Let's talk about millennials.

[feplus]

I will define "millennial" as any person living in the West who reached adulthood between the years of 1990 and 2010.

Here is a piece from NPR summarizing millennial trends. On the whole, they are:

* better educated

* marry later in life

* marry less often

* more likely to be unemployed

* more likely to be in debt

* more likely to be dependent (eg. living with parents)

* more likely to be unskilled, despite their high levels of education

Many, many criticisms of the millennial generation have been penned in recent years. An example here. Common charges are that millennials are narcissistic, entitled, and emotionally brittle, unable to handle criticism.

This topic explores whether or not you find this characterization accurate. Most of us here will either be millennials or right on the outside looking in, so it's personally relevant.

---

Myself, I find criticisms of millennials to be absolutely on-point. Some will accuse me of being a nostalgist, but there are concrete things that separate our generation from previous ones.

Most obvious is the rise of the internet and social media. This leads to more frequent, but also more superficial, social interaction. Because face-to-face communication is rarer, people do not develop the interpersonal skills they need. It also emphasizes the importance of image over substance; better to appear a certain way than actually be that way.

Second is how our generation was victim of a relentless self-esteem campaign. The Everyone Gets A Trophy movement was, I think, deeply damaging. We were coddled, told we were snowflakes; no one limited our ambitions or gave us a realistic depiction of the world. "You can do anything!" is an attitude that, ironically, has led many millennials to doing nothing.

It also explains our generation's general aversion to criticism and reluctance to pursue profitable career choices. Think about the rise of safe spaces, trigger warnings, and softly enforced thought crimes. These have been introduced under the guise of tolerance, but they're more likely a means of protecting millennials from uncomfortable challenges. Here's a good article on the subject. And the false belief that the world is everyone's oyster leads people to spend hundreds of thousands on degrees like sociology, anthropology, women's studies, and other "soft" disciplines. Admirable pursuits, but not financially viable for most.

Thirdly, we live in the wake of the Cultural Revolution and are suffering its consequences more than any prior generation. The reason superficial irreligiosity and casual sex are on the rise (and marriage is on the decline) is a byproduct of mixing radical new social norms with millennials' narcissism and hedonism. Tinder and Grindr are applications designed to bypass inconvenient personal interaction and get to the good bits with naughty bits. It's embarrassing. New Atheism has carved out a sizable space in public consciousness despite being ridiculed even by atheist philosophers.

Why? What explains all this? Seems to me that our generation is defined by shallowness. Shallowness with regards to personal relationships, spirituality, commitments, job prospects, and our entitlements. I am very concerned.

---

Although that's one man's opinion. Please share your own.

[Rapier]

I know there is data supporting some of these points, so I am inclined to agree. People are more educated as a result of how many go straight from school to universities, they marry later in life because they generally seek stability first and marriage later, they tend to be unskilled because job skills are usually not learned in universities (where they mostly spend time on) and, as a consequence for their lack of abilities, they live with their parents for a longer time. Not sure about the rest.

* better educated

* marry later in life

* marry less often

* more likely to be unemployed

* more likely to be in debt

* more likely to be dependent (eg. living with parents)

* more likely to be unskilled, despite their high levels of education

I'm not a millenial (I've become 19 this year), but I think post 2010 people who are above 18+ suffer from the same issues. This also worries me in particular because I fit in that group, and I don't want to become someone unemployed and unskilled who lives with parents after completing 25 years. I find myself lacking in knowledge to find a solution to these problems. My generation is not properly educated to solve these problems. It's becoming a snowball.

I see these issues ("shallowness with regards to personal relationships, spirituality, commitments, job prospects, and our entitlements") brought up a lot, although I can't say I understand their causes nor think about solutions (I'm too deep in the quicksand to analyze it from the pov from someone who isn't).

I think this text is insightful, even if the source is not a serious one.

[Borz]

I agree with this just about fully. I'll share some of my thoughts.

I am a person who values meaningful social interaction a lot, and despite my bias towards the Internet, I admit that social interaction is more superficial than ever with it around. It's disheartening.

While the Internet definitely emphasized "image over substance", it seems to me this idea has been prevalent for a long time, though perhaps it's just my view on what "substance" is as well as my personal experiences with my family that makes me believe this.

I absolutely agree: this fake self-esteem that is still promoted by psychotherapists today is very damaging. It's self-delusion. A view of oneself that does not reflect reality. I think it's quite obvious that pretending reality is something it isn't will hurt you, if not in the short run then definitely in the long run. True self-esteem is based on facts, not delusions. I'd say more about this, but I can't seem to find the words.

