Out of curiosity, how old were they? Common definitions I see have Millenials birth years starting as early as 1976 and going until 2000. That’s ages 16 to 40, for those counting. 16 year olds have been surveilled their whole lives, not just by governments but by parents and schools and marketers, to a degree their parents (some of them also officially Millennials, keep in mind) never had to deal with. Some people rebel against it but don’t have tools or means to avoid it, others become numb to it, many don’t even realize or notice it anymore. Older Millennials are less inured to it but are similarly divided by levels of awareness of surveillance, understanding of its broader implications, and general ability to care about relatively abstract issues.
And to the OP, anyone whole expects to find significant marketable commonalities between today’s 16 year olds and 40 year olds is quite clearly deluded. This ought to be blindingly obvious, which is why many Millennials including yours truly find the practice of labeling us as such so annoying.
I thought the Millennials started in 1982, so they were everyone alive who wasn’t an adult when the millennium started, and then the next generation (Gen Z?) starts at 2000 (quibbles over 2001 being the start of the new millennium nothwithstanding).
But yeah, generations don’t work, because they’re way too broad. As a late Xer, I’m obviously going to have a much more similar life experience to the early millennials than I am to Xers from the early 60s.
The ones I met personally were all in their 20s and 30s.
And to the OP, anyone whole expects to find significant marketable commonalities between today’s 16 year olds and 40 year olds is quite clearly deluded.
Wouldn’t science fiction be one of those things that can span several generations? A lot of younger and older people for example like to watch Dr who for example.
I must admit up until fairly recently until I read up about it all I thought that “millennials” was defined as someone who was born around the actual time of the millenium, and that Gen.Y’ers were from around (say) late 70s/early 80s to early 90s.
I think that’s the one major thing he misses, the vagueness of the whole concept. Conovor is the same age as I am, and we’re both technically Milenials. But to presume either of us has incredible ammounts in common with a 14 year old purely because everyone concerned was born after Nintendo was a thing is bonkers.
Its not really that well defined. In the initial idea it was those who would vaguely “come of age” around the Millennium. So it was pegged those born ~1980 through some time in the 90’s. That was vague to begin with. In the infinite amount of numbskulled things written since then the rough idea has been anyone born after 1980, or even back dating it to 1975. A lot of the media hand wringing, in regards to narcissism online behavior and media tastes, you see on the subject seems to focus on people in their late teens through mid twenties. Say 15-25 year olds. People who were born after the millennium, or would have been around 9 or 10 in 2000. Not what most people would consider “coming of age”. And the more limited definitions don’t wash with the media/marketing obsession. If its ~1980 to 2000. You’re talking about an age range of 16-36. You go with the other most commonly quoted limited block, those born “around the millennium or soon after”. The other end of the media obsession tends to focus economic and political effects, and thereby the older blocks. So lets go really limited, 1995 to 2005. 11-21 year olds. How does that fit with all the coverage of millennials not being able to buy cars or afford to get married? What 11 year old is bummed they can’t afford to have children? A 21 year old has just finished college and is newly attempting to enter the work force. So how could they have been struggling with a bad economy for over a decade? And why would be surprising for any of those people to be stuck living at home with their parents? Taken more broadly at 1990 to 2010. You’re talking about 6-26 year olds. And now you’ve lost any sort of utility in looking at them as a block. The oldest portions of that group probably do engage with some of those economic issues I already mentioned. But when you include these older people? Well what about all the non-sense about Emoji, lack of responsibility, etc? How is it useful to include toddlers in a supposed demographic that also includes anyone who can memorize their phone number.
The more you pick at it, and try to peg it down the less sense it makes. The idea seems to bracket itself nicely to whatever the speaker is currently bitching about, or whatever predetermined point they’d like to push. . If its about social issues usually either teenagers, or those in their 20’s. If its lamenting the poor prospect for the future of 'Merica its sometimes hand wringing about the actual children and tweens. If its about the ecconomy its usually pointed older, late 20’s through mid 30’s. Its a canard. A buzzword for pundits and marketers to hang their own preconceptions or well established schtick on. And frequently devolves into “kids these days” kvetching, or ties in to typical scaremongering over technology. Cellphones are destroying our ability to relate to one another! Nobody reads anymore! Because internets and computer games! (Never mind the thousands of words a day people are reading in the form of online writing, e-books etc.)
Seriously guys. If you’re going to sit on my lawn, do you think you could take your empty Stella and red bull cans with you when you leave? Leave no trace, dammit!
I was just thinking the same thing. Bullshit was conceived as being deliberately adversarial and contrarian. Which could be fun to watch, but got old fast. It also lead them to some serious mistakes. IIRC Penn later made it a point to apologize for the global warming episode (though it was rather quietly on a pod cast), and at several points they’ve acknowledged where new research has countermanded that used in their shows or points where they were flat out wrong. Effectively they let their shtick get away from them. They had to be disproving/countermanding the chosen subject, and they had to portray themselves as authoritative and correct. Both of which were at odds with the very concept.
Conover’s approach is a lot more nuanced, and a lot less aggressive. So it seems to side step those sorts of issues, while also being more approachable.
He actually said that modern youngsters were measured and found to be not significantly more narcissistic than previous generations of youngsters, so the second statement statement is not in accordance with the video.
Statistics are generalizations, in that they don’t tell you about any individual data point (unless the stat is 0% or 100%.)
If 95% of dogs bark, you can say that in general dogs bark. That’s not the same as saying all dogs bark.
You can say that in general Millennials are more comfortable with personal technology than senior citizens. The fact that there exist old people who are perfectly comfortable with Instagram and texting, and that there exist teenagers who are stymied by the same, doesn’t make the statement untrue.
I have no opinion about millennials, so therefore I have no opinion about myself. As a general rule I try to have as few opinions about other people as possible. None of my business, carry on.
