"Core" vs. "Non-Core" Semi-Generations

[Anthony '58]

There should be little disagreement that the last-wave of G.I.'s formed that generation's core.  For the earlier-born members of the Hero archetype, their '40s took place in the '30s.

These "core" G.I.s then went on to be the predominant parents of early-wave Boomers, who proved to be the core of their generation - younger Boomers having had their '60s in the '70s.  Meanwhile, the older G.I.s parented the Silent, who had no "core" at all.

Then "core" Boomers parented the "core" Xers - the last wave, whose '90s experience so overshadowed the "Baby Busters'" '80s experience that this became a comedic punchline: "The '90s are gonna make the '80s look like the '50s," according to a line from an otherwise-forgettable movie.  The late boomers had to settle for siring the early Millennials, who are shaping up as the "lesser" Millennials.

If this pattern holds, the "edgy" late Xers, who are largely the parents of early-born Homelanders, could get to see their kids grow up to be more "edgy" than late-born Homelanders - or maybe not, because there might be no such thing as a "core" Artist sub-generation, ever.

[gabrielle]

I always thought that the "core" of a generation simply meant those that were born in the middle years. For example, Boomers born from 1948 to 1955, Gen X from 1966 to 1976--give or take a year or two.

[David Horn]

(09-02-2016, 10:07 PM)gabrielle Wrote: I always thought that the "core" of a generation simply meant those that were born in the middle years.  For example, Boomers born from 1948 to 1955, Gen X from 1966 to 1976--give or take a year or two.

I think Anthony's point has more to do with the connection of individual generations to the core turning events that defined them.  From a purely enumeration POV, I've always assumed that the core of any generation consists of all the cohorts outside the cusps.  A cusp of more than 3 or 4 years on each end of a generation tends to dilute the idea of 'generation' to the point it ceases to be meaningful.  That should typically leave a solid 14 years of core members.  NOTE: Anthony's "core" is a subset of the core cohorts.

[Bill the Piper]

Core boomers: late '40s - early '50s, the student rioters of 1968
Core Xers: the 1970s in general?
Core millennials: late '80s - early '90s

[David Horn]

(10-21-2018, 10:42 AM)Ghost Wrote: Indisputably GI: 1901-1921
GI/Silent cusp: 1922-1927
Indisputably Silent: 1928-1941
Silent/Boomer cusp: 1942-1945
Indisputably Boomer: 1946-1960
Boomer/X cusp: 1961-1964
Indisputably Gen X: 1965-1976
X/Millennial cusp: 1977-1980
Indisputably Millennial: 1981-1994
Millennial/Z cusp: 1995-2001
Indisputably Gen Z: 2002+

FWIW, these look right to me.  I'm 1947, but have friends from '44-'46 that are certainly cuspers.  My wife ('59) is almost a true Reactive, but some of that is due to her being a young mother.  My son ('77) is cusp but heavily Xer.  My DIL ('79) is much more Millie, but still certainly X.  My Grandchildren are 2004, and Artists to the hilt.

[Eric the Green]

Indisputably GI: 1904-1921
GI/Silent cusp: 1922-1926
Indisputably Silent: 1927-1940
Silent/Boomer cusp: 1941-1945
Indisputably Boomer: 1946-1957
Boomer/X cusp: 1958-1964
Indisputably Gen X: 1965-1978
X/Millennial cusp: 1979-1983
Indisputably Millennial: 1984-1999
Millennial/Z cusp: 2000-2004
Indisputably Gen Z: 2005+


That would be my guess. This would be more in accord with Strauss and Howe and less with demographic definitions and the polling firms like Pew Research.

Of course "indisputable" would not be a correct term then, so it would be "core." I think of the cusps as a short period, not as long as a core period. Changes do not happen gradually in life or evolution.

[Bill the Piper]

(11-03-2018, 09:25 PM)Ghost Wrote: 1977 and 1978 aren't really indisputably X; Newsweek and Post-Bulletin still label them as Millennials and some still believe that they are in the cusp (which probably lasts until 1981 - the last birthyear that has people graduating in the 90's). 

The Business Insider proposes Xennial as a cusp micro-generation between 1977 and 1985. I agree and identify as a Xennial myself.

