Anyone else think this is fake ? I mean, 11 years old can have that level of thinking ? Or maybe I m missing something ?
For many years now, I have used vacation time to work at an academic summer camp for 11 and 12 year olds. Almost all of the kids have phones, but some years there's one (I don't think there's ever been more than one) who does not. A couple of the children without phones have been very proud of the fact they don't have phones. They'll readily tell you they don't need one and don't want one. Now, I have no clue if thes…
It’s probably the new version of how you can tell that someone doesn’t watch tv. You don’t, they’ll tell you.
I can't help but find this article incredibly cringy.
Firstly, while I can understand some background info, I don't feel like her entire digital biography is needed to tackle this subject. Second, I can't help but think that her kids are acting the way they do as a response to their mother's behavior.
> They’d create formidable, indomitable avatars with vast powers and an absolute immunity to scams, trolls, and disinformation. Their avatars, one day, would heroically match wits with J.K. Rowling and Soledad O’Brien, or whatever luminaries would dominate Twitter in the future.
Am I the only one who thinks this is strange? What parent wants their kids to be some ... internet celebrity on the worst platform in the world? Seems kind of sad to me.
I have a feeling this woman is incessant and obsessed when it comes to technology and that her kids don't want to become their mother.
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…
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)?
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…
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'…
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.
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.
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…
Generations are supposed to be longer than 10 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation
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…
Generations are supposed to be longer than 10 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation
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.
That hypothesis is sensible. According to The Male Brain, by psychiatrist Louann Brizendine, males have 2.5x the space devoted to sexual drive in the hypothalamus compared to females. By the time males reach puberty, guy’s sexual occupation and fertile female tracking circuits run in the background non-stop like an unkillable daemon process. That’s absolutely going to divert brainpower.
Speaking personally, I feel that the experience of sexual attraction and sexual desire has been a stimulus to the development of my intelligence, not a brake upon it. If you look at great art and literature you will see it has played a crucial role there too. So no, I don't think it is a 'sensible hypothesis'.
Oh, absolutely. For a tiny percentage of creative and productive people. For the masses, however, I don't see it.