I am refiering to generation alpha. (2010 on since there is not really an agreed on date.)
To be Gen Alpha you must be the child of Gen Z who had to be the child of Millennials.
So if you agree that a millennial was born in 1980 and had kids at 18 who then had a kid at 18 then a Gen Alpha would be like 6 or 7 years old maximum.
To be Gen Alpha you must be the child of Gen Z who had to be the child of Millennials.
Listen if there is no generational gap between you and boomers, then you're just a Gen X, mate. One generation to the next, no skipping.
Literally not how it works at all. Generations are defined on the year you were born, not who you were born to.
Mick Jagger was born in 1943, making him part of the Silent Generation. When his wife had their latest kid, in 2016, Jagger was 73. That child is not a baby boomer.
Do you know what the word Generation means? Literally in no other context is it defined that way, but you're using Wikipedia as a source so clearly I don't expect you to have any learning capacity at this point. Maybe you really are Gen Alpha at your mommy's tablet.
Ok, I think this is just trolling at this point. No way someone can make this argument in good faith AND throw out that weak of an insult.
Its like its totally impossible for a word to mean 2 slightly different things is different contexts.
Yeah if only we had some sort of non profit organization to run some sort of massive online wiki to keep this all straight for us.
If only that organization had a citation method at the bottom of every page where anybody with half a brain could find actual sources.
Yes, clearly your clear misunderstanding of a topic must be because people are not providing primary sources.....
I think it was a banger insult, just enough not to seem unreasonable. If I wanted to alienate the opposition then discussion would very quickly become meaningless, like your comment for example: completely devoid of any relevant context, only an attack on my person.
By calling you young? That is not even insulting. I found the slight on Wikipedia more offensive.
For real, wikipedia is the best
lmao
I can't believe you're this confident about something so basic and somehow you're wrong
Also, what, can't win an argument without infantilizing your opponent? I mean it's clear you know nothing about this topic and just assume you can "debate" about it using google or whatever, ironic coming from the guy who discounts wikipedia. That's better than anything you'd know by a good margin anyways.
I can’t believe you’re this confident about something so basic and somehow you’re wrong
Wow really got me lmao
Like seriously? "Uhhh duhhh nuh uh, no you" is the best you could come up with? What are you, five?
Come up with an argument and maybe I'll bother writing a response.
There's not much point in doing that. Like I said, you don't know what you're talking about, and it's just an argument of which definition is best to use, so it's not really much of a debate. TL;DR: Not interested.
1 a : a body of living beings constituting a single step in the line of descent from an ancestor
b : a group of individuals born and living contemporaneously
c : a group of individuals having contemporaneously a status (such as that of students in a school) which each one holds only for a limited period
d: a type or class of objects usually developed from an earlier type
Socially, named generations like millennials use definition 1b, because some people are grandparents at age 30, and others don't become grandparents til they're 80.
I think those definitions pretty well support my argument, honestly.
While the generations align less and less over time in my definition, it on average stays very accurate since most human life cycles align pretty closely, especially considering female fertility usually starts at puberty (but is very rarely utilized in developed nations before 18) and declines between ages 30 and 50. I still think it's a really weak definition if you give out arbitrary date ranges which inevitably leads to random smaller generational definitions and too many varying opinions on what generation starts or ends where.
Nobody is becoming a grandparent at 30 unless they had kids at an age that depicts failure of a society, for example age 15 and their kids had kids at 15, which is very very far from average or even a sizeable demographic unless you're a family of 16th century nobles.
I still think it's a really weak definition if you give out arbitrary date ranges which inevitably leads to random smaller generational definitions and too many varying opinions on what generation starts or ends where.
The point of generational cohorts like millennials or the silent generation is that being born at a particular time in history has an affect on people.
The silent generation's earliest memories were depression and war. The great recession impacted millennials in their early career or in high school.
Age ranges captures that and makes it easy to measure things without having to find out when someone's great grandparents were born.
And yeah, 30's on the young side. Lauren Boebert was in the news recently as a teen mother who became a grandmother at age 36.
Your definition slips pretty quickly, though. Some siblings have really long age gaps. Some women first give birth at 18 or 19, others not til they're 40.
It doesn't really "slip pretty quickly", it slips over the course of many generations. The average is close enough that extreme cases can be sorted into outliers. My definition still very clearly describes people growing up in different historical eras the same as the other does, it simply takes away the self-identification privileges that these other commenters prefer.
The average really isn't close enough that you only need to consider outliers.
Two generations of 30 year old first time mothers fit into the same time as three generations of 20 year old first time mothers.
Neither of those cases is an outlier, and that's slip in only two/three generations.
Oh wow only three generations and it now overlaps slightly less than the vast majority of people, sounds like an outlier.
Yes, as I have nephews that are gen alpha, that is how that works. You have kids now that are not gen Z and are around 10 that never knew MWC. Just because someone is young does not invalidate their status as people (yet, don't give them any ideas).
The problem is there are people in the comments who seem to think they're Gen Alpha, Millennial, or Gen Z without realizing they skipped generations in their calculation.
Yes and yet you are the only person that seems to think this is how generations work, that somehow you can skip at all.
I think you've replied to the wrong person. I'm the one saying that you cannot skip.
Wait, no. You are the one that thinks you can skip!
As in the whole concept of skipping generations is insane in this context.
You almost got me there.