Quote:1995-2001 is a big Millennial/Z cusp and even that could be outdated nowadays.

Do you think it should be moved forward or backward?

I used to debate it a lot on Personality Cafe. The only thing the 1995 camp had to say was "Internet Explorer was launched in 1995". Well, it didn't have much impact on politics or even daily life, did it? Social media (MySpace) got popular in 2006, so if you were born in 2001 or earlier you have to remember the pre-social Unravelling days. Also, 2006 was the year a civil war broke out in Iraq between the Shias and the Sunnis, which ended the Unravelling optimism about the whole world becoming democratic. In his Decision Points Bush claims this was also the year nativism became popular again. So I say: the crisis started in 2006 and thus it's reasonable to end Millennials in 2001 or even 2003.

[Bill the Piper]

(11-04-2018, 08:28 AM)Ghost Wrote: Most sources I have seen believe that 1982-1985 are Millennial years

To use a non US-centric approach, those cohorts went to elementary school when the Soviet Union still existed and Thatcher was the British PM. They also were firmly adults before the iPhone came out. Some good reasons to classify them as Xennials, apart from what I wrote in the previous post. But time will tell. Note how the G.I. generation is usually started in 1901, despite the fact that the youngest people who could remember the Missionary awakening were born around 1904.

[jleagans]

(10-22-2018, 05:22 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Indisputably GI: 1904-1921
GI/Silent cusp: 1922-1926
Indisputably Silent: 1927-1940
Silent/Boomer cusp: 1941-1945
Indisputably Boomer: 1946-1957
Boomer/X cusp: 1958-1964
Indisputably Gen X: 1965-1978
X/Millennial cusp: 1979-1983
Indisputably Millennial: 1984-1999
Millennial/Z cusp: 2000-2004
Indisputably Gen Z: 2005+


That would be my guess. This would be more in accord with Strauss and Howe and less with demographic definitions and the polling firms like Pew Research.

Of course "indisputable" would not be a correct term then, so it would be "core." I think of the cusps as a short period, not as long as a core period. Changes do not happen gradually in life or evolution.

How do we make this the official classification timeline?

[Hintergrund]

Cuspers... those who were less than two years old when a shaping event (JFK assassinated, WW2 ending) happened, don't remember it at all. Those below a certain age remember it vaguely. But what is this certain age, and why? (Their individual intelligence also matters - some kids are a year ahead, some are a year behind.)

[AspieMillennial]

(11-04-2018, 06:29 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(11-03-2018, 09:25 PM)Ghost Wrote: 1977 and 1978 aren't really indisputably X; Newsweek and Post-Bulletin still label them as Millennials and some still believe that they are in the cusp (which probably lasts until 1981 - the last birthyear that has people graduating in the 90's). 

The Business Insider proposes Xennial as a cusp micro-generation between 1977 and 1985. I agree and identify as a Xennial myself.

Quote:1995-2001 is a big Millennial/Z cusp and even that could be outdated nowadays.

Do you think it should be moved forward or backward?

I used to debate it a lot on Personality Cafe. The only thing the 1995 camp had to say was "Internet Explorer was launched in 1995". Well, it didn't have much impact on politics or even daily life, did it? Social media (MySpace) got popular in 2006, so if you were born in 2001 or earlier you have to remember the pre-social Unravelling days. Also, 2006 was the year a civil war broke out in Iraq between the Shias and the Sunnis, which ended the Unravelling optimism about the whole world becoming democratic. In his Decision Points Bush claims this was also the year nativism became popular again. So I say: the crisis started in 2006 and thus it's reasonable to end Millennials in 2001 or even 2003.

I think Xennial is BS because I can't relate to the stuff about Tinder or social justice or infantilizing the world and being easily offended or thinking I was lied to yet I'm core Millennial. Since I'm core Millennial and can't relate to this I can say the cusp is a BS construct that assumes too much about the core. I'm "core Millennial" yet I can't relate to thinking "society" influences your views more than critical thinking whereas others think I am "supposed to" not be able to learn anything on my own or think anything on my own or that I am "supposed to" want to ban everything because I supposedly don't believe in people's abilities to decipher their own information despite whatever "society" says. I hate how the generation police want to force me to think a certain way or that I "should" not be myself because I am "supposed to" copy the group.

