Let's talk about millennials.

[Phoenix Wright]

ah, but isn't that just one of the various methods of coping? in many instances you can have intelligent discussions, and in others it's just nice to complain.

as an example, one of the last meetings in our club was a 1.5 hr discussion on language, had lots of interesting questions, discussions, and all that stuff. i really loved it.

in the middle of the quarter, there was what started out as a nice discussion about appearances (ie, what's expected from a person due to what the media portrays as beautiful or whatever), but devolved (imho) into a 30min discussion about how shitty girl's magazines were in being inclusive of all hair types. needless to say i completely checked out and was pretty bored (the only thing interesting about my hair is that it's red, and i really don't care about hair styles and whatnot), but for most of the people, it was nice to just be able to complain about shitty hair magazines or whatever.

Edited June 19, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[feplus]

It's fine to vent from time to time. It isn't fine to complain in place of open discussion. I worry that millennials trend towards the latter.

Consider the rise of political blogs. For really the first time, people don't get their news from relatively impartial sources giving both sides a say; you can have your news tailor-made to fit your political temperament. You can spend all day on Daily Kos or Breitbart and never get the alternative perspective. This leads to intellectual stagnation.

The rise of safe spaces is a continuation of this trend.

[Chiki]

"Atheist" does not perfectly describe atheists. What kind of atheist are you? Are you an ignostic? Are you a skeptic? Do you believe there are strong positive reasons to reject God's existence?

I no longer have any idea what you're trying to accomplish here beyond contrarianism.

No one ever said that the terminology was supposed to as accurately describe someone as terms such as "atheist." However, it doesn't fail to be a useful term simply because it's a larger generalization, so long as those communicating understand how it is being used. I don't think feplus ever said that, "he is atheist" is as descriptive of a person's beliefs as, "he is a millenial" is. Simply that studies tend to show that people of this generation tend to behave differently to those from earlier generations on the whole. It's purposely not descriptive on a singular level, the term analyzes a generation.

I think you two don't understand the argument I'm making. Let's start this from the beginning:

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.

This is eclipse's quote. She correctly identifies the distinction between characteristics being true by definition of people in a label, and characteristics which are not true by definition of people in a label.

Characteristics true by definition of people in a label = Christians believe in Jesus and God, atheists believe that God doesn't exist, conservatives are greedy

Characteristics not necessarily true by definition of people in a label = black people have large penises, Asians like to eat rice

Your response:

What are the "bad qualities" of descriptive labels (eg. Christian, atheist, liberal, conservative)?

Christian, atheist etc. are not the labels with bad qualities, and eclipse would willingly admit this. Rather, it's when you ascribe beliefs to general populations of black people and millennials that is not nice; in fact it's rather obnoxious and you need some empirical evidence to support that.

Like I said, basic analogy fallacy.

Edited June 19, 2015 by Chiki

[Rapier]

Does a label need to be strictly true for everyone who fits in it? Generalizations only need to represent the majority in order to be valid. If 51% of asians like to eat rice, but I am an asian and I don't, it is still valid to generalize that asians like to eat rice. Even labels like atheist or christian are not much precise. An atheist can go between 'I know God doesn't exist' to 'I think God doesn't exist, but I do consider the possibility of his existance', even so the latter person fits in the atheist label.

Ok, can't feplus show evidence that the majority of millennials are like this? If it can be done, then I think this part of the debate would be over.

Slamming social science disciplines as "useless" is typical conservative drivel.

Funny how there are so many conservatives who study these social disciplines that you are claiming they find "useless". That's a contradiction.

It's not like anyone criticized them so far in the topic, as well.

Edited June 19, 2015 by Rapier

[Makaze]

I agree with the opening post (more or less). One thing. I would not say that people have gotten worse at taking criticism. People have always rejected criticism. The environment has changed. We have better ways to silence it now.

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.

It's hard to take the stance that "labels matter" seriously when your brain tells you that it makes sense to group sexual orientation and gender into the same collection. No offense.

Edited June 19, 2015 by Makaze

[Chiki]

Does a label need to be strictly true for everyone who fits in it? Generalizations only need to represent the majority in order to be valid. If 51% of asians like to eat rice, but I am an asian and I don't, it is still valid to generalize that asians like to eat rice. Even labels like atheist or christian are not much precise. An atheist can go between 'I know God doesn't exist' to 'I think God doesn't exist, but I do consider the possibility of his existance', even so the latter person fits in the atheist label.

