to sociologist, and even country to country. For example, Strauss-Howe has Millennials going from 1982-2004 and their so-called Homeland Generation going from 2005-???? (presumably mid-2020s).

My usual span for millennials is about 1980ce-2000ce, AKA under twenty-years-old around the Turn of the Millennium. I was born in 1996, for reference.

TGLS wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 4:37 am If we're going to be talking generations, the first thing that should be noted is that these groups are almost entirely arbitrary and differ completely from sociologist to sociologist, and even country to country. For example, Strauss-Howe has Millennials going from 1982-2004 and their so-called Homeland Generation going from 2005-???? (presumably mid-2020s).

If you're going to try and estimate the legacy of a generation at the beginning (don't, it's a fools errand), you either end up writing a horoscope or just apply what you want to happen to the next generation.

Personally, I think any grouping that lumps pre- and post-internet childhoods together is a useless grouping. The same is true for ubiquitous cell phones.

Yes, that means you're going to have two unusually-small cohorts, but for most purposes your data is going to be meaningless if you ignore how fundamentally those two things acted as a major Epoch.

Deledrius wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 9:56 am

TGLS wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 4:37 am If we're going to be talking generations, the first thing that should be noted is that these groups are almost entirely arbitrary and differ completely from sociologist to sociologist, and even country to country. For example, Strauss-Howe has Millennials going from 1982-2004 and their so-called Homeland Generation going from 2005-???? (presumably mid-2020s).

If you're going to try and estimate the legacy of a generation at the beginning (don't, it's a fools errand), you either end up writing a horoscope or just apply what you want to happen to the next generation.

Personally, I think any grouping that lumps pre- and post-internet childhoods together is a useless grouping. The same is true for ubiquitous cell phones.

Yes, that means you're going to have two unusually-small cohorts, but for most purposes your data is going to be meaningless if you ignore how fundamentally those two things acted as a major Epoch.

So, rounding the numbers, we'd be talking 1985/1990-2005 (Home PCs, Brick Phones, and ARPANET to the Eve of the iPhone and the founding of Facebook) and 2005-2020/2025 (Smartphones, Social Networks, Streaming Media, and Beyond).

This is only from a tech perspective, mind. The end of the Cold War, the War on Terror, the Dot Com Bubble, the Real Estate Bubble, 'Geekdoms' Rise to the Mainstream, etc. are also major factors in how we got to here and now.

Deledrius wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 9:56 am

TGLS wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 4:37 am If we're going to be talking generations, the first thing that should be noted is that these groups are almost entirely arbitrary and differ completely from sociologist to sociologist, and even country to country. For example, Strauss-Howe has Millennials going from 1982-2004 and their so-called Homeland Generation going from 2005-???? (presumably mid-2020s).

If you're going to try and estimate the legacy of a generation at the beginning (don't, it's a fools errand), you either end up writing a horoscope or just apply what you want to happen to the next generation.

Personally, I think any grouping that lumps pre- and post-internet childhoods together is a useless grouping. The same is true for ubiquitous cell phones.

Yes, that means you're going to have two unusually-small cohorts, but for most purposes your data is going to be meaningless if you ignore how fundamentally those two things acted as a major Epoch.

In general, I think generational groups are a nonsense measure. Why are late boomers (late 1950s) separated from early Xers (early 1960s) and grouped with early Boomers (mid 1940s)?

TGLS wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:27 pm In general, I think generational groups are a nonsense measure. Why are late boomers (late 1950s) separated from early Xers (early 1960s) and grouped with early Boomers (mid 1940s)?

There are some things in common amongst people born around or about the same time. Whilst the reality is that it's all a continuum, no distinct boundaries, it's a handy shortcut. Just don't be too rigid about it. Just another way of saying "people in their 20s are more likely to whatever than people in their 60s", but with longer intervals than a decade, and means you don't have to keep nudging the numbers up when talking about the same people.

TGLS wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 4:37 am If we're going to be talking generations, the first thing that should be noted is that these groups are almost entirely arbitrary and differ completely from sociologist to sociologist, and even country to country. For example, Strauss-Howe has Millennials going from 1982-2004 and their so-called Homeland Generation going from 2005-???? (presumably mid-2020s).

If you're going to try and estimate the legacy of a generation at the beginning (don't, it's a fools errand), you either end up writing a horoscope or just apply what you want to happen to the next generation.

The precise dating of when the millenials started is superfluous, at least at that point. It's true though that, by this point, the original framework that initiated with the post war baby boomers is not as concise as it used to be.

There is even something called thd Xetenial. A cross of Gen X and Millenials. Basically saying that the Gen X and the older Millenials (like myself born in 1984) are more or less the same but a bridge to the newer tech that was coming in. I think it's like 1978 to 1986.

Basically that mini generation remembers the old school computers with green screen backgrounds. Black and white TVs. Corded or even dial phones. Days before the internet. Cable truly being basic and a luxury. Computers were not in every household. Computers still required a very good understanding of them.