You want to have your own generational category because you don't relate to stereotypes. I don't either so what makes you so different? If I am a "core Millennial" yet think this way it means that the category of Xennial is bunk and garbage. Is there something magical in my brain that forces me to think the same as everyone on social media just because my parents had sex in a certain year? Because I often disagree with what others think in all generations and can't relate to any generation in particular. Where is this magical part of my brain? Do tell. It seems like you just want a category to shove others into stereotypes where you get to play the fence.

[Eric the Green]

(07-31-2019, 10:16 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote:

(11-04-2018, 06:29 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(11-03-2018, 09:25 PM)Ghost Wrote: 1977 and 1978 aren't really indisputably X; Newsweek and Post-Bulletin still label them as Millennials and some still believe that they are in the cusp (which probably lasts until 1981 - the last birthyear that has people graduating in the 90's). 

The Business Insider proposes Xennial as a cusp micro-generation between 1977 and 1985. I agree and identify as a Xennial myself.

Quote:1995-2001 is a big Millennial/Z cusp and even that could be outdated nowadays.

Do you think it should be moved forward or backward?

I used to debate it a lot on Personality Cafe. The only thing the 1995 camp had to say was "Internet Explorer was launched in 1995". Well, it didn't have much impact on politics or even daily life, did it? Social media (MySpace) got popular in 2006, so if you were born in 2001 or earlier you have to remember the pre-social Unravelling days. Also, 2006 was the year a civil war broke out in Iraq between the Shias and the Sunnis, which ended the Unravelling optimism about the whole world becoming democratic. In his Decision Points Bush claims this was also the year nativism became popular again. So I say: the crisis started in 2006 and thus it's reasonable to end Millennials in 2001 or even 2003.

I think Xennial is BS because I can't relate to the stuff about Tinder or social justice or infantilizing the world and being easily offended or thinking I was lied to yet I'm core Millennial. Since I'm core Millennial and can't relate to this I can say the cusp is a BS construct that assumes too much about the core. I'm "core Millennial" yet I can't relate to thinking "society" influences your views more than critical thinking whereas others think I am "supposed to" not be able to learn anything on my own or think anything on my own or that I am "supposed to" want to ban everything because I supposedly don't believe in people's abilities to decipher their own information despite whatever "society" says. I hate how the generation police want to force me to think a certain way or that I "should" not be myself because I am "supposed to" copy the group.

You want to have your own generational category because you don't relate to stereotypes. I don't either so what makes you so different? If I am a "core Millennial" yet think this way it means that the category of Xennial is bunk and garbage. Is there something magical in my brain that forces me to think the same as everyone on social media just because my parents had sex in a certain year? Because I often disagree with what others think in all generations and can't relate to any generation in particular. Where is this magical part of my brain? Do tell. It seems like you just want a category to shove others into stereotypes where you get to play the fence.

I think cusps are valid, because an exact border is always fuzzy, and at the crossover times different folks can be more influenced by the upcoming trends than the older ones. They should be narrowly drawn, though, and based on S&H dates and not Pew dates. So I would say
War Baby cusp: c. 1941-45
Jones cusp (BoomerXer): c. 1958-63
Xennials: 1979-85
Gen Y/Z cusp: 2001-2005

The closer to the border one was born, the more of a mixture one is.

Of course no-one fits a stereotype, and the archetype does not fit all people born into it. It's a general trend, which means there are exceptions. But the trend is significant and meaningful. Apsiemillennial is not a typical Millennial, and I am a typical Boomer, but none of that means that the cusps are bunk, or that the generational archetypes are bunk.

In my case, my astrology chart clearly indicates that I identify with my generation. The same can be said for Mr. Howe, whose Moon (heritage, ancestry, family influences, etc) aligns with his Uranus in Cancer (the Moon's ruling sign), and Uranus is the chief generational planet of the saeculum. Myself, I have Uranus exactly rising in Cancer, Mars exactly conjunct Pluto in Leo, and Sun conjunct closely with Neptune in Libra. Personal indicators aligned with generational planets, QED. I would guess Aspiemillennial does not have such alignments.