Forsooth, shallowness is a good word to describe it. However...This is likely simply because I never got to experience the world before the year 2000, but I have a hard time believing the previous generations were much better in this regard.

I apologize for the awkward structure. I'm not good at wording my thoughts.

[EricaofRenais]

I agree with this mostly, I am a little bit weird in that my parents are older so I was taught manners and respect and I tend to not like my gen because they have no manners what so ever. My dad likes to say that things are going back to the old days where if your family had some land the oldest child would stay at home and be the next person to work the land after their parents, my family has a small farm and I am still at home because my parents need the help, plus health issues. I need to get a job, but I am having a hard time with the economy the way it is now figuring out what kind of degree will be able to pay for every thing I need and some things I want, but everyone is having that problem right now. I think part of the problem is we grew up in the 1990s when the economy was doing good and every one had some type of job, now a lot of people are out of work and the job market keeps changing. When I was at community collage (I was home schooled for my entire life) I was shocked at how many people that had just graduated high school were in the remedial classes, 90% of my class mates were in remedial math, English and reading and they had said they did well in school. So it is to the point where you have to go to collage to learn how to do the things you should learn in school as a kid.

[Snowy_One]

Firstly, I agree. The millennials are very spoiled, snobbish, and overly sensitive; yet for some reason have no problem at all becoming aggressive and willing to shame others for even the slightest things.

As to why...

Education: There is no denying that education is vastly more accessible in todays era. Without even trying the entirety of wikipedia is at our beck and call and, while maybe not on-par with an actual course, is certainly far better than entire ignorance on a subject. That's not to mention that we can now have people take online college exams and the like. So... why are people... dumber... than before? IMO; they've always been this 'dumb' but the difference is that their stupidity is now on display for the whole world to see. What may have been confined to a local newspaper before can now be instantly beamed to thousands of people. But it's more than that. It's the ease to find ones-self in an echo chamber of stupidity as well as beam it out to the net. For example the holocaust deniers. They have always existed but it's pretty clear to anyone who has done a smidgen of research that it actually happened. From the many first-hand accounts to the various relics like human-skin lampshades; the evidence is all there. However you stick that out on the net, leave a bunch of questionable links stapled on to some parrot sites, and you can get a bunch of people willing to listen to your stupid idea and pretend it's credible. In other words... They aren't

Self-absorbtion: We live in a time where there have been many great strides forwards. After all, people of multiple races are widely accepted in first-world nations, women have, more or less, equal rights (certainly more-so that in recent history), and we've made huge strides forwards in technology and access. However, a side-effect of this is that a rift has formed between the older and younger generations. The older people are stuck trying to learn about a culture that is, basically, about two generations ahead of them while they often don't even have a smartphone and barely touch Facebook. The result is that the newer generation is cut-off from them and has no choice but to focus on other people to share their interests in; which leads to them to become self-absorbed again. Little reason to reach out beyond the computer screen after-all.

Lack of skills: This one isn't true. Not like this anyways. People these days who DO apply themselves can get some pretty impressive and amazing jobs; like building war robots or searching space. The problem is that these jobs are FEW! You may have a degree in astrophysics but when your surrounding area has jobs mostly in call centers a communications or language degree is suddenly far more valuable. It's not helped that various recreational activities that DO hold merit are shrugged off entirely as 'games'. Successfully raid-healed in WoW for three expansions and did so with a smile and chipper attitude? Worth diddly in the eyes of an employer. The employee who worked for two months but only kinda-sorta fit in with the team? Much bigger claim than you. It's not helped by the fact that most of the jobs available are no-skill jobs or involve physical labor; things not learned in college.

Debt and Dependency: This one isn't their fault at all; least not directly. Fact is that it's harder to make a living in todays world than previously. Especially with a low paycheck. Often both parents need to be working to support a house today. So what happens when a kid doesn't have the cash to move out, doesn't have a good job, but has bills to pay? Debt and moving in to moms basement.

IMO; the biggest problem is that the millennials live in 2015 while the rest of the world acts as if it were 1980.

Edit: Don't know who said this, but it summarizes the problem very well. "When I was young my parents told me I had to go to college or else I would end up flipping burgers. So I went to college and graduated. I went into debt to do so because I was certain that failing to get the degree would resign me to that life. Now my parents are mad at me that I'm not flipping burgers."

