It seems like today's teenagers are turning out to be quite a bit different from people born in the 80's. There seems to be a significant generation gap between say a 26 year old born in 1986 and a 16 year old born in 1996. It seems more obvious than 1976 vs 1986.

I think the main differences would be Gen Z's limited to non-existent 20th century memory and growing up with smartphones, social media and a bad economy before they even became teenagers. Seriously, today's younger teenagers act like anyone with a 1980s birth date is the same generation as their parents, I wish I was kidding!  ;D

My mid/late 80s born friends tend to agree they can't relate to people born from about 1992/93 onwards. I was born in '90 myself and I personally feel like I have more in common with 80's born people than with people born more just a couple years into the 90's. I think today's teenagers probably will turn out to have more in common with the little kids of today than with the people currently in their 20s. But I could be wrong.

I used to say Gen Y went up to 1997 but now I'm not so sure. It seems like after about 1992 or so, the kids seem fundamentally different in a way that's not completely tangible.

It seems like today's teenagers are turning out to be quite a bit different from people born in the 80's. There seems to be a significant generation gap between say a 26 year old born in 1986 and a 16 year old born in 1996. It seems more obvious than 1976 vs 1986.


Ask a 1976er and you'll know that they think about it differently.

It's also obvious that the difference (today!) 26 vs. 36 (both grown adults) is not as big as 26 vs. 16 (grown adult vs. teen) when it comes to maturity.

It seems like today's teenagers are turning out to be quite a bit different from people born in the 80's. There seems to be a significant generation gap between say a 26 year old born in 1986 and a 16 year old born in 1996. It seems more obvious than 1976 vs 1986.

I think the main differences would be Gen Z's limited to non-existent 20th century memory and growing up with smartphones, social media and a bad economy before they even became teenagers. Seriously, today's younger teenagers act like anyone with a 1980s birth date is the same generation as their parents, I wish I was kidding!  ;D

My mid/late 80s born friends tend to agree they can't relate to people born from about 1992/93 onwards. I was born in '90 myself and I personally feel like I have more in common with 80's born people than with people born more just a couple years into the 90's. I think today's teenagers probably will turn out to have more in common with the little kids of today than with the people currently in their 20s. But I could be wrong.

I used to say Gen Y went up to 1997 but now I'm not so sure. It seems like after about 1992 or so, the kids seem fundamentally different in a way that's not completely tangible.


I think technology and the state of the world is changing so fast that generation theory doesn't make sense anymore. It's more like there are several mini-generations after x.

It seems like today's teenagers are turning out to be quite a bit different from people born in the 80's. There seems to be a significant generation gap between say a 26 year old born in 1986 and a 16 year old born in 1996. It seems more obvious than 1976 vs 1986.

I think the main differences would be Gen Z's limited to non-existent 20th century memory and growing up with smartphones, social media and a bad economy before they even became teenagers. Seriously, today's younger teenagers act like anyone with a 1980s birth date is the same generation as their parents, I wish I was kidding!  ;D

My mid/late 80s born friends tend to agree they can't relate to people born from about 1992/93 onwards. I was born in '90 myself and I personally feel like I have more in common with 80's born people than with people born more just a couple years into the 90's. I think today's teenagers probably will turn out to have more in common with the little kids of today than with the people currently in their 20s. But I could be wrong.

I used to say Gen Y went up to 1997 but now I'm not so sure. It seems like after about 1992 or so, the kids seem fundamentally different in a way that's not completely tangible.


I would kind of agree with this. 1993 does seem different to someone born in say, 1988. I would say Gen Y lasts up to and including 1992 with Gen Z going from 1993 until maybe 2004. I don't think Gen Z would be very long, 12 years would do for a somewhat short generation and that Gen AA should be those born from 2005 onwards.

I've said before I don't really care for the concept of generations, but I can see where people who have had some form of access to the internet for as long as they can remember (which would start with those born around 92/93) would have a somewhat different perspective on things.