I find the first bolded part to be extremely obnoxious and incorrect. If 49% of Asians really hate to eat rice, I don't think it's valid to generalize that Asians like to eat rice. At all.

An atheist can go between 'I know God doesn't exist' to 'I think God doesn't exist, but I do consider the possibility of his existance', even so the latter person fits in the atheist label.

Doesn't change the fact that it's not obnoxious to generalize atheists as people who think God doesn't exist.

Edited June 19, 2015 by Chiki

[Makaze]

On generalizations: eclipse and Olwen are right. Generalizations like "All atheists believe gods do not exist" are valid because the statement is a criteria for being in the group. Generalizations like "All Asians like rice" are invalid because the statement is not a criteria for being in the group. If you don't know the criteria for being in the group, then imagine the two groups as circles on a Venn diagram. If the associations are not mutually inclusive (exactly overlapping) or the first circle is not completely encapsulated by the second circle on the diagram then your generalization must be invalid.

Or as Olwen put it, they must be obnoxious.

(That makes my agreeing with the first post obnoxious. Meh. The incentives are there even if they don't affect all subjects equally.)

Edited June 19, 2015 by Makaze

[Rapier]

From what I've read in my logic book, generalizations are only invalid when a small population is chosen to represent a majority, but it is valid to generalize when there is major representation, even if it does not reflect a minority. Isn't this the method science uses for their studies on behaviors, trends and such?

This part, in particular:

If the population is heterogeneous, then the sample needs to be large enough to represent the population's variability. With a completely homogeneous population, a sample of one is sufficiently large, so it is impossible to put an absolute lower limit on sample size. Rather, sample size depends directly upon the variability of the population: the more heterogeneous a population, the larger the sample required.

Edited June 19, 2015 by Rapier

[Chiki]

From what I've read in my logic book, generalizations are only invalid when a small population is chosen to represent a majority, but it is valid to generalize when there is major representation, even if it does not reflect a minority. Isn't this the method science uses for their studies on behaviors, trends and such?

This part, in particular:

Science /=/ logic. Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction for more on this issue. It's scientifically valid, yes, but invalid logically.

Edited June 19, 2015 by Chiki

[Rapier]

Alright, but feplus was talking about science... It may be logically invalid, but since it is scientifically valid, where is the problem?

(Why do my posts feel like I am nitpicking on terms and then drilling into it like a cartoonistic miner mole? sigh)

Edited June 19, 2015 by Rapier

[eclipse]

(Why do my posts feel like I am nitpicking on terms and then drilling into it like a cartoonistic miner mole? sigh)

Because you are.

A label should be a single, objective definition. If the answer to the question "can this apply to someone who does not fall under the objective definition of this label?" is "yes", then it has no place being on said label. For example, being Christian does NOT mean that you're intolerant of everyone that doesn't share your beliefs and views!

[Chiki]

There are different kinds of generalizations.

In formal logic, you can generalize if and only if the property you're talking about holds for every member of the domain of interpretation.

In science, you can generalize if and only if you've never seen something to contradict your assertion. For example, since you've never seen white swans (given that you've looked around a crap load), you can generalize that there are no black swans.

And there's another, more common sense of generalization which we use in everyday speech. When I say "Chinese food in restaurants is tasty," I'm saying like 70% or 80% of all the Chinese food out there in the world is tasty.

You have to be even more careful when you generalize across a term like "millennial" because like eclipse said, it denies people's individuality. I'd say if 90% of black people have large penises, for example, then you can generalize and say "black people have large penises." You need to be very strict and have good empirical evidence for this though.

[feplus]

Generalizations like "All Asians like rice" are invalid because the statement is not a criteria for being in the group.

This is incorrect.

It is not invalid to say that all Asians like rice. In logic, validity applies to arguments, not claims.

Saying all Asians like rice is a verifiable empirical claim. It happens to be false.

But I have not made any absolute generalizations like this. Example from the opening post: being less likely to get married at a young age is not a criteria for being a millennial. Yet the generalization is true.

Edited June 19, 2015 by feplus

[Makaze]

This is incorrect.

