Choosing your generation?

[Bill the Piper]

Is it ever an option?

I know it seems nonsensical, but for those born near the cusp, isn't choice a factor? I have been playing with the notion that generations overlap rather than having neat boundaries, so for people from these "grey areas" there must be some other factors apart from birth date.
Mark Zuckerberg and Amy Winehouse have been both born in 1984, but I see Zuckerberg as a millennial, while Amy as an Xer. From an older generation, we could point to Jimmy Carter who is more Silent-like despite being born in a supposed G.I. year.

[David Horn]

(03-26-2019, 06:40 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: Is it ever an option?

I know it seems nonsensical, but for those born near the cusp, isn't choice a factor? I have been playing with the notion that generations overlap rather than having neat boundaries, so for people from these "grey areas" there must be some other factors apart from birth date.
Mark Zuckerberg and Amy Winehouse have been both born in 1984, but I see Zuckerberg as a millennial, while Amy as an Xer. From an older generation, we could point to Jimmy Carter who is more Silent-like despite being born in a supposed G.I. year.

I agree that, as a cusper, you can ally with one camp rather than the other, but that changes nothing.  If the theory holds, then the idea of a "generation" is based not on uniformity but preponderance.  

It's impossible for any generation to be pure, so all archetypes must be represented at all times.  What sets a particular generation apart from another is percentage of each architype present.  If the breakdown is Civic (40%), Artist (25%), Idealist (15%), Nomad (20%), then the generational makeup point squarely at Civic.  At the cusp, the balance between adjacent generations become much less pronounced.

Life is analog, not digital, after all.

[Eric the Green]

(03-26-2019, 06:40 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: Is it ever an option?

I know it seems nonsensical, but for those born near the cusp, isn't choice a factor? I have been playing with the notion that generations overlap rather than having neat boundaries, so for people from these "grey areas" there must be some other factors apart from birth date.
Mark Zuckerberg and Amy Winehouse have been both born in 1984, but I see Zuckerberg as a millennial, while Amy as an Xer. From an older generation, we could point to Jimmy Carter who is more Silent-like despite being born in a supposed G.I. year.

I agree with you on that one. We do have choice in life, and those on cusps have some choice as to which generation they live like. It's not a simple thing; life experience has a lot to do with it too.

[Bill the Piper]

(03-26-2019, 10:26 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-26-2019, 06:40 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: Is it ever an option?

I know it seems nonsensical, but for those born near the cusp, isn't choice a factor? I have been playing with the notion that generations overlap rather than having neat boundaries, so for people from these "grey areas" there must be some other factors apart from birth date.
Mark Zuckerberg and Amy Winehouse have been both born in 1984, but I see Zuckerberg as a millennial, while Amy as an Xer. From an older generation, we could point to Jimmy Carter who is more Silent-like despite being born in a supposed G.I. year.

I agree that, as a cusper, you can ally with one camp rather than the other, but that changes nothing.  If the theory holds, then the idea of a "generation" is based not on uniformity but preponderance.  

It's impossible for any generation to be pure, so all archetypes must be represented at all times.  What sets a particular generation apart from another is percentage of each architype present.  If the breakdown is Civic (40%), Artist (25%), Idealist (15%), Nomad (20%), then the generational makeup point squarely at Civic.  At the cusp, the balance between adjacent generations become much less pronounced.

Life is analog, not digital, after all.

So you think it's basically a kind of personality type?

Then a person born with Prophetic traits in 1990 would have a problem: to be an epigone of boomers, or prototype of the new Prophets?

[AspieMillennial]

(03-27-2019, 06:37 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(03-26-2019, 10:26 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-26-2019, 06:40 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: Is it ever an option?

I know it seems nonsensical, but for those born near the cusp, isn't choice a factor? I have been playing with the notion that generations overlap rather than having neat boundaries, so for people from these "grey areas" there must be some other factors apart from birth date.
Mark Zuckerberg and Amy Winehouse have been both born in 1984, but I see Zuckerberg as a millennial, while Amy as an Xer. From an older generation, we could point to Jimmy Carter who is more Silent-like despite being born in a supposed G.I. year.

I agree that, as a cusper, you can ally with one camp rather than the other, but that changes nothing.  If the theory holds, then the idea of a "generation" is based not on uniformity but preponderance.  