I'm saying it goes in sequence, that it can't go from Gen X > Gen Z without a Millennial intermediary. Therefor I am in fact the one saying there is no skipping.
I am refiering to generation alpha. (2010 on since there is not really an agreed on date.)
To be Gen Alpha you must be the child of Gen Z who had to be the child of Millennials.
So if you agree that a millennial was born in 1980 and had kids at 18 who then had a kid at 18 then a Gen Alpha would be like 6 or 7 years old maximum.
This is not true. I'm a millennial (1989) but my parents are boomers (1950s), not Gen X, as are the vast majority of my friends. Not everyone has kids in their early 20s, infact the average age to have your first kid in the UK is 29.
Listen if there is no generational gap between you and boomers, then you're just a Gen X, mate. One generation to the next, no skipping.
Literally not how it works at all. Generations are defined on the year you were born, not who you were born to.
Mick Jagger was born in 1943, making him part of the Silent Generation. When his wife had their latest kid, in 2016, Jagger was 73. That child is not a baby boomer.
You can read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation#List_of_named_generations
Do you know what the word Generation means? Literally in no other context is it defined that way, but you're using Wikipedia as a source so clearly I don't expect you to have any learning capacity at this point. Maybe you really are Gen Alpha at your mommy's tablet.
Ok, I think this is just trolling at this point. No way someone can make this argument in good faith AND throw out that weak of an insult.
Its like its totally impossible for a word to mean 2 slightly different things is different contexts.
Yeah if only we had some sort of non profit organization to run some sort of massive online wiki to keep this all straight for us.
If only that organization had a citation method at the bottom of every page where anybody with half a brain could find actual sources.
Yes, clearly your clear misunderstanding of a topic must be because people are not providing primary sources.....
I think it was a banger insult, just enough not to seem unreasonable. If I wanted to alienate the opposition then discussion would very quickly become meaningless, like your comment for example: completely devoid of any relevant context, only an attack on my person.
By calling you young? That is not even insulting. I found the slight on Wikipedia more offensive.
For real, wikipedia is the best
lmao
I can't believe you're this confident about something so basic and somehow you're wrong
Also, what, can't win an argument without infantilizing your opponent? I mean it's clear you know nothing about this topic and just assume you can "debate" about it using google or whatever, ironic coming from the guy who discounts wikipedia. That's better than anything you'd know by a good margin anyways.
I can’t believe you’re this confident about something so basic and somehow you’re wrong
Wow really got me lmao
Like seriously? "Uhhh duhhh nuh uh, no you" is the best you could come up with? What are you, five?
Come up with an argument and maybe I'll bother writing a response.
There's not much point in doing that. Like I said, you don't know what you're talking about, and it's just an argument of which definition is best to use, so it's not really much of a debate. TL;DR: Not interested.
Socially, named generations like millennials use definition 1b, because some people are grandparents at age 30, and others don't become grandparents til they're 80.
I think those definitions pretty well support my argument, honestly.
While the generations align less and less over time in my definition, it on average stays very accurate since most human life cycles align pretty closely, especially considering female fertility usually starts at puberty (but is very rarely utilized in developed nations before 18) and declines between ages 30 and 50. I still think it's a really weak definition if you give out arbitrary date ranges which inevitably leads to random smaller generational definitions and too many varying opinions on what generation starts or ends where.
Nobody is becoming a grandparent at 30 unless they had kids at an age that depicts failure of a society, for example age 15 and their kids had kids at 15, which is very very far from average or even a sizeable demographic unless you're a family of 16th century nobles.
The point of generational cohorts like millennials or the silent generation is that being born at a particular time in history has an affect on people.
The silent generation's earliest memories were depression and war. The great recession impacted millennials in their early career or in high school.
Age ranges captures that and makes it easy to measure things without having to find out when someone's great grandparents were born.
And yeah, 30's on the young side. Lauren Boebert was in the news recently as a teen mother who became a grandmother at age 36.
Your definition slips pretty quickly, though. Some siblings have really long age gaps. Some women first give birth at 18 or 19, others not til they're 40.
It doesn't really "slip pretty quickly", it slips over the course of many generations. The average is close enough that extreme cases can be sorted into outliers. My definition still very clearly describes people growing up in different historical eras the same as the other does, it simply takes away the self-identification privileges that these other commenters prefer.
The average really isn't close enough that you only need to consider outliers.
Two generations of 30 year old first time mothers fit into the same time as three generations of 20 year old first time mothers.
Neither of those cases is an outlier, and that's slip in only two/three generations.
Oh wow only three generations and it now overlaps slightly less than the vast majority of people, sounds like an outlier.
Yes, as I have nephews that are gen alpha, that is how that works. You have kids now that are not gen Z and are around 10 that never knew MWC. Just because someone is young does not invalidate their status as people (yet, don't give them any ideas).
The problem is there are people in the comments who seem to think they're Gen Alpha, Millennial, or Gen Z without realizing they skipped generations in their calculation.
Yes and yet you are the only person that seems to think this is how generations work, that somehow you can skip at all.
I think you've replied to the wrong person. I'm the one saying that you cannot skip.
Wait, no. You are the one that thinks you can skip!
As in the whole concept of skipping generations is insane in this context.
You almost got me there.
I'm saying it goes in sequence, that it can't go from Gen X > Gen Z without a Millennial intermediary. Therefor I am in fact the one saying there is no skipping.