It is not invalid to say that all Asians like rice. In logic, validity applies to arguments, not claims.

Saying all Asians like rice is a verifiable empirical claim. It happens to be false.

But I have not made any absolute generalizations like this. Example from the opening post: being less likely to get married at a young age is not a criteria for being a millennial. Yet the generalization is true.

We must have gotten mixed up somewhere. If that's what you meant then you are not generalizing. That is an expression of probability. It includes the exceptions. Generalizations ignore exceptions by definition. The generalization form is "Millennials do not get married young". That generalization is not true.

Millennials do not get married young. ->

Alice got married young. ->

Alice must not be a Millennial. (false)

That's moving into semantics though. I agree with your overall assessment like I said.

[Loki Laufeyson]

Wow is this thread...this freaking thread wow lololol

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

No, young ser, I am of Generation X. We came before the Millenials and after the hated Boomers. The Generation That Eventually Gave Up. We fought and fought, for what? For our kids to inherit a world of bullshit and noise caused by their grandparents (Boomers). And we are left to apologize profusely to our children, and mourn for our fading social security.

Millenials are probably the most informed generation ive ever witnessed. They dont want to settle down with family at the age their parents did, because they are too busy trying to prepare for a future. And those preparations are in the form of student loans out the ass, getting the degree, maybe finding the job they are in debt for learning how to do, and then grappling with increasing gentrification in highly populated areas where those jobs lie, and then on top of it, the possibilities of never owning a home because of cost.

Millenials are at odds with American economy right now and its just really freaking heartbreaking. Millenials are the ones pushing back the hardest at the current structure. Using social media as a platform, they are screaming bloody murder, when they arent making hilarious memes. The political climate is changing because these guys are freaking done with prejudice and injustice.

Millenials are not spoiled rotten little shits with entitlement issues. They are people trying to exist in the current world, and using it to their advantage.

[Borz]

Using social media as a platform, they are screaming bloody murder, when they arent making hilarious memes.

That sounds like something someone trying to parody people praising millenials would write.

[Skynstein]

Wow is this thread...this freaking thread wow lololol

No, young ser, I am of Generation X. We came before the Millenials and after the hated Boomers. The Generation That Eventually Gave Up. We fought and fought, for what? For our kids to inherit a world of bullshit and noise caused by their grandparents (Boomers). And we are left to apologize profusely to our children, and mourn for our fading social security.

Millenials are probably the most informed generation ive ever witnessed. They dont want to settle down with family at the age their parents did, because they are too busy trying to prepare for a future. And those preparations are in the form of student loans out the ass, getting the degree, maybe finding the job they are in debt for learning how to do, and then grappling with increasing gentrification in highly populated areas where those jobs lie, and then on top of it, the possibilities of never owning a home because of cost.

Millenials are at odds with American economy right now and its just really freaking heartbreaking. Millenials are the ones pushing back the hardest at the current structure. Using social media as a platform, they are screaming bloody murder, when they arent making hilarious memes. The political climate is changing because these guys are freaking done with prejudice and injustice.

Millenials are not spoiled rotten little shits with entitlement issues. They are people trying to exist in the current world, and using it to their advantage.

I disagree, I think millenials have a lot of information at their disposal but simply misuse it. And they're every bit as intolerant as the people who came before them, except in a different direction.

Honestly, if I had to pick a person to save the world, I wouldn't choose a millenial Tumblerina. Knowledge has little to do with how much information do you have, but the quality of it. Millenials believe too much bullshit they see on Tumblr, Twitter and other places, and their desire to change the world has a great degree of naïveté to it. There's a reason they're mostly confined to the places they rule.

Edited June 19, 2015 by Cerberus87

[Sakusa]

Ouch.

Well the Christina Hoff-Summers incident I referenced is an article I discovered a while ago.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/04/22/christina-hoff-sommers-lecture-leads-to-trigger-warnings-and-safe-spaces-at-oberlin-and-georgetown/

Again, it's not an article with statistical evidence, but merely something to provoke discussion.

I acknowledged that my anecdotes hold no concrete evidence (because I honestly don't have the time now to write an essay on this).

Change in inevitable, it's a given. However, generational change can be both good and bad.

mfw this hardly even applies to millennials as defined by the OP.