It's impossible for any generation to be pure, so all archetypes must be represented at all times.  What sets a particular generation apart from another is percentage of each architype present.  If the breakdown is Civic (40%), Artist (25%), Idealist (15%), Nomad (20%), then the generational makeup point squarely at Civic.  At the cusp, the balance between adjacent generations become much less pronounced.

Life is analog, not digital, after all.

So you think it's basically a kind of personality type?

Then a person born with Prophetic traits in 1990 would have a problem: to be an epigone of boomers, or prototype of the new Prophets?

I don't know which archetype I meet but I'm Millennial and can't relate to any of the peer social media values now. My goal is to withdraw from society as much as possible and I'm burning with anger against the world. I figure if they are going to have such high standards for my behavior I may as well just do whatever I want since one little slip up can mess up your social standing. May as well go far out. How do I deal with this problem? I'm forced to be in a time period where everyone is easily offended and where social norms dictate everything strictly. This is one of the worst times to be an Aspie. How do I deal with it? I'm very unapologetic and willing to fight for what I want. My attitude is if I don't no one else will. I figure if the world is against me and I was born in a time against the concept of who I am, I may as well make everyone against me miserable. The system deserves destruction but if I can't do that I'll withdraw, enjoy myself, and live fun.

[Ragnarök_62]

(03-28-2019, 04:22 PM)AspieMillennial Wrote:

(03-27-2019, 06:37 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(03-26-2019, 10:26 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-26-2019, 06:40 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: Is it ever an option?

I know it seems nonsensical, but for those born near the cusp, isn't choice a factor? I have been playing with the notion that generations overlap rather than having neat boundaries, so for people from these "grey areas" there must be some other factors apart from birth date.
Mark Zuckerberg and Amy Winehouse have been both born in 1984, but I see Zuckerberg as a millennial, while Amy as an Xer. From an older generation, we could point to Jimmy Carter who is more Silent-like despite being born in a supposed G.I. year.

I agree that, as a cusper, you can ally with one camp rather than the other, but that changes nothing.  If the theory holds, then the idea of a "generation" is based not on uniformity but preponderance.  

It's impossible for any generation to be pure, so all archetypes must be represented at all times.  What sets a particular generation apart from another is percentage of each architype present.  If the breakdown is Civic (40%), Artist (25%), Idealist (15%), Nomad (20%), then the generational makeup point squarely at Civic.  At the cusp, the balance between adjacent generations become much less pronounced.

Life is analog, not digital, after all.

So you think it's basically a kind of personality type?

Then a person born with Prophetic traits in 1990 would have a problem: to be an epigone of boomers, or prototype of the new Prophets?

I don't know which archetype I meet but I'm Millennial and can't relate to any of the peer social media values now. My goal is to withdraw from society as much as possible and I'm burning with anger against the world. I figure if they are going to have such high standards for my behavior I may as well just do whatever I want since one little slip up can mess up your social standing. May as well go far out. How do I deal with this problem? I'm forced to be in a time period where everyone is easily offended  and where social norms dictate everything strictly. This is one of the worst times to be an Aspie. How do I deal with it? I'm very unapologetic and willing to fight for what I want. My attitude is if I don't no one else will. I figure if the world is against me and I was born in a time against the concept of who I am, I may as well make everyone against me miserable. The system deserves destruction but if I can't do that I'll withdraw, enjoy myself, and live fun.

This.

Dunno, but I'm into "Turn on to weed, tune in to alt-media, opt out of the Neocon/Neolib establishment".  It's an old idea really.  Just an update on Tim Leery's "Turn on, Tune in, Drop out".

[Marypoza]

(03-28-2019, 04:22 PM)AspieMillennial Wrote:

(03-27-2019, 06:37 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(03-26-2019, 10:26 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-26-2019, 06:40 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: Is it ever an option?

I know it seems nonsensical, but for those born near the cusp, isn't choice a factor? I have been playing with the notion that generations overlap rather than having neat boundaries, so for people from these "grey areas" there must be some other factors apart from birth date.
Mark Zuckerberg and Amy Winehouse have been both born in 1984, but I see Zuckerberg as a millennial, while Amy as an Xer. From an older generation, we could point to Jimmy Carter who is more Silent-like despite being born in a supposed G.I. year.

I agree that, as a cusper, you can ally with one camp rather than the other, but that changes nothing.  If the theory holds, then the idea of a "generation" is based not on uniformity but preponderance.  

