I know I'm beating a dead horse with the subject at hand, and I've already made a thread similar to this on PersonalityCafe, but I decided to make this thread anyways since there are still many individuals within inthe00s with an interest in generationology, and I felt these viewpoints were worth sharing with this community.

As you all know, for every generation succeeding the Baby Boomers, Pew uses a 16-year generation theory; X is 1965-1980, Y is 1981-1996, and Z is 1997-2012.
Right off the bat, despite being born slightly after Pew's cutoff for Millennials, as well as disagreeing with them, I'm not at all offended by Pew's definitions. First of all, for the individuals that work at Pew and contribute to defining the generations, I'm sure they just see this as part of their job, that's what it is. This is just their job, they clock in, do the research, put in their times worth, then get their paycheck they need to pay for their taxes, mortgage, utilities, etc. Not only that, but I actually agree that 1997 is a valid starting point for Gen Z, it's not my top pick, but it's my second place pick on where Z should start.
Again, I don't necessarily agree with Pew's definitions, but I respect them. They definitely would've bothered me about 5-7 years ago, but not these days.

However, the point I want to make with this thread is that Pew's model, now matter how ubiquitous it is, is not objective, it is subjective.
The "9/11 Rule", the rule that one must remember 9/11 in order to be a Millennial, is also ubiquitous, yet it's also subjective. Not only that, but the "Remember 9/11" rule is heavily flawed, as it's too Americentric, memory is a subjective criteria as some people have better memory than others, and just simply having a fluky memory of the event is not the same as actually being impacted by the event (aka, living in NYC, DC, or a military base at the time, losing a loved one in the attacks, temporarily or permanently losing a loved one to the War in Afghanistan following the attacks, etc.)
All generation definitions are subjective. Just because one may be ubiquitous, a popular opinion, doesn't make it objective in any way, shape, or form, belief in the contrary is a fallacy. In most cases, it follows the example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, where someone tries to make an appeal to purity to dismiss any exceptions to an argument or general rule they follow. To put it in literal terms;

https://www.personalitycafe.com/attachments/generations/826429d1563078420-no-true-scotsman-fallacy-youre-not-millennial-if-you-dont-remember-9-11-36676.gifNo true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge!
https://www.personalitycafe.com/attachments/generations/826431d1563078435-no-true-scotsman-fallacy-youre-not-millennial-if-you-dont-remember-9-11-beer-1792553_dac24_sm.jpgShut yer scabby mouth, I hail from Forfar and put sugar on ma porridge all the time!
https://www.personalitycafe.com/attachments/generations/826429d1563078420-no-true-scotsman-fallacy-youre-not-millennial-if-you-dont-remember-9-11-36676.gifNo TRUE Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge, ye doaty bastard! Yer not a TRUE Scotsman!

Now granted, generation definitions can indeed be backed up with objective criteria, but the quality of that very criteria is still subjective, even if it seems objective via validity, to assume it is is objective is still making a fallacy.
Go by what generation model you feel is preferential, or none at all if you'd rather, but don't assume that model is perfect, as no model is. Don't treat the generation model you follow as conventional wisdom, no matter how popular an opinion it is, it is still an opinion, and ubiquity is no basis for objectivity.

I remember about a week or so ago while I was browsing this site, not gonna name names, but one user stated that Generation Alpha has no pop culture yet, and another user brought up "Baby Shark" to counter that argument. But even that point is not necessarily true, "Baby Shark" is not necessarily part of Gen Alpha popular culture, in fact, by the generation model I use, it would be tail end Z culture.
I go by the 18-year theory, in which all generation intervals, not just Z, Y, and X, but also Boomers, Silents, and GIs, are 18 years long.

1910-1927 = Greatest Generation
1928-1945 = Silent Generation
1946-1963 = Baby Boomers
1964-1981 = Generation X
1982-1999 = Millennials
2000-2017 = Plurals

I like this generation model, because all the generations are equal in length, making it nice logical smooth sailing and not some arbitrary roller coaster. I also feel the validity of this model goes beyond simple mathematics as well;

1910 = Under 30 when World War II stared
1928 = Under 18 when World War II ended
1946 = Born after World War II
1964 = Born after the JFK Assassination
1982 = Under 18 on Y2K
2000 = Born after Y2K

But then again, while I feel this model is valid, I recognize that it, along with all other generation models, is still subjective. Whatever model you go by, if you do at all, you should recognize this as well.

