Using the 90s as an example, I would say 1993-1996. That goes for any decade...both calendar-wise and age-wise.

I think people have a habit of grouping the year ending with "3" in with the "earlies" (especially when it comes to age, so 33 for example) and proclaiming 4-6 as "mid", but we run into a problem when we consider that most people agree on the "late" decade to be 7-9. In this case, the "early" part would comprise 4 years and the "late" would only be 3. Don't you think there should be balance there?

It should be:

Early: -0, -1, -2 (3 yrs)
Mid: -3, -4, -5, -6 (4 yrs)
Late: -7, -8, -9 (3 yrs)

Or alternatively*:

Early: -0, -1, -2, -3 (4 yrs)
Mid: -4, -5 (2 yrs)
Late: -6, -7, -8, -9 (4 yrs)

*I should note I rarely see people include 6 as late, but at least that would make sense if 3 is early.

Or if you want to get more precise and divide it into 3 equal periods, lets use the 1990s as an example again:

Early: January 1990 - April 1993 (3.333 years)
Mid: May 1993 - August 1996) (3.333 years)
Late: September 1996 - December 1999 (3.333 years)

And then again some people would leave out "mid" altogether and just say 0-4 is early and 5-9 is late. Or they might say 5 by itself is mid, but that wouldn't be accurate.

A few quick google searches on the issue leads to many Yahoo discussions with nearly everyone saying 0-3 is early, 4-6 is mid, and 7-9 is late.

What do you think? I'm making a mountain out of a molehill here, but Idk, it just bothers me a little bit that the majority doesn't think about this mathematically ;D My theory is that it's an issue of the masses subconsciously not realizing that we have to count 0-9 in this case instead of 1-10, because 1-3 would be early in that case. In other words, the "3" at the end of 1993 is tricking people into thinking that it's the 3rd year when it's actually the 4th.

I think, in daily life you're more talking about people if they are in their early, mid or late X0's and it is just not common to consider somebody who is 23 to be in his mid-20's. Even 24 is not always considered mid-20's. The point of view is just a bit different and concentrates also more on the maturity of the respective person.

About decades - seriously how often do people really talk about an early, mid or late part of a decade and clearly differentiate between it? I personally prefer the 3-4-3 way here: 0-2, 3-6 and 7-9. Three years into a decade are mostly enough to already see an identity of the decade which differs from the early part. Making differences between the months however is nonsense since nobody in real life would consider a different part of a year to be in a different part of a decade. It would just sound weird that April 1996 would be mid 90's while October 1996 is already late. 

I think, in daily life you're more talking about people if they are in their early, mid or late X0's and it is just not common to consider somebody who is 23 to be in his mid-20's. Even 24 is not always considered mid-20's. The point of view is just a bit different and concentrates also more on the maturity of the respective person.

It just seems weird to let 23 be considered early 20s but 26 is considered mid when they're the same distance from the beginning and end, respectively. How can you say 24-26 is the mid-20s when it's not centered in the 10 year period?

About decades - seriously how often do people really talk about an early, mid or late part of a decade and clearly differentiate between it? I personally prefer the 3-4-3 way here: 0-2, 3-6 and 7-9. Three years into a decade are mostly enough to already see an identity of the decade which differs from the early part. Making differences between the months however is nonsense since nobody in real life would consider a different part of a year to be in a different part of a decade. It would just sound weird that April 1996 would be mid 90's while October 1996 is already late.


I agree, it should be the "3-4-3" (0-2, 3-6, 7-9) way. Someone placing 1993 in the early 90s instead of the mid is wrong, unless they're going by the "4-2-4" counting system. And I didn't mean we should divide it by months within a year, I was just displaying where the divisions would be if you wanted to split it into exact thirds 8)

It just seems weird to let 23 be considered early 20s but 26 is considered mid when they're the same distance from the beginning and end, respectively. How can you say 24-26 is the mid-20s when it's not centered in the 10 year period?