[Ghost]

(07-31-2019, 11:41 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-31-2019, 12:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-31-2019, 10:16 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote:

(11-04-2018, 06:29 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(11-03-2018, 09:25 PM)Ghost Wrote: 1977 and 1978 aren't really indisputably X; Newsweek and Post-Bulletin still label them as Millennials and some still believe that they are in the cusp (which probably lasts until 1981 - the last birthyear that has people graduating in the 90's). 

The Business Insider proposes Xennial as a cusp micro-generation between 1977 and 1985. I agree and identify as a Xennial myself.

Quote:1995-2001 is a big Millennial/Z cusp and even that could be outdated nowadays.

Do you think it should be moved forward or backward?

I used to debate it a lot on Personality Cafe. The only thing the 1995 camp had to say was "Internet Explorer was launched in 1995". Well, it didn't have much impact on politics or even daily life, did it? Social media (MySpace) got popular in 2006, so if you were born in 2001 or earlier you have to remember the pre-social Unravelling days. Also, 2006 was the year a civil war broke out in Iraq between the Shias and the Sunnis, which ended the Unravelling optimism about the whole world becoming democratic. In his Decision Points Bush claims this was also the year nativism became popular again. So I say: the crisis started in 2006 and thus it's reasonable to end Millennials in 2001 or even 2003.

I think Xennial is BS because I can't relate to the stuff about Tinder or social justice or infantilizing the world and being easily offended or thinking I was lied to yet I'm core Millennial. Since I'm core Millennial and can't relate to this I can say the cusp is a BS construct that assumes too much about the core. I'm "core Millennial" yet I can't relate to thinking "society" influences your views more than critical thinking whereas others think I am "supposed to" not be able to learn anything on my own or think anything on my own or that I am "supposed to" want to ban everything because I supposedly don't believe in people's abilities to decipher their own information despite whatever "society" says. I hate how the generation police want to force me to think a certain way or that I "should" not be myself because I am "supposed to" copy the group.

You want to have your own generational category because you don't relate to stereotypes. I don't either so what makes you so different? If I am a "core Millennial" yet think this way it means that the category of Xennial is bunk and garbage. Is there something magical in my brain that forces me to think the same as everyone on social media just because my parents had sex in a certain year? Because I often disagree with what others think in all generations and can't relate to any generation in particular. Where is this magical part of my brain? Do tell. It seems like you just want a category to shove others into stereotypes where you get to play the fence.

I think cusps are valid, because an exact border is always fuzzy, and at the crossover times different folks can be more influenced by the upcoming trends than the older ones. They should be narrowly drawn, though, and based on S&H dates and not Pew dates. So I would say
War Baby cusp: c. 1941-45
Jones cusp (BoomerXer): c. 1958-63
Xennials: 1979-85
Gen Y/Z cusp: 2001-2005

The closer to the border one was born, the more of a mixture one is.

Of course no-one fits a stereotype, and the archetype does not fit all people born into it. It's a general trend, which means there are exceptions. But the trend is significant and meaningful. Apsiemillennial is not a typical Millennial, and I am a typical Boomer, but none of that means that the cusps are bunk, or that the generational archetypes are bunk.

In my case, my astrology chart clearly indicates that I identify with my generation. The same can be said for Mr. Howe, whose Moon (heritage, ancestry, family influences, etc) aligns with his Uranus in Cancer (the Moon's ruling sign), and Uranus is the chief generational planet of the saeculum. Myself, I have Uranus exactly rising in Cancer, Mars exactly conjunct Pluto in Leo, and Sun conjunct closely with Neptune in Libra. Personal indicators aligned with generational planets, QED. I would guess Aspiemillennial does not have such alignments.