I'm on the very tail end of the millennial generation (turned 18 in 2010). Most millennials have already either graduated college at this point or are going/have gone to grad school if they haven't gone into military service/dropped out/whatever. For the most part, I felt that my peers tend to research a topic of interest and then cry bloody murder when the facts found don't match up with what mainstream media is generally shoving down our throats.

Keep in mind that the youngest millennial is 22 years old, and the oldest is 33. I find that most of the crying Tumblrites are actually those who've barely missed the mark for being a millennial as defined by the OP or are just whiny teenagers.

Thank you for your time.

EDIT: Sorry, I math derped and didn't realize it was a span of 20 years and not 10 years.

feplus' definition of millennial:

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

Therefore, the upper limit of being a millennial would be those born on January 1, 1972, and the lower limit would be those who were born on December 31, 1992. So currently, the oldest of millennials would be 43 and the youngest would be 22.

That means some of our parents could be defined as millennials by the OP.

Food for thought.

Edited June 20, 2015 by Sakusa

[Loki Laufeyson]

That sounds like something someone trying to parody people praising millenials would write.

Thank you for this lovely contribution to the thread.

I disagree, I think millenials have a lot of information at their disposal but simply misuse it. And they're every bit as intolerant as the people who came before them, except in a different direction.

Honestly, if I had to pick a person to save the world, I wouldn't choose a millenial Tumblerina. Knowledge has little to do with how much information do you have, but the quality of it. Millenials believe too much bullshit they see on Tumblr, Twitter and other places, and their desire to change the world has a great degree of naïveté to it. There's a reason they're mostly confined to the places they rule.

I think you have very little idea of what people are doing to try to get ahead in life. You are just searching for something to put the blame on bad behavior. Its just so easy to point the finger at something like Twitter, when in reality, its not the Millennials fault. If any other generation had this power of anonymity, the result would be the same. Pinning an aspect of human nature to one demographic is really ignorant.

mfw this hardly even applies to millenials as defined by the OP.

I'm on the very tail end of the millenial generation (turned 18 in 2010). Most millenials have already either graduated college at this point or are going/have gone to grad school if they haven't gone into military service/dropped out/whatever. For the most part, I felt that my peers tend to research a topic of interest and then cry bloody murder when the facts found don't match up with what mainstream media is generally shoving down our throats.

Keep in mind that the youngest millenial is 22 years old, and the oldest is 33. I find that most of the crying Tumblrites are actually those who've barely missed the mark for being a millenial as defined by the OP or are just whiny teenagers.

Thank you for your time.

Agreed. In my day, we didnt have Tumblr. We had home made fanzines which were made up of the same shit you see on Tumblr. (i mean come on, did people miss Riot Grrrl punk rock existing?) People plastered fliers of stuff saying "DOWN WITH VIOLENCE" for ages. Susan Powder went around shouting "STOP THE INSANITY" back in like 1993. People making waves like that have existed long before social media. People are just now upset because its even more ubiquitous than before.

[Borz]

Thank you for this lovely contribution to the thread.

I found it silly, so I commented on it. It was not an argument against your claims, so I don't see the problem. It didn't detract from the conversation at any rate.

[Chiki]

This is incorrect.

It is not invalid to say that all Asians like rice. In logic, validity applies to arguments, not claims.

Saying all Asians like rice is a verifiable empirical claim. It happens to be false.

But I have not made any absolute generalizations like this. Example from the opening post: being less likely to get married at a young age is not a criteria for being a millennial. Yet the generalization is true.

It's still extremely obnoxious to make generalizations from the NPR piece summarizing millennial trends. They're nothing more than trends. It doesn't follow that you can generalize that millennials marry later in life simply because the average age of marriage is higher (because it could be that, there's a small proportion with a very high age relative to other millennials which brings the average age up). It also doesn't follow that millennials are shallow simply because they're dependent, unskilled and whatever lol. Not only are your deductions obnoxious, there's also zero evidence for the shallow bit.

This artlcle you cited is a goddamn joke. The evidence that millennials are shallow is... asking a few older managers and looking around at Facebook and Tumblr posts? Really? Absolute bullshit. Not scientifically rigorous at all. And the APA study only studies 18-40 year olds: it doesn't say anything about what 40+ year olds think about money, fame and image. It's entirely possible they think the same.