Feel free to leave input on this thread in the comment section below.

I think fixed generation models are inherently flawed, because generations and humanity itself is very fluid. Cultural and political shifts don't happen on perfectly timed intervals, and the environment one grows up/comes of age in is constantly in flux. Like why does every generation have to be 18 years long if the only reason people stick to that model is because that was roughly the length of the 20th century baby boom? Generations aren't supposed to be neat anyways. Starting and ending years are just the threshold where common generational experiences start to heavily outweigh the previous/next generation's shared experiences, and Pew research center itself acknowledges this.

I think fixed generation models are inherently flawed, because generations and humanity itself is very fluid. Cultural and political shifts don't happen on perfectly timed intervals, and the environment one grows up/comes of age in is constantly in flux. Like why does every generation have to be 18 years long if the only reason people stick to that model is because that was roughly the length of the 20th century baby boom? Generations aren't supposed to be neat anyways. Starting and ending years are just the threshold where common generational experiences start to heavily outweigh the previous/next generation's shared experiences, and Pew research center itself acknowledges this.

Not only that, but there’s just no way a person born in 1999 is a millennial. They weren’t old enough to vote in 2016, spent their teen years in the core 2010’s, and they worry about going to school and not being shot just like the rest of us. I could go on but I’m on my iPhone.

I think fixed generation models are inherently flawed, because generations and humanity itself is very fluid. Cultural and political shifts don't happen on perfectly timed intervals, and the environment one grows up/comes of age in is constantly in flux. Like why does every generation have to be 18 years long if the only reason people stick to that model is because that was roughly the length of the 20th century baby boom? Generations aren't supposed to be neat anyways. Starting and ending years are just the threshold where common generational experiences start to heavily outweigh the previous/next generation's shared experiences, and Pew research center itself acknowledges this.


Fixed generation models have their flaws, but they're better than lopsided generation models. At least there's more of an objective and clean-cut approach when it comes to fixed generation ones.
Lopsided models, on the other hand, are completely arbitrary, and have nothing to work with besides subjective cherry picked criteria. For the sake of argument, let's use the model where X is 1965-1976, and Y is 1977-1994. The common answer as to why 1977 has been used before as a starting point for Y is because they were 18 in 1995 when Windows 95 came out. The problem is, however, that seems like a very cherry picked criteria. How is being a certain age for Windows 95 any more objectively significant than, say, being a certain age for Live Aid, or the Challenger Explosion, or the Fall of the Berlin Wall, or the Collapse of the USSR? Why is Y so lopsidedly long, while X is so pathetically short? Does being a certain age for Windows 95 really make that much more of a sociological difference between someone born in 1977 and someone born in 1976, despite being only a year difference, despite the fact they would've grown up together? Does that criteria make someone born in 1977 that much more similar to someone born in 1994 instead, despite being a 17-year difference?
At least fixed generation models have a lot more to work with than just subjective cherry picked criteria.

Either way though, that's not the point of my thread.

Fixed generation models have their flaws, but they're better than lopsided generation models. At least there's more of an objective and clean-cut approach when it comes to fixed generation ones.
Lopsided models, on the other hand, are completely arbitrary, and have nothing to work with besides subjective cherry picked criteria. For the sake of argument, let's use the model where X is 1965-1976, and Y is 1977-1994. The common answer as to why 1977 has been used before as a starting point for Y is because they were 18 in 1995 when Windows 95 came out. The problem is, however, that seems like a very cherry picked criteria. How is being a certain age for Windows 95 any more objectively significant than, say, being a certain age for Live Aid, or the Challenger Explosion, or the Fall of the Berlin Wall, or the Collapse of the USSR? Why is Y so lopsidedly long, while X is so pathetically short? Does being a certain age for Windows 95 really make that much more of a sociological difference between someone born in 1977 and someone born in 1976, despite being only a year difference, despite the fact they would've grown up together? Does that criteria make someone born in 1977 that much more similar to someone born in 1994 instead, despite being a 17-year difference?
At least fixed generation models have a lot more to work with than just subjective cherry picked criteria.