Edited June 18, 2015 by Snowy_One

[eclipse]

We're also able to talk to people from around the world at a moment's notice, as well. I believe that has something to do with the social shift. It's easier for like-minded people to find others (like this message board, and how religion threads usually turn out here).

What will happen in the future? Beats me. But I intend on staying alive long enough to find out!

Lastly, I am not fond of grouping people together and putting a label on them. I'm a person first, and so is everyone else.

[feplus]

Aversion to labels is a quirk of millennials I forgot to mention in my original post, so kudos for reminding me.

What's wrong with a label? If someone describes me as a political conservative, I don't mind. That's not to say I fit the mold perfectly, but on more issues than not it's a fair description. And while there are prejudices and stereotypes associated with labels- conservatives are callous, liberals are naive- that's a problem with those interpreting the label rather than with labels themselves.

Yet we see millennials shun generalizations all the time. Not Christian, but spiritual. Not conservative or liberal, but moderate. Not American, but cosmopolitan. Not straight or gay, but [insert invented gender].

Millennials don't want to box themselves in. Labels strip away their individuality, neatly classify their belief structures. It doesn't matter that labels apply to them as much as they apply to anyone else; the mere possibility of losing uniqueness is intolerable. Not a snowflake, but a special snowflake.

I find the trend insufferable.

[eclipse]

Aversion to labels is a quirk of millennials I forgot to mention in my original post, so kudos for reminding me.

What's wrong with a label? If someone describes me as a political conservative, I don't mind. That's not to say I fit the mold perfectly, but on more issues than not it's a fair description. And while there are prejudices and stereotypes associated with labels- conservatives are callous, liberals are naive- that's a problem with those interpreting the label rather than with labels themselves.

Yet we see millennials shun generalizations all the time. Not Christian, but spiritual. Not conservative or liberal, but moderate. Not American, but cosmopolitan. Not straight or gay, but [insert invented gender].

Millennials don't want to box themselves in. Labels strip away their individuality, neatly classify their belief structures. It doesn't matter that labels apply to them as much as they apply to anyone else; the mere possibility of losing uniqueness is intolerable. Not a snowflake, but a special snowflake.

I find the trend insufferable.

I find it equally insufferable that you're willing to label people mindlessly. To put a label on something is to put all the good and bad qualities of that label onto the person without evaluating whether or not it fits. It's also a great way to shift the blame from the person to the label - no, that person isn't cutting you off in traffic because he's white! I see it as taking responsibility for the good and bad within yourself. . .oh, and that leads me to another complaint - shifting blame because of labels. Certain things are the result of those labels - for example, if you're a gay man, you like other guys. However, it doesn't mean that a gay guy who tells a woman "Oh I'm not comfortable around women", and then proceed to chat up another group of women is doing it because he's gay. In this case, it's because said gay guy is being dishonest as fuck about his motives (and yes, that's happened to me IRL).

In other words, observe twice and reserve judgment if possible.

[feplus]

Who said anything about mindless labels?

What are the "bad qualities" of descriptive labels (eg. Christian, atheist, liberal, conservative)? While there are prejudices and stereotypes associated with labels- conservatives are callous, liberals are naive- that's a problem with those interpreting the label rather than with labels themselves.

Labels have a useful function: succinct communication of beliefs. They're also a useful starting point for observing group trends.

[eclipse]

Who said anything about mindless labels?

What are the "bad qualities" of descriptive labels (eg. Christian, atheist, liberal, conservative)? While there are prejudices and stereotypes associated with labels- conservatives are callous, liberals are naive- that's a problem with those interpreting the label rather than with labels themselves.

Labels have a useful function: succinct communication of beliefs. They're also a useful starting point for observing group trends.

Welcome to people. You'll be surprised how much can be gleaned simply by staying silent and keeping your ears open in a busy shopping center (or busy anywhere else, for that matter). It's also a great way of fostering an "us-versus-them" mindset, as well.

Now, for the labels you churned out. . .very briefly:

- Christian: "Oh hey, you're into archaic beliefs, and you're close-minded!" (source: read the religion threads on these boards, and step out into other religion-based forums, if you dare)

- Atheist: "You're misguided, orphaned, and incomplete" (source: various churches)

- Liberal: Much as I'd like to say something, my belief regarding politics is that poly- is many and tics are blood-sucking animals, so there.

This is the problem with interpretation.

Besides, it's a lot harder to be judgmental when you can't classify things easily and neatly. And who wants to be known as overly judgmental?

