It kind of applied with the Baby Boomers because there really was an explosion in births after WW2 ended. The GIs came home and their sweethearts were ready to settle down and be Mommies.
But I agree; you can’t arbitrarily say that someone born Dec. 31, 1999 is different from someone born Jan 1, 2000.
It’s such a silly concept. This massive superstructure of division to replace the simple idea that “I have a lot in common with peers in my age cohort”.
As soon as somebody says “technically you are a member of generation___”, you can ignore them. Anyone who puts a generation label at the center of their identity probably doesn’t have a lot else going on.
Contemporary generation labels are the new astrology, categories that use vague Barnum statements that can apply to anyone. Generational labels applied in an historic context can provide new insights, but the more arbitrary the boundary for inclusion the more arbitrary the properties of the group and more likely to confirm bias than provide new ideas about common beliefs or characteristics within the group not experienced or shared by others.
all these ‘generation’ labels are such hogwaash
It kind of applied with the Baby Boomers because there really was an explosion in births after WW2 ended. The GIs came home and their sweethearts were ready to settle down and be Mommies.
But I agree; you can’t arbitrarily say that someone born Dec. 31, 1999 is different from someone born Jan 1, 2000.
It’s such a silly concept. This massive superstructure of division to replace the simple idea that “I have a lot in common with peers in my age cohort”.
As soon as somebody says “technically you are a member of generation___”, you can ignore them. Anyone who puts a generation label at the center of their identity probably doesn’t have a lot else going on.
Wait there is a hogwash generation now. I will never be able to keep up
Contemporary generation labels are the new astrology, categories that use vague Barnum statements that can apply to anyone. Generational labels applied in an historic context can provide new insights, but the more arbitrary the boundary for inclusion the more arbitrary the properties of the group and more likely to confirm bias than provide new ideas about common beliefs or characteristics within the group not experienced or shared by others.