Either way though, that's not the point of my thread.


If fixed generation models are so superior, why does nearly every major think tank with credibility go with “lopsided” models?

I know I'm beating a dead horse with the subject at hand, and I've already made a thread similar to this on PersonalityCafe, but I decided to make this thread anyways since there are still many individuals within inthe00s with an interest in generationology, and I felt these viewpoints were worth sharing with this community.

As you all know, for every generation succeeding the Baby Boomers, Pew uses a 16-year generation theory; X is 1965-1980, Y is 1981-1996, and Z is 1997-2012.
Right off the bat, despite being born slightly after Pew's cutoff for Millennials, as well as disagreeing with them, I'm not at all offended by Pew's definitions. First of all, for the individuals that work at Pew and contribute to defining the generations, I'm sure they just see this as part of their job, that's what it is. This is just their job, they clock in, do the research, put in their times worth, then get their paycheck they need to pay for their taxes, mortgage, utilities, etc. Not only that, but I actually agree that 1997 is a valid starting point for Gen Z, it's not my top pick, but it's my second place pick on where Z should start.
Again, I don't necessarily agree with Pew's definitions, but I respect them. They definitely would've bothered me about 5-7 years ago, but not these days.

However, the point I want to make with this thread is that Pew's model, now matter how ubiquitous it is, is not objective, it is subjective.
The "9/11 Rule", the rule that one must remember 9/11 in order to be a Millennial, is also ubiquitous, yet it's also subjective. Not only that, but the "Remember 9/11" rule is heavily flawed, as it's too Americentric, memory is a subjective criteria as some people have better memory than others, and just simply having a fluky memory of the event is not the same as actually being impacted by the event (aka, living in NYC, DC, or a military base at the time, losing a loved one in the attacks, temporarily or permanently losing a loved one to the War in Afghanistan following the attacks, etc.)
All generation definitions are subjective. Just because one may be ubiquitous, a popular opinion, doesn't make it objective in any way, shape, or form, belief in the contrary is a fallacy. In most cases, it follows the example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, where someone tries to make an appeal to purity to dismiss any exceptions to an argument or general rule they follow. To put it in literal terms;

https://www.personalitycafe.com/attachments/generations/826429d1563078420-no-true-scotsman-fallacy-youre-not-millennial-if-you-dont-remember-9-11-36676.gifNo true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge!
https://www.personalitycafe.com/attachments/generations/826431d1563078435-no-true-scotsman-fallacy-youre-not-millennial-if-you-dont-remember-9-11-beer-1792553_dac24_sm.jpgShut yer scabby mouth, I hail from Forfar and put sugar on ma porridge all the time!
https://www.personalitycafe.com/attachments/generations/826429d1563078420-no-true-scotsman-fallacy-youre-not-millennial-if-you-dont-remember-9-11-36676.gifNo TRUE Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge, ye doaty bastard! Yer not a TRUE Scotsman!

Now granted, generation definitions can indeed be backed up with objective criteria, but the quality of that very criteria is still subjective, even if it seems objective via validity, to assume it is is objective is still making a fallacy.
Go by what generation model you feel is preferential, or none at all if you'd rather, but don't assume that model is perfect, as no model is. Don't treat the generation model you follow as conventional wisdom, no matter how popular an opinion it is, it is still an opinion, and ubiquity is no basis for objectivity.

I remember about a week or so ago while I was browsing this site, not gonna name names, but one user stated that Generation Alpha has no pop culture yet, and another user brought up "Baby Shark" to counter that argument. But even that point is not necessarily true, "Baby Shark" is not necessarily part of Gen Alpha popular culture, in fact, by the generation model I use, it would be tail end Z culture.
I go by the 18-year theory, in which all generation intervals, not just Z, Y, and X, but also Boomers, Silents, and GIs, are 18 years long.

