[derefr]

Unlike horoscopes, where a computer wouldn't be able to predict a person's "sign" from e.g. tweet data any more often than chance, generations really do work as a predictor for some behaviors (or vice-versa.)

Think of it this way: if 10% of every other generation does X, but 40% of a particular generation does X, then that generation really should be known for doing X, even though the majority of members of that generation don't do X! Don't let the easy availability of anecdotal counterexamples to a trend fool you; a trend in a population is a trend even if not literally everyone in that population is a part of it.

Of course, there might well be a better way to divide up the population that serves as a better predictor for the trend, and so "explains away" the generational effect. E.g. changes in racial composition (and so culture) due to immigration over the years; or growth of subcultures as self-reinforcing memetic entities, apart from any generational proclivity toward them; or economic effects pushing people to have different emotional needs (e.g. a change in gender-balance of the workforce will see different types of businesses created to offer self-care to tired workers.)

But, by another lens, all these other effects are "part of" the generational effect; they're the composition of the narrative the generation will tell about itself, and so be remembered for.

[kgwxd]

That's why I think "era" is a better view for this kind of categorization. It doesn't slap a label on the individuals and individuals can discuss living through that era without implying they did X.

[derefr]

Sure. All "generation $foo" is supposed to mean is "the set of people who grew up in the 15-year era $foo". Saying things about a "generation" is saying things about the effect that that era had on the people who grew up in it.

[kgwxd]

Supposed is right. But I'm pretty sure, just going off my own initial instincts (which I treat as a ranting racist), the terms used for generations triggers immediate bias in everyone, no matter how woke they are. It's just a bad way to categorize things. Not good for constructive conversation. "Grew up in" is vague enough, then there's a ton of follow up questions: "Exactly how old?", "What country?", "What city/suburb?", "What neighborhood?", "Family income level?", etc., etc. Most people just assume the answers to all those based on where they think people lived at the time, their assumed nationality, their current assumed income level, and a million other things. Only truly interested parties will take the time to resolve all those assumptions in a conversation, assuming they have the time. 2 people trying to have a conversation about their respective "generations" aren't likely to portray anything, even themselves, accurately to each other. Putting individual people, others or ourselves, in camp X, Y, or Z is a bad way to start, period. Talking about trends is great, but pigeonholing any one individual into anything, no matter how accurate, is going to induce immediate rage in them. Doesn't matter if that rage stems from perceived false accusations ("I'm not that thing you think I am") or patriotism ("You say that like it's a bad thing"), it's just not good.