I actually have to agree with Eric on this one. Note what I highlighted which I agree with. His astrology stuff is woo woo of course, but he makes a valid point that is NOT a box. Meaning it is supposed to be based on COMMON TRENDS. If you are aware of MBTI that ALSO goes by common TRENDS. It never once said that these are tightly packed boxes. But gives a nod to commonalities which show up in history and in a generation born and raised at the same time of a common history. The longer you know of generational theory and MBTI or anything else like this regarding societal trends, the more you will realize this fact. I am an ISFP core millennial who once was concerned I was being boxed in, yet I consider myself an isfp core millennial now because I realize im not being boxed in. It is just there are some commonalities I can identify with which make me one. The shared history being one for being a core millennial. The way I think dominantly for being an isfp. Education on the real reason for these theories and noted ways of thinking will help immensely. Keep studying.

Isn't that why there was a "list of people who were anomalies for their generation" thread?

[beechnut79]

(09-01-2016, 09:08 AM)Anthony Wrote: There should be little disagreement that the last-wave of G.I.'s formed that generation's core.  For the earlier-born members of the Hero archetype, their '40s took place in the '30s.

These "core" G.I.s then went on to be the predominant parents of early-wave Boomers, who proved to be the core of their generation - younger Boomers having had their '60s in the '70s.  Meanwhile, the older G.I.s parented the Silent, who had no "core" at all.

Then "core" Boomers parented the "core" Xers - the last wave, whose '90s experience so overshadowed the "Baby Busters'" '80s experience that this became a comedic punchline: "The '90s are gonna make the '80s look like the '50s," according to a line from an otherwise-forgettable movie.  The late boomers had to settle for siring the early Millennials, who are shaping up as the "lesser" Millennials.

If this pattern holds, the "edgy" late Xers, who are largely the parents of early-born Homelanders, could get to see their kids grow up to be more "edgy" than late-born Homelanders - or maybe not, because there might be no such thing as a "core" Artist sub-generation, ever.

I haven't seen your name on these boards for a long time now. I believe you were the one who brought up the Extreme Easter Theory by which a major event, often a war, results during a three year span between an extremely early Easter then an extremely late one. You mentioned this before the most recent occurrence, which was 2008 (March 23) to 2011 (April 24). And yet I couldn't detect any earth shaking crisis unless you would consider the housing bubble launching the recession which, IMO, didn't even approach the universal misery caused by the Great Depression of the 1930s. No big war or anything like that.

[AspieMillennial]

(08-01-2019, 10:30 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(08-01-2019, 09:08 AM)Ghost Wrote:

(07-31-2019, 11:41 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-31-2019, 12:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-31-2019, 10:16 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote: I think Xennial is BS because I can't relate to the stuff about Tinder or social justice or infantilizing the world and being easily offended or thinking I was lied to yet I'm core Millennial. Since I'm core Millennial and can't relate to this I can say the cusp is a BS construct that assumes too much about the core. I'm "core Millennial" yet I can't relate to thinking "society" influences your views more than critical thinking whereas others think I am "supposed to" not be able to learn anything on my own or think anything on my own or that I am "supposed to" want to ban everything because I supposedly don't believe in people's abilities to decipher their own information despite whatever "society" says. I hate how the generation police want to force me to think a certain way or that I "should" not be myself because I am "supposed to" copy the group.

You want to have your own generational category because you don't relate to stereotypes. I don't either so what makes you so different? If I am a "core Millennial" yet think this way it means that the category of Xennial is bunk and garbage. Is there something magical in my brain that forces me to think the same as everyone on social media just because my parents had sex in a certain year? Because I often disagree with what others think in all generations and can't relate to any generation in particular. Where is this magical part of my brain? Do tell. It seems like you just want a category to shove others into stereotypes where you get to play the fence.

I think cusps are valid, because an exact border is always fuzzy, and at the crossover times different folks can be more influenced by the upcoming trends than the older ones. They should be narrowly drawn, though, and based on S&H dates and not Pew dates. So I would say
War Baby cusp: c. 1941-45
Jones cusp (BoomerXer): c. 1958-63
Xennials: 1979-85
Gen Y/Z cusp: 2001-2005

The closer to the border one was born, the more of a mixture one is.

Of course no-one fits a stereotype, and the archetype does not fit all people born into it. It's a general trend, which means there are exceptions. But the trend is significant and meaningful. Apsiemillennial is not a typical Millennial, and I am a typical Boomer, but none of that means that the cusps are bunk, or that the generational archetypes are bunk.