1910-1927 = Greatest Generation
1928-1945 = Silent Generation
1946-1963 = Baby Boomers
1964-1981 = Generation X
1982-1999 = Millennials
2000-2017 = Plurals

I like this generation model, because all the generations are equal in length, making it nice logical smooth sailing and not some arbitrary roller coaster. I also feel the validity of this model goes beyond simple mathematics as well;

1910 = Under 30 when World War II stared
1928 = Under 18 when World War II ended
1946 = Born after World War II
1964 = Born after the JFK Assassination
1982 = Under 18 on Y2K
2000 = Born after Y2K

But then again, while I feel this model is valid, I recognize that it, along with all other generation models, is still subjective. Whatever model you go by, if you do at all, you should recognize this as well.

Feel free to leave input on this thread in the comment section below.


One problem:

People born from 1982 to 1986, as a rule, do not like to be called “Millennials”. Some of us don’t mind it, but at large, we are Xennials.

One problem:

People born from 1982 to 1986, as a rule, do not like to be called “Millennials”. Some of us don’t mind it, but at large, we are Xennials.


I thought Xennials were from ‘77-‘82. 83 to 86 is solidly Gen Y tho.

If fixed generation models are so superior, why does nearly every major think tank with credibility go with “lopsided” models?


That's actually not entirely true. Both Pew and McCrindle, two of the most ubiquitous sources for generation definitions, only use lopsided ranges for Boomers and prior, as X, Y, and Z are all fixed for both sources.
McCrindle uses a 15-year model, with X being 1965-1979, Y being 1980-1994, and Z being 1995-2009.
Pew uses a 16-year model, with X being 1965-1980, Y being 1981-1996, and Z being 1997-2012.

Even if your statement was true, those sources are still subjective and not objective, which is the point of my thread.

I thought Xennials were from ‘77-‘82. 83 to 86 is solidly Gen Y tho.


I'm an 84 baby and I didn't like being lumped into the 'Millennial' category as for years I just thought I was Gen Y until this 'M' term became commonplace. I longed to be part of Generation X because I was so utterly obsessed with 80s culture as a teen. I can just about deal with it now - even though I much prefer Generation Y as a term!

I believe I'm a Gen X-er - Xennial, because I lived my entire childhood during the 1980s. By 1985, I was old enough to remember EVERYTHING.

A lot of these generational terms are not even accurate though. I just laugh it off!

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/533464616785936396/628373515036262401/3c0hws.jpg

How about 10 year generations?

1930s babies = Silent Generation

1930-1932 = Early Silent (Greatest Gen traits)
1933-1936 = Core Silent
1937-1939 = Late Silent (Boomer I traits)

1940s babies = Baby Boomers I

1940-1942 = Early Boomers I (Silent traits)
1943-1946 = Core Boomers I
1947-1949 = Late Boomers I (Boomer II traits)

1950s babies = Baby Boomers II

1950-1952 = Early Boomers II (Boomer I traits)
1953-1956 = Core Boomers II
1957-1959 = Late Boomers II (Gen Jones traits)

1960s babies = Generation Jones

1960-1962 = Early Gen Jones (Boomer II traits)
1963-1966 = Core Gen Jones
1967-1969 = Late Gen Jones (Gen X traits)

1970s babies = Generation X

1970-1972 = Early Gen X (Gen Jones traits)
1973-1976 = Core Gen X
1977-1979 = Late Gen X (Gen Y traits)

1980s babies = Generation Y

1980-1982 = Early Gen Y (Gen X traits)
1983-1986 = Core Gen Y
1987-1989 = Late Gen Y (Millennial traits)

1990s babies = Millennials

1990-1992 = Early Millennials (Gen Y traits)
1993-1996 = Core Millennials
1997-1999 = Late Millennials (Gen Z traits)

2000s babies = Generation Z

2000-2002 = Early Gen Z (Millennial traits)
2003-2006 = Core Gen Z
2007-2009 = Late Gen Z (Alpha traits)

2010s babies = Generation Alpha

2010-2012 = Early Gen Alpha (Gen Z traits)
2013-2016 = Core Gen Alpha
2017-2019 = Late Gen Alpha (Gen Beta traits)

2020s babies = Generation Beta

2020-2022 = Early Gen Beta (Gen Alpha traits)
2023-2026 = Core Gen Beta
2027-2029 = Late Gen Beta (Gen Gamma traits)

How about 10 year generations?