It's impossible for any generation to be pure, so all archetypes must be represented at all times.  What sets a particular generation apart from another is percentage of each architype present.  If the breakdown is Civic (40%), Artist (25%), Idealist (15%), Nomad (20%), then the generational makeup point squarely at Civic.  At the cusp, the balance between adjacent generations become much less pronounced.

Life is analog, not digital, after all.

So you think it's basically a kind of personality type?

Then a person born with Prophetic traits in 1990 would have a problem: to be an epigone of boomers, or prototype of the new Prophets?

I don't know which archetype I meet but I'm Millennial and can't relate to any of the peer social media values now. My goal is to withdraw from society as much as possible and I'm burning with anger against the world. I figure if they are going to have such high standards for my behavior I may as well just do whatever I want since one little slip up can mess up your social standing. May as well go far out. How do I deal with this problem? I'm forced to be in a time period where everyone is easily offended  and where social norms dictate everything strictly. This is one of the worst times to be an Aspie. How do I deal with it? I'm very unapologetic and willing to fight for what I want. My attitude is if I don't no one else will. I figure if the world is against me and I was born in a time against the concept of who I am, I may as well make everyone against me miserable. The system deserves destruction but if I can't do that I'll withdraw, enjoy myself, and live fun.

-- go 4 it. Well behaved ppl do not make history

[Bill the Piper]

(03-28-2019, 07:13 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: This.

Dunno, but I'm into "Turn on to weed, tune in to alt-media, opt out of the Neocon/Neolib establishment".  It's an old idea really.  Just an update on Tim Leery's "Turn on, Tune in, Drop out".

Most millennials hate neocons and neolibs. Rebelling against this group is a conformist thing, at least with respect to Millennial social media peer society.

[carecare7]

As a Gen Joneser, I resemble the cusp idea. I was too young to serve in Vietnam, but young enough to remember the assassinations of hero-type people like JFK, MLK, Bobbie, and Malcolm X. I call Gen Jones the Assassination Generation because that affected us more than anyone will admit. Gen Jones has Silent parents. Gen Jones was born with Pluto in sober, adult Virgo; we roll up our sleeves and quietly get things done with little notice or reward. Practical Pluto in Virgo Jonesers swing both conservative or liberal; depending on the Silents who raised them. Generous Silent parents created conservative Jonesers; selfish Silents created liberal Jonesers. We are hard working, sturdy, survivor, serious, grown-up-too-fast, perfectionists, making order out of chaos, Generation Jones.

Boomers were born with Pluto in Leo; the teenager of the zodiac with all the insecurities, need to fit in, judgemental attitudes, selfish narcissism, attention-hogging, demanding, needy, vain characters and personalities of teenagers everywhere.
Boomers have that "Me, me, ME" attitude.

Silents were born with Pluto in Cancer; they got married and had kids early yet did the worst job of nurturing their kids. Cancer is the crab that hoards everything for themselves and won't give up anything; they hold what's theirs like a crab does with their claws; even when you chop off the claw the claw will not open and give up what it has. These Pluto in Cancer Silents are a cardinal sign meaning they want to be the leaders but were stifled in that by the super-hero GI's and super-loud Boomers. So they control what they can and that means they control the assets they were so lucky to accumulate and hoard in their lives. They use those assets to have fun and control their Gen Jones and Gen X kids.

Gen X are the Pluto in Libra folks; Libra being the ones that love balance and beauty and the good life and partnerships but they were raised by selfish Silents or Boomers and so they haven't the economic means to achieve that love of beauty. They grew up in the excessive greed of the 80's but upon reaching adulthood, could not have any of the largesse the Silents and Boomers got. Their Silent and Boomer parents divorced in record numbers but these Pluto in Libra (the sign of marriage) folks had to fend for themselves and grow up fast; they desired marriages but not the easily broken kind like their Silent and Boomer parents. So they were tentative in marriage and seek a balance (another Libra trait) in their work-lives that their parents never looked for because they had it so much easier.

Millennials are the Pluto in Scorpio folks. Scorpio being about sexuality, death, taxes, inheritances and other people's money; is it any wonder these folks have totally changed the way we all think of gender (transgender, non-binary, gender-fluid, gender-queer, different pronouns) and sex (asexual, pansexual, demisexual, )? They inherit the bad choices of the previous generations, they pay higher taxes to fund the greedier older generations, they now have deadly global warming to contend with and Boomers that will NOT give up their places or their riches for the Millennials who have to have a degree to get jobs but there's few full time jobs available so they end up living with their Joneser or Boomer parents (living off other people's money). That Scorpio death part shows up in their nihilism and nihilistic humor.