In my case, my astrology chart clearly indicates that I identify with my generation. The same can be said for Mr. Howe, whose Moon (heritage, ancestry, family influences, etc) aligns with his Uranus in Cancer (the Moon's ruling sign), and Uranus is the chief generational planet of the saeculum. Myself, I have Uranus exactly rising in Cancer, Mars exactly conjunct Pluto in Leo, and Sun conjunct closely with Neptune in Libra. Personal indicators aligned with generational planets, QED. I would guess Aspiemillennial does not have such alignments.

I actually have to agree with Eric on this one. Note what I highlighted which I agree with. His astrology stuff is woo woo of course, but he makes a valid point that is NOT a box. Meaning it is supposed to be based on COMMON TRENDS. If you are aware of MBTI that ALSO goes by common TRENDS. It never once said that these are tightly packed boxes. But gives a nod to commonalities which show up in history and in a generation born and raised at the same time of a common history. The longer you know of generational theory and MBTI or anything else like this regarding societal trends, the more you will realize this fact. I am an ISFP core millennial who once was concerned I was being boxed in, yet I consider myself an isfp core millennial now because I realize im not being boxed in. It is just there are some commonalities I can identify with which make me one. The shared history being one for being a core millennial. The way I think dominantly for being an isfp. Education on the real reason for these theories and noted ways of thinking will help immensely. Keep studying.

Isn't that why there was a "list of people who were anomalies for their generation" thread?

Bingo so I have no idea why aspie keeps going on as if it is a tightly boxed theory. None of the societal theories are meant to be taken that way. It merely notes some commonalities and trends that run through history. Likewise MBTI notes commonalities and a way of thinking that is measured by cognitive functions that appear in similar ways. Hence the need for a thread on anomalies of the generation which states that fact that it is fluid. It is not a box and never was meant to be a box.

It is a box though. Generations are only ever used as insults or generalizations against others. It's only used as a way of saying you must think this way or believe that way. Generations are a way to force the individual to comply to some group status or a way to insult someone. I've never seen them used for good only for bad purposes.

[Ghost]

(08-06-2019, 12:18 PM)AspieMillennial Wrote:

(08-01-2019, 10:30 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(08-01-2019, 09:08 AM)Ghost Wrote:

(07-31-2019, 11:41 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-31-2019, 12:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I think cusps are valid, because an exact border is always fuzzy, and at the crossover times different folks can be more influenced by the upcoming trends than the older ones. They should be narrowly drawn, though, and based on S&H dates and not Pew dates. So I would say
War Baby cusp: c. 1941-45
Jones cusp (BoomerXer): c. 1958-63
Xennials: 1979-85
Gen Y/Z cusp: 2001-2005

The closer to the border one was born, the more of a mixture one is.

Of course no-one fits a stereotype, and the archetype does not fit all people born into it. It's a general trend, which means there are exceptions. But the trend is significant and meaningful. Apsiemillennial is not a typical Millennial, and I am a typical Boomer, but none of that means that the cusps are bunk, or that the generational archetypes are bunk.

In my case, my astrology chart clearly indicates that I identify with my generation. The same can be said for Mr. Howe, whose Moon (heritage, ancestry, family influences, etc) aligns with his Uranus in Cancer (the Moon's ruling sign), and Uranus is the chief generational planet of the saeculum. Myself, I have Uranus exactly rising in Cancer, Mars exactly conjunct Pluto in Leo, and Sun conjunct closely with Neptune in Libra. Personal indicators aligned with generational planets, QED. I would guess Aspiemillennial does not have such alignments.

I actually have to agree with Eric on this one. Note what I highlighted which I agree with. His astrology stuff is woo woo of course, but he makes a valid point that is NOT a box. Meaning it is supposed to be based on COMMON TRENDS. If you are aware of MBTI that ALSO goes by common TRENDS. It never once said that these are tightly packed boxes. But gives a nod to commonalities which show up in history and in a generation born and raised at the same time of a common history. The longer you know of generational theory and MBTI or anything else like this regarding societal trends, the more you will realize this fact. I am an ISFP core millennial who once was concerned I was being boxed in, yet I consider myself an isfp core millennial now because I realize im not being boxed in. It is just there are some commonalities I can identify with which make me one. The shared history being one for being a core millennial. The way I think dominantly for being an isfp. Education on the real reason for these theories and noted ways of thinking will help immensely. Keep studying.