1930s babies = Silent Generation

1930-1932 = Early Silent (Greatest Gen traits)
1933-1936 = Core Silent
1937-1939 = Late Silent (Boomer I traits)

1940s babies = Baby Boomers I

1940-1942 = Early Boomers I (Silent traits)
1943-1946 = Core Boomers I
1947-1949 = Late Boomers I (Boomer II traits)

1950s babies = Baby Boomers II

1950-1952 = Early Boomers II (Boomer I traits)
1953-1956 = Core Boomers II
1957-1959 = Late Boomers II (Gen Jones traits)

1960s babies = Generation Jones

1960-1962 = Early Gen Jones (Boomer II traits)
1963-1966 = Core Gen Jones
1967-1969 = Late Gen Jones (Gen X traits)

1970s babies = Generation X

1970-1972 = Early Gen X (Gen Jones traits)
1973-1976 = Core Gen X
1977-1979 = Late Gen X (Gen Y traits)

1980s babies = Generation Y

1980-1982 = Early Gen Y (Gen X traits)
1983-1986 = Core Gen Y
1987-1989 = Late Gen Y (Millennial traits)

1990s babies = Millennials

1990-1992 = Early Millennials (Gen Y traits)
1993-1996 = Core Millennials
1997-1999 = Late Millennials (Gen Z traits)

2000s babies = Generation Z

2000-2002 = Early Gen Z (Millennial traits)
2003-2006 = Core Gen Z
2007-2009 = Late Gen Z (Alpha traits)

2010s babies = Generation Alpha

2010-2012 = Early Gen Alpha (Gen Z traits)
2013-2016 = Core Gen Alpha
2017-2019 = Late Gen Alpha (Gen Beta traits)

2020s babies = Generation Beta

2020-2022 = Early Gen Beta (Gen Alpha traits)
2023-2026 = Core Gen Beta
2027-2029 = Late Gen Beta (Gen Gamma traits)
Who was the Jones in the Gen Jones traits?

I know I'm beating a dead horse with the subject at hand, and I've already made a thread similar to this on PersonalityCafe, but I decided to make this thread anyways since there are still many individuals within inthe00s with an interest in generationology, and I felt these viewpoints were worth sharing with this community.

As you all know, for every generation succeeding the Baby Boomers, Pew uses a 16-year generation theory; X is 1965-1980, Y is 1981-1996, and Z is 1997-2012.
Right off the bat, despite being born slightly after Pew's cutoff for Millennials, as well as disagreeing with them, I'm not at all offended by Pew's definitions. First of all, for the individuals that work at Pew and contribute to defining the generations, I'm sure they just see this as part of their job, that's what it is. This is just their job, they clock in, do the research, put in their times worth, then get their paycheck they need to pay for their taxes, mortgage, utilities, etc. Not only that, but I actually agree that 1997 is a valid starting point for Gen Z, it's not my top pick, but it's my second place pick on where Z should start.
Again, I don't necessarily agree with Pew's definitions, but I respect them. They definitely would've bothered me about 5-7 years ago, but not these days.

However, the point I want to make with this thread is that Pew's model, now matter how ubiquitous it is, is not objective, it is subjective.
The "9/11 Rule", the rule that one must remember 9/11 in order to be a Millennial, is also ubiquitous, yet it's also subjective. Not only that, but the "Remember 9/11" rule is heavily flawed, as it's too Americentric, memory is a subjective criteria as some people have better memory than others, and just simply having a fluky memory of the event is not the same as actually being impacted by the event (aka, living in NYC, DC, or a military base at the time, losing a loved one in the attacks, temporarily or permanently losing a loved one to the War in Afghanistan following the attacks, etc.)
All generation definitions are subjective. Just because one may be ubiquitous, a popular opinion, doesn't make it objective in any way, shape, or form, belief in the contrary is a fallacy. In most cases, it follows the example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, where someone tries to make an appeal to purity to dismiss any exceptions to an argument or general rule they follow. To put it in literal terms;