Actually if you just turned 23 you are only 3 years from age 20.0. When you just turned 26, you are 4.0 years from 30, so it is not really the same distance if you don't consider the months. Otherwise it would be the same with the decades: Until 23.33 (23 and 4 months) is early, 23.34-26.66 (26 and 8 months) is mid and 26.67-29.99 is late 20's.

I think people tend to consider 24-26 as mid, because both numbers are located around the mean.

unless they're going by the "4-2-4" counting system.


The 4-2-4-"system" is a bit too strong in my opinion. Considering the 6-year as late is really stretching it; it's still a bit too long until the next decade. When it was 2006 for example, I really felt "in between" and 2010 was quite distant - there were also still three years to come. It was not as if the decade was nearly over. Same goes for most of 2007.

Actually if you just turned 23 you are only 3 years from age 20.0. When you just turned 26, you are 4.0 years from 30, so it is not really the same distance if you don't consider the months. Otherwise it would be the same with the decades: Until 23.33 (23 and 4 months) is early, 23.34-26.66 (26 and 8 months) is mid and 26.67-29.99 is late 20's.

I think people tend to consider 24-26 as mid, because both numbers are located around the mean.


You have to consider the entire year of being 23 and 26 though, not just the birthday. When you are 26.99 years old (still considered age 26) you are 3 years away from the upper limit (29.99).

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

If you exclude 23, then it's off-center

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

You have to consider the entire year of being 23 and 26 though, not just the birthday. When you are 26.99 years old (still considered age 26) you are 3 years away from the upper limit (29.99).

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

If you exclude 23, then it's off-center

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29


By math, it is correct - however in real life I never hear somebody say that a person who is 23 is in his mid-20's. And I also think that most people who are age 23 don't wanna be already in their mid-20's. Same goes for 26. Most people don't want to be already in their late 20's at age 26.

Another possibility is that people have the 30 additionally in mind - then it would be in center again:

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

I never hear anyone say 23, or 33, 43, etc. is in the "mid" decade either, but that's the point of this thread: to let them know they're wrong!

This topic looks like a math quiz.

This topic looks like a math quiz.


Hahaha, lol!

I never hear anyone say 23, or 33, 43, etc. is in the "mid" decade either, but that's the point of this thread: to let them know they're wrong!


But why are they wrong? Nobody has defined it exactly - and why do "early" and "late" have to be exactly the same year span?

There are a lot of arguments that support that 23 is early 20's:
A lot of people still act or look pretty juvenile under age 24. Once you hit 24 or 25, a lot of people look more mature and act more grown-up. That's what I am observing at my university where I come in contact with people between roughly 18 and 35.

Plus:

In Germany, we have ID-cards (additionally to our driver's licence). People who are under 24 get an ID card which is valid for only 6 years while from age 24 on you get a card that is valid for 10 years. This is due to the photo and the possible changes of the appearance over the years.

From age 27 on, most people lose a lot of youth discounts over here, too and you are not considered a "young person" by law anymore. I think it's pretty legitimate to consider 24-26 as mid.

That's my 2 cents - at least for the 20's.

I'm speaking from a mathematical standpoint rather than a maturity one.

I'm speaking from a mathematical standpoint rather than a maturity one.


Than it's clear and there is no need for discussion  8). It's either this:


20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29


Or this:


Until 23.33 (23 and 4 months) is early, 23.34-26.66 (26 and 8 months) is mid and 26.67-29.99 is late 20's.


Or maybe this - definetly also an option:

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

or this:

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
(however I don't like this one because 26 is too early to be late)

This is just my opinion.

1990-1993- early
1994-1996-mid
1997-1999- late

But why are they wrong? Nobody has defined it exactly - and why do "early" and "late" have to be exactly the same year span?

There are a lot of arguments that support that 23 is early 20's:
A lot of people still act or look pretty juvenile under age 24. Once you hit 24 or 25, a lot of people look more mature and act more grown-up. That's what I am observing at my university where I come in contact with people between roughly 18 and 35.

