Generational Psychologies

[Green Arrow]

I'll save myself some time. You're clearly not interested in a discussion and I'm in no mood to put up with bad attitude.

[Chris]

I'll save myself some time. You're clearly not interested in a discussion and I'm in no mood to put up with bad attitude.

Good. I'll leave your making it personal behind in the dust.

[Chris]

I'll save myself some time. You're clearly not interested in a discussion and I'm in no mood to put up with bad attitude.

Good. I'll leave your making it personal behind in the dust.

[Chris]

Now let's take Polly's system and make it into a model albeit with some simplification.

History, Polly claims, repeats itself. It's circular. It's a repetition of opposing generations, each new generation opposing the old. Let's, following Polly, name these opposites progressives and conservatives. Naturally, because they are opposites opposing things must be said about them. Progressives produce peace and posterity; conservative war and poverty. Progressives are avtive; conservatives apathtic. We can put that together as this: Progressive born to war and poverty react as avtivists to produce peace and prospertiy; conservatives born to progressive peace and prosperity react with apathy to produce war and poverty. And thus we have Polly's model of the world:



It's just the magic of words and imagination. It's not real. There is no real association of progressive with peace or prosperity, and vice versa, conservatives with war and poverty. Perhaps progressives are activists, but conservatives are reactionary. And generations? We all know conservatives born to progressives and vice versa; conservative and progressive born to mixed parents; progressive and conservative children born to the same parents. No generation is progressive, and none conservative.

[IMPress Polly]

Back on page 1, @Chloe mentioned being curious about how the generational observations I offered in the OP might find expression in the current generation of pre-college youth. The student-led movement for gun control that we've seen emerge since the Valentine's Day school massacre in Parkland, Florida is a solid example. It is the first mass movement to be associated with the label Generation Z. It is no coincidence of history that the first political mass actions of the generation born into the post-9/11 world revolve around promoting safety/survival instead of say more personal liberty. Events being planned with titles like the March For Our Lives tell of a mental orientation driven more by fear than by hope.

My generation (Millennials) experienced numerous events comparable to what recently happened at Stoneman Douglas, but never responded. The 1999 Columbine massacre bore a strong resemblance to the recent one at Stoneman Douglas in a great many ways. The firearms employed were similar. The number of victims was similar. Even the political worldview of the shooters was similar to that of this latest one. (Hitler and racist politics seem to be common sources of inspiration for those who wind up committing these particular sorts of atrocities, regardless of who the victims actually wind up being.) That school massacre happened when I was 14 years old: the same age as of some of the victims at Stoneman Douglas. It did not mobilize my generation. The even worse Virginia Tech massacre (also motivated by racism, albeit of a different brand) happened when I was in my college years. That didn't mobilize my generation either. We just trucked on and demanded an end to the Iraq War and the legalization of same-sex marriage while hawking New Atheism. And on and on and on. This generation is responding to the same sort of phenomenon that my generation has been (to my personal lack of understanding) content to tolerate differently (and better, IMO). Methinks the different reaction reflects their being born into and raised in a different overall climate.

The politics of Generation Z will be a survival-oriented politics, I believe, and this is the first clear indication. They will, in general, be practical, not idealistic like my generation.

[Max Rockatansky]

Just a casual observation today:

In looking back at the span of American history, we can see a general pattern of generational rotation in mentality. A progressive generation is followed by a conservative generation, which in turn is followed by another progressive generation, etc. And the beat goes on. Why? Well it is rooted in not so much the circumstances under which one grows up themselves so much as the directionality of the way in which they change as one matures into adulthood.

Progressive generations are born into favorable circumstances, like an era in which peace and (relative) prosperity prevail perhaps, only to mature into a less idyllic world. This perception of downward mobility, connected up with the memory of better times (and thus the knowledge that a better world is possible) leads such generations to embrace activism. Tracing the last century for example, we can see that this is what characterized the G.I. Generation, which grew up in the prosperous 1920s and matured into adulthood during the Great Depression and World War II. We can likewise see it in the Baby Boomers, who grew up in the prosperous 1950s and matured into the less idyllic Cuban missile crisis / stagflation era of the 1960s and '70s. We can also see this in my generation, Millennials, who grew up in the prosperous 1990s and matured into the post-9/11 age of perpetual war, the Great Recession, etc.

Conversely, conservative generations might experience the opposite trajectory, being born into unfavorable circumstances, which leads them to be less wide-eyed and idealistic and more practical in orientation, to which end such generations become diligent workers who don't challenge the status quo much. They benefit from the activism of the preceding generation and mature into more favorable circumstances, which in turn provides them with the illusion that it was but their diligence and hard work that made a better life possible. We can see this, for example, in the Silent Generation that grew up during the Great Depression years and World War II and matured into the prosperous 1950s. We can also see it in Generation X, which grew up during the economic malaise, crime waves, social upheaval, and chilling Cold War of the 1960s and '70s and matured into the more prosperous, peaceful, and promising 1980s and '90s. And I think we can likewise see a similar trajectory happening for Generation Z, as today's under-18 youth are currently being called, for it is a generation that grew up in the post-9/11 era of perpetual war and the Great Recession and are maturing into what could be considered, at least in some ways, better times.

You see what I'm saying about the rotational nature of generational psychologies in this country? I would also observe that these same rules generally apply to individuals. For example, someone who is born into poverty and experiences upward social mobility over the course of their life (i.e. "lives the American dream") is probably going to become a conservative-minded person, while someone who is born into better circumstances and experiences downward mobility over the course of their life is probably going to be a more progressive-minded person.

I have no point with this post. These are just general observations that I felt like sharing today. What do you think?

Looks about right.

[Max Rockatansky]

Now let's take Polly's system and make it into a model albeit with some simplification.

History, Polly claims, repeats itself. It's circular. It's a repetition of opposing generations, each new generation opposing the old. Let's, following Polly, name these opposites progressives and conservatives. Naturally, because they are opposites opposing things must be said about them. Progressives produce peace and posterity; conservative war and poverty. Progressives are avtive; conservatives apathtic. We can put that together as this: Progressive born to war and poverty react as avtivists to produce peace and prospertiy; conservatives born to progressive peace and prosperity react with apathy to produce war and poverty. And thus we have Polly's model of the world:



It's just the magic of words and imagination. It's not real. There is no real association of progressive with peace or prosperity, and vice versa, conservatives with war and poverty. Perhaps progressives are activists, but conservatives are reactionary. And generations? We all know conservatives born to progressives and vice versa; conservative and progressive born to mixed parents; progressive and conservative children born to the same parents. No generation is progressive, and none conservative.

Agreed and disagreed. Mostly I agree with Polly's observation about generational difference. There is obviously a major difference in life attitudes between the Depression-Era generation and the Boomers for the aforementioned reasons. It's not a certainty for all people, but would follow a Bell Curve of behavior.

What isn't in the mix is that young people, despite their generation, tend to be more idealistic and liberal than older people who tend to be more conservative. This is cross-generational. Using my generation, the Boomers, they went from mostly liberal idealistic hippies to the "Me generation in the 1980s. Sure, some hippies still existed, but as the generation matured, had both kids and mortgages, they became more conservative. Just not as conservative as their parents because of the reasons Polly initially identified. The Bell Curve exists, but it's flatter than the cycle graphic you depicted, so I agree with you that it's not a perfect match. It's a trend, not a certainty.