https://www.personalitycafe.com/attachments/generations/826429d1563078420-no-true-scotsman-fallacy-youre-not-millennial-if-you-dont-remember-9-11-36676.gifNo true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge!
https://www.personalitycafe.com/attachments/generations/826431d1563078435-no-true-scotsman-fallacy-youre-not-millennial-if-you-dont-remember-9-11-beer-1792553_dac24_sm.jpgShut yer scabby mouth, I hail from Forfar and put sugar on ma porridge all the time!
https://www.personalitycafe.com/attachments/generations/826429d1563078420-no-true-scotsman-fallacy-youre-not-millennial-if-you-dont-remember-9-11-36676.gifNo TRUE Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge, ye doaty bastard! Yer not a TRUE Scotsman!

Now granted, generation definitions can indeed be backed up with objective criteria, but the quality of that very criteria is still subjective, even if it seems objective via validity, to assume it is is objective is still making a fallacy.
Go by what generation model you feel is preferential, or none at all if you'd rather, but don't assume that model is perfect, as no model is. Don't treat the generation model you follow as conventional wisdom, no matter how popular an opinion it is, it is still an opinion, and ubiquity is no basis for objectivity.

I remember about a week or so ago while I was browsing this site, not gonna name names, but one user stated that Generation Alpha has no pop culture yet, and another user brought up "Baby Shark" to counter that argument. But even that point is not necessarily true, "Baby Shark" is not necessarily part of Gen Alpha popular culture, in fact, by the generation model I use, it would be tail end Z culture.
I go by the 18-year theory, in which all generation intervals, not just Z, Y, and X, but also Boomers, Silents, and GIs, are 18 years long.

1910-1927 = Greatest Generation
1928-1945 = Silent Generation
1946-1963 = Baby Boomers
1964-1981 = Generation X
1982-1999 = Millennials
2000-2017 = Plurals

I like this generation model, because all the generations are equal in length, making it nice logical smooth sailing and not some arbitrary roller coaster. I also feel the validity of this model goes beyond simple mathematics as well;

1910 = Under 30 when World War II stared
1928 = Under 18 when World War II ended
1946 = Born after World War II
1964 = Born after the JFK Assassination
1982 = Under 18 on Y2K
2000 = Born after Y2K

But then again, while I feel this model is valid, I recognize that it, along with all other generation models, is still subjective. Whatever model you go by, if you do at all, you should recognize this as well.

Feel free to leave input on this thread in the comment section below.


I actually really enjoyed reading this and I agree with a lot of points. I myself have always thought I was a millennial until recently. Sure I remember 9/11, didn’t understand a lot of what was going on tho. But someone who was 7 wouldn’t have either from a geopolitical standpoint, so it doesn’t make sense to separate a generation off memory. I really liked how you included that it was subjective because they’re people I know born in 1995/1996 who don’t remember and it’s too US centric.

In Canada Gen Z starts in 1993. When I think of gen Z I mostly think of those who were in elementary school in the early 10’s and became an adult in the late 10’s or early 2020’s. In the US I just consider millennials those to be too young to vote in 2000 and those old enough to vote in 2016. Like for me I spent 50% of this decade as an adult and participated in one of the biggest presidential elections known to current times.

Idk what qualifies each generation but from a cultural standpoint I will always feel kire millennial in terms of upbringing. I don’t really differ much from someone born in the mid 90’s but someone born in the early 2000’s is when I’d see a change in relation as they would have been too young to remember most things that continued on from the 1990’s into the 2000’s and would have been in their early childhood during the technological boom.

I'm technically a millennial, but I was a teenager when Gen X culture was still very much popular. So I can buy into the "xennial" thing.

I know I'm beating a dead horse with the subject at hand, and I've already made a thread similar to this on PersonalityCafe, but I decided to make this thread anyways since there are still many individuals within inthe00s with an interest in generationology, and I felt these viewpoints were worth sharing with this community...


Re-reading my comment I seem kinda rude. Really sorry about that. Btw I definitely agree with most of what you said,