[feplus]

It is unrealistic (and indulgent) to expect people to infer your snowflake life views from shopping mall conversations and soliloquies. If I asked you about your political views, you could opt for two approaches:

1. Explain in great detail precisely what you believe. This will take time. I may or may not read it all.

2. Assign a label to your world view, and mention any major departures from the mold. This takes little time. I will definitely read it all.

That's the communicative benefit of labels. The other relevant fact is that, like it or not, you do conform to labels. Not perfectly, but by-and-large. We all do. Denying this truth suggests you really want to preserve some misguided sense of individuality.

All of your examples speak to prejudices. To repeat myself a third time, that is not a problem with labels themselves; it is a problem with the immaturity of certain people.

[Irysa]

Well schema are pretty much all individually understood anyway, much like all language. The difference with labels is that the basic definition of each word is a lot looser and relative than a dictionary definition of what a word (such as "apple") means. I don't quite agree with the argument that "this is not a problem with labels" because the problem arises from the lack of clear, concise definitions in the first place. That's ultimately unsolvable without adding qualifiers though, which as you said, takes up time. So it's more of a convenience, not neccessarily a complete, wholesome force for good.

Communications are hard.

On the main subject at hand, I'm not wholly convinced that prior generations were not also shallow in their early years. The young adults of the seventies, eighties and nineties were indulgent and fickle as well. I think part of the reason some of us are becoming more aware of it is because we experience and observe this particular age zone with much higher frequency.

[deleted35362]

i may be a babby but i know a thing!

Aversion to labels is a quirk of millennials I forgot to mention in my original post, so kudos for reminding me.

What's wrong with a label? If someone describes me as a political conservative, I don't mind. That's not to say I fit the mold perfectly, but on more issues than not it's a fair description. And while there are prejudices and stereotypes associated with labels- conservatives are callous, liberals are naive- that's a problem with those interpreting the label rather than with labels themselves.

"aversion to labels" is probably because people kept using labels to degrade people, and still do. except, like you said, "millenial" people are more educated, so more people actually know about stuff like the holocaust and slavery like 100 years ago or something. "jews must die! n-words are worthless!!" and then we have words from "scalawag" to "faggot" in history, pretty much insult-labels...it's not that complicated.

Edited June 18, 2015 by xXHoshiHeartsXx

[feplus]

Denigrating labels aren't the topic of conversation. Descriptive labels are. Labels that describe a belief structure.

[Shin]

I think labels are fine as long as they're accurate and not a sweeping generalisations. I think it's natural to think of certain things when we hear a certain description, like you can probably assume an atheist isn't going to embracing the power of Jesus any time soon, However, to assume they'll scoff and laugh at any religious belief you may hold is a little different. Labels are fine if you have a little common sense, of course they can turn out badly, but as can anything that varies from person to person.

I probably just about count as a millennial, so I'll look forward to messaging you all from my parents' basement as I mooch off of them for the next forty years!

[deleted35362]

Denigrating labels aren't the topic of conversation. Descriptive labels are. Labels that describe a belief structure.

Denigrating labels aren't descriptive?

[I'm gay dabadeedabada]

I dunno about you, but this thread looks like an attack on tumblr.

[Rapier]

Denigrating labels aren't the topic of conversation. Descriptive labels are. Labels that describe a belief structure.

Now that's odd, you speak about politics yet forget that applying labels to make other people seem bad/good is part of the political game. For example, conservatives also carry the conotation of reactionaries - that is, people who are too attached to the past to move forward. Hence why any conservative with common sense should react against this label. It makes them lose points in the game.

I find labels useful for describing a group superficially based on what the individuals inside that group represent (let's face it, generalizations ARE necessary), but it is not enough to describle an individual.

Are you a continental conservative? You seem more colectivist than anglo-saxon conservatives generally are.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Rapier

[Blaze The Great]

I agree with your thoughts on millenials, and I think my generation (Generation X) will unfortunately be mostly the same way.

[Chiki]

Who said anything about mindless labels?

What are the "bad qualities" of descriptive labels (eg. Christian, atheist, liberal, conservative)? While there are prejudices and stereotypes associated with labels- conservatives are callous, liberals are naive- that's a problem with those interpreting the label rather than with labels themselves.

Labels have a useful function: succinct communication of beliefs. They're also a useful starting point for observing group trends.