Gen Z is the Pluto in Sagittarius generation. They have a much more global and philosophical outlook yet have a fatalistic view of life. Sagittarius are the philosophers of truth, it rules higher love, global ways of thinking, cultural investigations, foreign people, cultures, languages, higher education like college, and long-range communications. These kids grew up with hand-held computers that gave them a global reach before they could even read. They are far more exposed to foreign cultural icons, arts, thinking, philosophy. Theirs is a group that shuns nationalism and sees spirituality as more important than established religion.

And that's just Pluto; Uranus has an 84 year cycle (like the Turning cycle of S & H), Jupiter and Saturn have cycles as does Neptune. All outer planets exert generational influences.

[pbrower2a]

Boomers for their childhood; GIs for what they became. The worst would be having a GI-like childhood and turning out like a Boomer.

[Hintergrund]

Really worse than a Nomad childhood?

[Kinser79]

As someone himself on the X/Millie cusp I embrace the X. It fits my personality better, and also I was heavily influenced by my cousins who are core Xers whereas my sister was not.

[pbrower2a]

(05-14-2019, 09:16 PM)Hintergrund Wrote: Really worse than a Nomad childhood?

GI childhood was hardscrabble, except among elite families, compared to anything that later generations knew. Not until the end of WWII did GI life get good. Then again, the GI generation was the muscle behind rebuilding America in the Depression and obviously in defeating the Axis. The GI Generation earned everythhing it got by making America materially better.

If it is a matter of warmth in families and clear structure, GI's got the right direction. The Sexual Revolution messed up Generation X badly due to the epidemic of divorce.

The Boom Generation got it good, but Boom leadership has largely been the pigs who devoured the perals cast in front of them. Although there are some good analogues between Boomers and earlier generations in culture (Stephen King against Edgar Allan Poe), it is hard to see any Boom political leaders analogous to  Ben Franklin, Sam Adams, Abraham Lincoln, or FDR. We have as two of 'our' Presidents the awful George W. Bush and the abominable Donald Trump.

[Hintergrund]

(05-15-2019, 01:10 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: If it is a matter of warmth in families and clear structure, GI's got the right direction. The Sexual Revolution messed up Generation X badly due to the epidemic of divorce.

The Boom Generation got it good, but Boom leadership has largely been the pigs who devoured the perals cast in front of them.

Bingo and bingo again!

(05-15-2019, 01:10 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: We have as two of 'our' Presidents the awful George W. Bush and the abominable Donald Trump.

Well, before FDR the US had Harding, Coolidge and Hoover. And if even the Boomers S & H admit that not every "Prophet" is good...

[michael_k]

I personally would not want to change my generation, although some of the definitions of Millennial irk me a bit, there was one group which defined the birth years 1980-1994 as being Millennial which I think is a bit too early. If I had to pick a 15 year span for my personal cohort, I'd probably pick 1989-2003 as an ideal generation, including everyone from PewDiePie to Greta Thunberg. I think it would suit me to be a part of this group as I watch a lot of YouTube, and a lot of the channels I watch are by people who are younger than me (I'm 91 born and some of the people I watch are born from '93 to '97) and this cohort would conveniently leave out some of the nasty old has-beens in the early years of Millennials, like Jeffree Star and Trisha Paytas.

[David Horn]

(05-31-2019, 06:26 PM)michael_k Wrote: I personally would not want to change my generation, although some of the definitions of Millennial irk me a bit, there was one group which defined the birth years 1980-1994 as being Millennial which I think is a bit too early. If I had to pick a 15 year span for my personal cohort, I'd probably pick 1989-2003 as an ideal generation, including everyone from PewDiePie to Greta Thunberg. I think it would suit me to be a part of  this group as I watch a lot of YouTube, and a lot of the channels I watch are by people who are younger than me (I'm 91 born and some of the people I watch are born from '93 to '97) and this cohort would conveniently leave out some of the nasty old has-beens in the early years of Millennials, like Jeffree Star and Trisha Paytas.

Political and historical generations are not the same as social and cultural ones.  S&H worked in the former domain exclusively, while most others citing this or that generation operate in the latter.  From a social perspective you may be correct, but that's not what we're discussing here.