I've said before I don't really care for the concept of generations, but I can see where people who have had some form of access to the internet for as long as they can remember (which would start with those born around 92/93) would have a somewhat different perspective on things.


Yeah, that's what I think. Not to mention if you were born in say 1995 you could have theoretically had an ipod when you were 6 years old!

Yeah, that's what I think. Not to mention if you were born in say 1995 you could have theoretically had an ipod when you were 6 years old!


And people born in 1990 were just 11 in 2001. Where is the big difference? Both ages are kid ages.

Additionally to that, I could have had theoretically access to the WWW when I was well under 10....

And people born in 1990 were just 11 in 2001. Where is the big difference? Both ages are kid ages.

Additionally to that, I could have had theoretically access to the WWW when I was well under 10....


I don't know, 11 is close to a teenager, while 5 is just when you're really starting to form a continuous narrative. I think it's a big difference even though both are 'kid' ages. Ditto with say, remembering September 11. I don't really remember any of the news events of 1995, but I still recall 9/11 as if it were yesterday. Something that's been there since you were 5 has basically always been there to you, since 11 not so much.

And people born in 1990 were just 11 in 2001. Where is the big difference? Both ages are kid ages.

Additionally to that, I could have had theoretically access to the WWW when I was well under 10....


http://kidshealth.org/parent/positive/talk/talk_about_puberty.html

Quoting the article: "Most girls get their first period when they're 12 or 13 years old, which is about two or two and a half years after they begin puberty. But some get their periods as early as age 9 and others get it as late as age 16. On average, boys begin going through puberty a little later than girls, usually around age 10 or 11."

So going through puberty is "childhood" now? If 11 year olds are "kids", I guess 7 year olds are "toddlers"?

I don't know, 11 is close to a teenager, while 5 is just when you're really starting to form a continuous narrative. I think it's a big difference even though both are 'kid' ages. Ditto with say, remembering September 11. I don't really remember any of the news events of 1995, but I still recall 9/11 as if it were yesterday. Something that's been there since you were 5 has basically always been there to you, since 11 not so much.


I would apply my "continuous narrative" to about age 3 (or 4 if you want to be quite strict). I was definitley well accustom to life before age 5 and can still remember 4 and a half to 5 really well.

So going through puberty is "childhood" now? If 11 year olds are "kids", I guess 7 year olds are "toddlers"?


LOL. What are 11-year-olds in your opinion then?

If 11 belongs to 'teenhood', I wanna be a 90's teen.  ::)

LOL. What are 11-year-olds in your opinion then?

If 11 belongs to 'teenhood', I wanna be a 90's teen.  ::)


I usually term 11-17 as "adolescence" but I do wish I had a better word for it, as using the word "adolesence" feels a bit loose. A child from 4 to 10. A baby/toddler from 0-3. To illustrate. Let's say someone was born in December 1999.

Early life: December 1999 - November 2003
Childhood: December 2003 - November 2010
and then "December 2010 - November 2017

I usually term 11-17 as "adolescence"


Yeah, but why don't usually play 17-year-olds with 11-year-olds?

Simple answear: It's a huge difference. Even 11 to 14 is quite a big difference.

I think the turning point when you slowly get the adult personality is around 13/14/15.

LOL. What are 11-year-olds in your opinion then?

If 11 belongs to 'teenhood', I wanna be a 90's teen.  ::)


11 is definitely not teen.  ;D In fact even 13 doesn't even seem like a full-fledged teen to me, I really think of 14 through 17 as being the only thing that truly fits the bill. 18 and 19 I would categorize as being more like your 20s because at least in the US you're legally your own independent person and you generally finish high school at 18.