Eclipse is actually right this time. This is a very basic, simple analogy fallacy. Christian, atheist, liberal, conservative, etc. are all labels defined by the beliefs someone holds. A "millennial" is defined in terms of when they were born. A necessary difference between these two kinds of labels, for example, is that you can change being an atheist or a Christian if you so choose but you can't choose the time you were born. Second, "Christian" categorizes people in terms of their beliefs: all Christians necessarily believe in God, by definition. On the other hand, millennials are not necessarily Christians.

They're not the same kind of label. Try again.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Chiki

[feplus]

@Chiki: One day we'll agree about something. One day.

There is no analogy issue because I did not say all labels are similar in all respects. I made a clear distinction between descriptive labels (millennial, baby boomer, atheist, liberal, etc.) and denigrating labels (slurs and the like).

eclipse thinks labels are bad. I explained why labels are not bad. Your point- that some labels are voluntary and some are not- is trivially true and misses the purpose of the argument.

@Hoshi: All denigrating labels are descriptive; not all descriptive labels are denigrating. Think squares and rectangles.

@Rapier: You illustrate a common way labels are misused. As I argued previously, this is a problem with prejudiced individuals rather than labels themselves.

I wouldn't call myself a Continental conservative. I'm a fairly boiler-plate American Christian.

[Irysa]

@Rapier: You illustrate a common way labels are misused. As I argued previously, this is a problem with prejudiced individuals rather than labels themselves.

Yet you didn't respond to the point I made in that labels to do with ideas and preferences aren't really as well defined as other descriptive words, which leads to the problems you describe. The reason for them being more loose is because of their vaguer and more relative nature. Chiki made a good contrast between some examples so I can further expand on that.

A word to describe someone's ethnicity only entails that specific, categorical information, and inferring more from it is prejudice. Comparatively, a word to describe someone's overall political leanings is very relative; even words like "right wing" and "left wing" have somewhat different connotations depending on if you're in Britain or America. Adding a few extra qualifiers isn't a huge problem in this specific case, but theres generally going to be things to nitpick at that we need more qualifiers to fix in order for there to be no misunderstandings. To me that's pretty clear that there are problems with them.

I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater though, since obviously there are relevant uses. But they're not infalliable to the point of blaming individuals for using them "incorrectly" when the "correct" usage is not clear cut.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Irysa

[feplus]

Some labels are more vague than others, but I'd argue this has to do with some labels being more encompassing than others.

Political labels can be unambiguous. If I say I am pro-choice, you get a very good sense of what I mean. That's because the possible meanings of "pro-choice" are small. A label like "conservative" is broader. It's one word that suggests how you think about dozens and dozens of issues.

I didn't respond to your previous post because I didn't take much issue with it. Labels are definitely imperfect. But they have a clear usefulness. More importantly, I suspect a strong aversion to labels indicates something about a person's psychology, that they want to preserve a misguided sense of individuality.

[Chiki]

I made a clear distinction between descriptive labels (millennial, baby boomer, atheist, liberal, etc.) and denigrating labels (slurs and the like).

I'm not denying that "millennial" and "atheist" are descriptive labels. They are different kinds of descriptive labels, though ("millennial" is permanently true, whereas "atheist" is not necessarily permanently true.) and that is crucial in eclipse's belief that it is wrong to lump up people in a group.

It is trivial that all atheists share a certain belief: it is a priori true. For eclipse, it would be acceptable to lump up all atheists in a group and call them "atheists" since it is by definition true that atheists don't believe in God. To say that millennials share a certain belief is an a posteriori truth: it can only be found out by going out and examining people in the world, surveying them etc. But millennials are not necessarily shallow, more educated, etc. This is exactly why eclipse is uncomfortable. I can see why she would think it insulting to put a label on an a posteriori group. You simply cannot make an analogy between an a priori group and an a posteriori group, since it's automatically more insulting to go put one on an a posteriori group, but not insulting at all to put one on an a priori group.

To put it as simply as possible. the reason it's bad to put labels in this case is because it's not necessarily true that millennials are shallow and more educated, but it is necessarily true that atheists don't believe in God. This is a trivial truth, which I unfortunately have to point out because you seem to not have noticed it.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Chiki

[feplus]

The purpose of labels is not to perfectly characterize everyone within that label.

1. Labels help with succinct communication.

2. Labels are a good starting point for observing group trends.

I already said this. eclipse doesn't like labels because he wants to preserve individuality. But everyone fits roughly into labels, voluntary and involuntary ones.

Labels are imperfect. Labels serve a useful purpose. A strong aversion to labels indicates something distinctly millennial about a person's psychology.