[Hintergrund]

If it works at all, only with generations without a sharp border. Like with between Xers and Millies. Earlier in the 20th century, it was obvious: The Lost were old enough to fight in WW1; the G.I. were too young for WW1, but old enough for WW2; the Silent were too young for WW2, but too old for Vietnam; and the Boomers, you know.

[David Horn]

(06-01-2019, 09:30 PM)Hintergrund Wrote: If it works at all, only with generations without a sharp border. Like with between Xers and Millies. Earlier in the 20th century, it was obvious: The Lost were old enough to fight in WW1; the G.I. were too young for WW1, but old enough for WW2; the Silent were too young for WW2, but too old for Vietnam; and the Boomers, you know.

You forgot Korea, which is sad but common.  Many of the Silents participated; many died.  Following your scenario, then: … the Silent were too young for WW2, but old enough for Korea, Boomers were too young for Korea, but old enough for Vietnam. After that, the paradigm changes, because Richard Nixon deemed it so. When the draft ended, we moved from a citizen army with all it's limitations, to a poor-person's army with different limitations, but no demand on the service of hoi polloi any longer. It's also when the hyper patriotism started.

There will either be a return to shared sacrifice, in some form, or nation will splinter. If the nation splinters, the state will either splinter with it, or become more and more authoritarian. Option 2 seems to be the current choice. I certainly hope it does not hold.

[AspieMillennial]

(03-27-2019, 06:37 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(03-26-2019, 10:26 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-26-2019, 06:40 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: Is it ever an option?

I know it seems nonsensical, but for those born near the cusp, isn't choice a factor? I have been playing with the notion that generations overlap rather than having neat boundaries, so for people from these "grey areas" there must be some other factors apart from birth date.
Mark Zuckerberg and Amy Winehouse have been both born in 1984, but I see Zuckerberg as a millennial, while Amy as an Xer. From an older generation, we could point to Jimmy Carter who is more Silent-like despite being born in a supposed G.I. year.

I agree that, as a cusper, you can ally with one camp rather than the other, but that changes nothing.  If the theory holds, then the idea of a "generation" is based not on uniformity but preponderance.  

It's impossible for any generation to be pure, so all archetypes must be represented at all times.  What sets a particular generation apart from another is percentage of each architype present.  If the breakdown is Civic (40%), Artist (25%), Idealist (15%), Nomad (20%), then the generational makeup point squarely at Civic.  At the cusp, the balance between adjacent generations become much less pronounced.

Life is analog, not digital, after all.

So you think it's basically a kind of personality type?

Then a person born with Prophetic traits in 1990 would have a problem: to be an epigone of boomers, or prototype of the new Prophets?

A prototype of the new prophets. Those types usually are flying under the radar until the 2T in older age.

[David Horn]

(06-27-2019, 02:59 PM)AspieMillennial Wrote:

(03-27-2019, 06:37 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(03-26-2019, 10:26 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-26-2019, 06:40 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: Is it ever an option?

I know it seems nonsensical, but for those born near the cusp, isn't choice a factor? I have been playing with the notion that generations overlap rather than having neat boundaries, so for people from these "grey areas" there must be some other factors apart from birth date.
Mark Zuckerberg and Amy Winehouse have been both born in 1984, but I see Zuckerberg as a millennial, while Amy as an Xer. From an older generation, we could point to Jimmy Carter who is more Silent-like despite being born in a supposed G.I. year.

I agree that, as a cusper, you can ally with one camp rather than the other, but that changes nothing.  If the theory holds, then the idea of a "generation" is based not on uniformity but preponderance.  

It's impossible for any generation to be pure, so all archetypes must be represented at all times.  What sets a particular generation apart from another is percentage of each architype present.  If the breakdown is Civic (40%), Artist (25%), Idealist (15%), Nomad (20%), then the generational makeup point squarely at Civic.  At the cusp, the balance between adjacent generations become much less pronounced.

Life is analog, not digital, after all.

So you think it's basically a kind of personality type?

Then a person born with Prophetic traits in 1990 would have a problem: to be an epigone of boomers, or prototype of the new Prophets?

A prototype of the new prophets. Those types usually are flying under the radar until the 2T in older age.

I disagree that an archetype not directly associated with the generational archetype would be problematic.  In fact, the absence of alternate archetypes would be a more likely source of problems, since group-think would be universal.  That's OK if the thinking is positive, but reinforced negative thinking would be risky at best and devastating at worst.