Isn't that why there was a "list of people who were anomalies for their generation" thread?

Bingo so I have no idea why aspie keeps going on as if it is a tightly boxed theory. None of the societal theories are meant to be taken that way. It merely notes some commonalities and trends that run through history. Likewise MBTI notes commonalities and a way of thinking that is measured by cognitive functions that appear in similar ways. Hence the need for a thread on anomalies of the generation which states that fact that it is fluid. It is not a box and never was meant to be a box.

It is a box though. Generations are only ever used as insults or generalizations against others. It's only used as a way of saying you must think this way or believe that way. Generations are a way to force the individual to comply to some group status or a way to insult someone. I've never seen them used for good only for bad purposes.

That is true especially with the terms "Boomer" and "Millennial"; they are mostly used as insults these days.

[AspieMillennial]

(08-06-2019, 01:16 PM)Ghost Wrote:

(08-06-2019, 12:18 PM)AspieMillennial Wrote:

(08-01-2019, 10:30 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(08-01-2019, 09:08 AM)Ghost Wrote:

(07-31-2019, 11:41 PM)taramarie Wrote: I actually have to agree with Eric on this one. Note what I highlighted which I agree with. His astrology stuff is woo woo of course, but he makes a valid point that is NOT a box. Meaning it is supposed to be based on COMMON TRENDS. If you are aware of MBTI that ALSO goes by common TRENDS. It never once said that these are tightly packed boxes. But gives a nod to commonalities which show up in history and in a generation born and raised at the same time of a common history. The longer you know of generational theory and MBTI or anything else like this regarding societal trends, the more you will realize this fact. I am an ISFP core millennial who once was concerned I was being boxed in, yet I consider myself an isfp core millennial now because I realize im not being boxed in. It is just there are some commonalities I can identify with which make me one. The shared history being one for being a core millennial. The way I think dominantly for being an isfp. Education on the real reason for these theories and noted ways of thinking will help immensely. Keep studying.

Isn't that why there was a "list of people who were anomalies for their generation" thread?

Bingo so I have no idea why aspie keeps going on as if it is a tightly boxed theory. None of the societal theories are meant to be taken that way. It merely notes some commonalities and trends that run through history. Likewise MBTI notes commonalities and a way of thinking that is measured by cognitive functions that appear in similar ways. Hence the need for a thread on anomalies of the generation which states that fact that it is fluid. It is not a box and never was meant to be a box.

It is a box though. Generations are only ever used as insults or generalizations against others. It's only used as a way of saying you must think this way or believe that way. Generations are a way to force the individual to comply to some group status or a way to insult someone. I've never seen them used for good only for bad purposes.

That is true especially with the terms "Boomer" and "Millennial"; they are mostly used as insults these days.

Which is why I want to do away with the concept of generation. The concept has never brought any good to the world.

[David Horn]

(08-06-2019, 05:49 PM)taramarie Wrote: It is what people make of it guys. People do this in the MBTI community. Were both generational studies and the MBTI theory created to be boxes? Not at all. But people who are uneducated use it in a lazy way to just filter their preconceived prejudices. We can say the same for gays, bi's, whites, blacks, Hispanics, etc you name it, people who are fucking nasty will make a box out of something that originally was not intended to be a box.

You're right.  We're human, and, as such, prisoner to our own foibles.  None of these generation-based theories, and there are many, is chiseled in stone.

[Hintergrund]

First you had a model where cuspers are just a few cohorts, now you have a model where cuspers comprise up to twelve cohorts. And you didn't give any reasons why this is supposed to be like that.

[David Horn]

(08-14-2019, 09:07 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: First you had a model where cuspers are just a few cohorts, now you have a model where cuspers comprise up to twelve cohorts. And you didn't give any reasons why this is supposed to be like that.

FWIW, I've never subscribed to the idea that generational change is sudden and totally transformative.  I see it more as a continuum that changes rapidly at cusp periods and more slowly at other times.  Think less of a square wave and more of a sine wave.