Similar to most cultural, racial, political, and gender differences, there is more variation within groups than between groups. At the same time, even small average differences can cause large changes at the ends of the distribution. For example, political participation declined d .28 between the Boomers and the Millennials. Cohen’s (1988) cutoffs label this a medium-sized effect. However, the ends of the distribution show large differences: Only 19% of Boomers said they “probably won’t” write to a public official, compared with 23% of GenX’ers and 32% of Millennials. Thus there was a 68% increase in the number of young people who believe they are unlikely to contact public officials, which could certainly be considered meaningful. Similarly, the importance of “having lots of money” increased only d .13 from Boomers to Millennials, yet there was a 63% increase in the number of young people who rated money as “extremely important” (16% of Boomers compared to 26% of Millennials). Even with moderate average changes, the large increases in the number of highly extrinsically oriented and politically disengaged young people could have a meaningful impact on society. Larger effects may be even more meaningful; for example, the three times as many Millennials (vs. Boomers) who say they do nothing to help the environment or save energy could have large effects on conservation initiatives. These comparisons are also relative. Although the importance of “finding meaning and purpose in my life” decreased and “having lots of money” increased over the generations, Millennials still rate finding meaning and purpose as more important than having lots of money. Similarly, these results do not suggest that Millennials and GenX’ers are not concerned for others or that they lack civic orientation, but instead that there are generational declines on these attributes.

This APA article even says that you can't generalize from a mere trend, which is what you're doing.

It is not uncommon to find editorials or articles criticizing the millennial generation — those born from the late 1980s to around 2000. A 2008 op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, which refers to millennials as “trophy kids,” reports that many older managers view the millennial generation as more entitled and high-maintenance than previous generations. An article published last May in Time magazine focuses on the narcissism of the “me me me generation.” There is an overall notion that millennials are more self-absorbed and entitled than those who came before them.

This criticism, while harsh, is almost certainly true.

Although it varies from case to case, it seems like the number of self-absorbed people has never been greater. Everybody wants others to read their daily Facebook statuses, Tumblr posts, and Twitter feeds. Some people need to take photos of themselves and their dog twice a day. Instant gratification, unwarranted self-importance, and first-world problems are abound.

Edited June 20, 2015 by Chiki

[feplus]

I've resigned myself to the fact that all of our conversations will be a struggle.

You don't have to agree with my conclusions about millennials. You don't have to take my sources as definitive. You don't have to share my pessimism. I started this thread to spark a conversation I found interesting. Most users have managed to stay on-topic, stay civil, and make contributions.

I'd encourage you to follow their example. Share your own opinion. Give us reasons to agree with you. Provide your own sources. Your obsession with correcting my imaginary mistakes is tiring.

[Phoenix Wright]

why are millenials to blame for being coddled? it's our parents' fault.

what's wrong with casual sex, if done safely?

[feplus]

why are millenials to blame for being coddled? it's our parents' fault.

what's wrong with casual sex, if done safely?

1. I said the same thing in my opening post wrt the self-esteem movement. I'm less interesting in "blaming" millennials and more interested in diagnosing their weaknesses.

2. "If done safely" is the operative phrase; it often is not done safely, which leads to the spreading of STDs. There are also problems with objectification, and some studies link premarital promiscuity with later divorce (though this field of research is in its infancy). On a cruder level, sex was one of the "draws" to marriage traditionally, and it being freely available might have something to do with people getting married later and less often.

Edited June 20, 2015 by feplus

[Chiki]

I've resigned myself to the fact that all of our conversations will be a struggle.

You don't have to agree with my conclusions about millennials. You don't have to take my sources as definitive. You don't have to share my pessimism. I started this thread to spark a conversation I found interesting. Most users have managed to stay on-topic, stay civil, and make contributions.

I'd encourage you to follow their example. Share your own opinion. Give us reasons to agree with you. Provide your own sources. Your obsession with correcting my imaginary mistakes is tiring.

This isn't a counterargument. I think you're getting frustrated now since you can't counter my arguments. I have been staying on-topic, civil and making contributions lol. Point out where I haven't been civil, please.

How have I not been sharing my own opinion? My opinion is that you're wrong, and you can't generalize from a trend to a group of people. I've proven that just fine, so you'd better come up with some counterarguments if you want to prove me wrong.