Plus:

In Germany, we have ID-cards (additionally to our driver's licence). People who are under 24 get an ID card which is valid for only 6 years while from age 24 on you get a card that is valid for 10 years. This is due to the photo and the possible changes of the appearance over the years.

From age 27 on, most people lose a lot of youth discounts over here, too and you are not considered a "young person" by law anymore. I think it's pretty legitimate to consider 24-26 as mid.

That's my 2 cents - at least for the 20's.


He's looking for the correct definition of the mid twenties and that is definitely without a doubt from 23 years 4 months to 26 years 8 months, no sooner no later, someone who is 23 years 5 months old is in their mid 20s and someone who is 26 years 10 months old is in their late 20s, why is this so hard to understand, this discussion should not have taken more than 2-3 posts(if you can do math and divide 10 by 3). In fact I often see people categorize ages 26-29 as the late 20s and ages 23-26 as the mid 20s, you're just cherry picking the information you want(and then trying to use a faulty argument from popularity). I can see just rounding 26 years, 8 months to 27 since it is pretty close anyways but most of 23 is in the middle part of the decade, this 24-26 crap is nonsense. This is the last I'm commenting in this thread that has turned out ridiculous responses.

This is the last I'm commenting in this thread that has turned out ridiculous responses.


That may be your opinion, but I do not agree with it. He actually asked or wondered why people are doing it 'wrong' and I tried to find out possible solutions what the reasons could be. I don't know what's so ridiculous about it, since I have indicated serious references. If it was really just about the mathematical standpoint, I don't know why opening a thread about it, since everybody should know maths and there are just a few possibilties which are already shown in the original post.

My opinion:

90 91 92 93 | 94, 95 | 96 97 98 99

The bolded numbers are the middle of the decade in my opinion based on a mathematical standpoint.

My original intent was to point out the flaw in peoples' thinking that the early part of the decade was a year longer than the late part, and I wanted to see if anyone else agreed with me. Of course everyone is entitled their own opinion, but I would think most people would agree that, logically, the early and late definitions should be balanced. I didn't mean for this to become a vicious debate.

What year between 1984 and 1986 was the best?
:P

Okay I rose to the bait...

For decades and decades only, I reckon the "mid" terminology should be used for a whole chunk of it. I would class the 80s as...

80-82 : Early
83-87 : Mid
88-89 : Late

Same goes for the 90s and probably the 00s too. I mean I would never class an album that came out in 1983 as an early 80s album. By the time 1983 rolled around, the decade was in full swing.

Okay I rose to the bait...

For decades and decades only, I reckon the "mid" terminology should be used for a whole chunk of it. I would class the 80s as...

80-82 : Early
83-87 : Mid
88-89 : Late

Same goes for the 90s and probably the 00s too. I mean I would never class an album that came out in 1983 as an early 80s album. By the 1983 the decade was in full swing.


I agree with this 100%

In general, when I'm referring to the early, mid, and late part of a decade, I do it like this:

_0-_2 = early
_3-_6 = mid
_7-_9 = late

I have given this some thought, and I would say:

0, 1, 2, 3= Early
4, 5, 6= Mid
7, 8, 9= Late

And this is slightly off topic but I think 0 could also be late because I have always felt that 0 could be part of the last decade. For example, 1970 could be part of the '60s since the years actually begin with year 1, as if you were counting from 1-10. Like this:

1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980

you could almost view the "0" year in its own category as like a transition year, huh? Like I was born in 1990, but when I look at a picture or footage from then, or even a list of popular songs, it's clear the 80s are still lingering.

In that case it becomes:

80: transition
81-83: early
84-86: mid
87-89: late
90: transition

and so on...and then the early/mid/late are all balanced.

you could almost view the "0" year in its own category as like a transition year, huh? Like I was born in 1990, but when I look at a picture or footage from then, or even a list of popular songs, it's clear the 80s are still lingering.

In that case it becomes:

80: transition
81-83: early
84-86: mid
87-89: late
90: transition

and so on...and then the early/mid/late are all balanced.


Yes, that's actually a good point, however the '0'-years are officially defined as part of the respective decade (0-9).