Still though, an 11 year old has a conscious narrative dating back a good 6-7 years, which seems like eternity when you're that little, I think it's definitely old enough to recall and make some sense of current events. I'd say from 8 years old onwards is more or less old enough, I definitely remember Clinton's naughty business back in '98, I knew who Clinton was and I understood why it was such a huge deal.  ;D

Come to think of it I remember when Princess Diana died, it was the same day as my cousin Sheryl's wedding. Thing is, I didn't really know who Princess Diana was, aside from the fact she was a princess in England and for that reason obviously would be missed greatly. If I was born in say 1986 and 3-4 years older, there's a good chance I would have known who she was before she died, and if I were a girl and a few years older than that I might have even been a fan of her, kept track of and emulated her fashions, and so on.

Yeah, but why don't usually play 17-year-olds with 11-year-olds?


Because people would accuse them of being pedophiles, duh!  ;D

Yeah, but why don't usually play 17-year-olds with 11-year-olds?

Simple answear: It's a huge difference. Even 11 to 14 is quite a big difference.

I think the turning point when you slowly get the adult personality is around 13/14/15.


At 11, I was more interested in what I liked at 14 than what I liked at 8.

In fact even 13 doesn't even seem like a full-fledged teen to me, I really think of 14 through 17 as being the only thing that truly fits the bill.


That really depends on the personality I think. Some people really look like kids when they are 13, some look more mature. I think by late 1999 (I was a few months over 13) I was a young but real teenager.

At 11, I was more interested in what I liked at 14 than what I liked at 8.


Then you were maybe still doing kid's stuff at age 14 ;)

That really depends on the personality I think. Some people really look like kids when they are 13, some look more mature. I think by late 1999 (I was a few months over 13) I was a young but real teenager.


That's true, it depends on the person yes.

Then you were maybe still doing kid's stuff at age 14 ;)


Actually, the other way around. I was into "older" culture at 11. Actually since 9, I started taking a real interest in night-time television (I don't mean Playboy or anything like that, but shows on when little children are in bed, that they wouldn't really understand).

I guess I was what you call a late bloomer...I pretty much looked the same from like, age 8 to 13 aside from growing taller ;D

I stopped feeling like a kid after I ended elementary school and started middle school. I think elementary school (kindergarten through 5th grade) is your main childhood. And yet I didn't feel like a full-fledged teen, I guess, until I started high school. So middle school (6th-8th grade) was more of a transitional time.

I guess I was what you call a late bloomer...I pretty much looked the same from like, age 8 to 13 aside from growing taller ;D

I stopped feeling like a kid after I ended elementary school and started middle school. I think elementary school (kindergarten through 5th grade) is your main childhood. And yet I didn't feel like a full-fledged teen, I guess, until I started high school. So middle school (6th-8th grade) was more of a transitional time.


Kindergarten through fifth grade is at least close to my approximation of age 4 to age 10. I consider 1990 borns to be children of 1994-2000/01.

Because people would accuse them of being pedophiles, duh!  ;D


and "robbing the cradle" if you would call it that way.

Call me mad, but I'll never let my future children anywhere near social networks. I'm addicted to the Internet so I don't want them to ruin their childhood, too.

Call me mad, but I'll never let my future children anywhere near social networks. I'm addicted to the Internet so I don't want them to ruin their childhood, too.


If I was 20 years older and had teenage children, I don't have any kids at all yet actually, I wouldn't let them on Facebook until they were 16.

I wouldn't let them on Facebook until they were 16.


That would be really hard if you ask me. 'Kids' start to act pretty independently once they are turning 12/13. I was online from age 14 on and I guess I would have also been on Facebook if it was available back then.

However if you ask me, it is not necessary that elementary school kids are on facebook - but that's an age where you as a parent can still influence it.

That would be really hard if you ask me. 'Kids' start to act pretty independently once they are turning 12/13. I was online from age 14 on and I guess I would have also been on Facebook if it was available back then.

However if you ask me, it is not necessary that elementary school kids are on facebook - but that's an age where you as a parent can still influence it.


That's true. Good point. Facebook probably won't exist by that time though luckily lol, who knows what will though!