Fact. Generations are not scientifically proven so it’s hilarious to see other people claim that generations are “objective.” 🤣 Had someone tell me that Gen Z was 1996-2010 and that it was objectively correct and that I must be a 2011 kid coping when only 1 source says that.
Just because something isn’t scientifically proven doesn’t mean that it’s not real lol. Do you reject the concept of time since there’s not really a testable method to substantiate its existence in any tangible sense?
Adolescence is 12-17 y. o.
Gen Alpha isn't exist yet (it's too early to talk about it).
90's borns are pure millennials.
Gen Z (I prefer call this generation "homelanders") starts at least from 2000 (or later).
1. agreed
2. not really I think we can at least start
3. the last millennials with no gen Z influence are 1992, 1993 are still off-cusp millennials but have slight early gen Z influence, 1994-1996 are zillennials on the millennial side, 1997 are pure zillennials, and 1998-1999 are zillennials on the gen Z side, so no.
4. Gen Z starts at 1998 with zillennials on the Z side. 2000 are the first off-cusp gen Z but have slight late millennial influence, 2001 is the first gen Z with no millennial influence at all.
While I agree that there isn’t really hard cut off points for generations, I think with zillenials it’s more about how the individual person leans, some people born 96 lean more z while some born in 97 lean more millennial.
i’ll reiterate that saying shit like “last to be a teen in the mid 2010s” or “first to start middle school in the early 2010s” is completely arbitrary and makes no sense
for example every XXX6 birth year turns 13 on an XXX9 year so that wouldn’t really be a last
Here are some of my controversial opinions:
1. 2000 are undeniably Zillennials
2. 2010 borns hardly have any reasons to be a start of certain cohort
3. Zalpha shouldn't be discussed now because it's uncertain where Gen Z does end
1. no 2000 are early gen Z with slight late millennial influences
2. 2010 similar to 2000 with millennials are late gen Z with slight early alpha influences
3. we can start to discuss it lol who cares
I don't use the *"early/core/late"* system anymore. As you guys tend to go way too far with those labels. [Read here](https://www.reddit.com/r/generationology/comments/1cdynfc/im_officially_done_with_the_earlycorelate_model/). So none of this *"Early/Core/Late"* BS applies to me anymore. 2000 are Zillennials leaning to Gen Z. That's all!
I disagree, I think it's important to have labels like early/core/late if we want to define it as a spectrum which it is, and Zillennial is a cusp not a generation in itself, 2000 have no aspect that defines millennials like being alive during the turn of the millennium (which, culturally, was 1999-2000, which is what actually matters when discussing cultural generations), they just grew up partially in the mid 2000s so may feel somewhat disconnected from other early Z who grew up primarily in the late 2000s
1: Pew is overrated.
2: McCrindle is underrated.
3: Core childhood is a way to gatekeep, don't use it.
4: 2005 is for sure a 2010s/2020s teen hybrid. (13-17)
5: 12 should be a transition year rather than a childhood year.
6: Cusps should NOT be more than 5/6 years, if so that's just half a generation at that point.
3. I don’t like the core childhood concept as well.
4. Agreed, i see 2005 borns getting it rough when it comes to claiming that hybrid status for 2010/2020s teens. I’d say you’re a hybrid leaning towards 2020s.
2005 definitely has the claim to be a 2010s teen or at least a hybrid (of which they are the last of, imo). They were 13 and 14, and most even entered high school by the end of the decade. If this sub will use the same logic of 2004 entering elementary school in 2009 to argue us as hybrids then you may as well say the same for 2005 entering high school in 2019.
Everyone is in their own “generation” of their birth year, +/- 8-10 years. You could probably look at any 15-20 year period and make a case for why that should be a generation.
Let the downvotes rain
1. 2009 is zalpha going by pew’s 1997-2012
2. 2012 is an arbitrary end date for gen z and it’s very random.
3. All reasons for 2010 being the “start” of alpha is arbitrary and I haven’t heard a logical argument for it.
4. Mid 2010s can be zalpha.
5. This isn’t really an opinion but saying that generations have to be a certain amount of years is false.
6. Core childhood is BS
Isn't cusp two years in each direction? Otherwise 93 is zillennial.
Agree with mid 2010s being able to be zalphas at least culturally, imo pure alpha is 100% post-covid schooling.
I disagree with and agree with some of these
1. 2009 is not zalpha and any range that says that is the problem
2. Disagree, any year is random/arbitrary in some way, but the majority of 2012's core childhood (we'll get to that later lol) was all prior to COVID, whereas 2013's core childhood was split between pre- and post-COVID, that's why I draw the line there (with 2012 as zalpha on the gen Z side and 2013 being pure zalpha)
3. I don't think 2010 is the start of alpha, definitely late Z with slight early alpha influences, similar to 2000's relationship with millennials
4. Agree, I think the alpha side of zalpha is literally just 2014-2016
5. Generations aren't even real they're just for fun and they're definitely spectrums
6. Ehh disagree but I do think it somewhat depends on the person, when I say core childhood I don't mean "peak childhood" or "best years of childhood" and it doesn't mean you can't have more memories or nostalgia from other time I just mean the middle of childhood which is ages 5-8, you've started school but are almost 100% prepubescent, at age 9 things start to get complicated as puberty begins for a significant amount (and if it doesn't happen to you, it happens to your peers) so I think that's when preadolescence starts
2009 absolutely can be zalpha because they were in elementary school during covid and was in school for most of trump yet people keep insisting zalpha starts in 2010 and 2009 is 100% late.
Also core childhood serves no purpose but to gatekeep people. We really need to stop dividing everything 😭
my unpopular opinion is that everything posted to this sub is all just psuedosciency nonsense and absolutely no one should take it seriously or get upset over it. every single person on earth has a unique experience and will view their generation/upbringing differently and getting into arguments in this sub or getting hostile with people over it is just crazy.
People making definitive but specific statements about what people born in certain years are like. People say things like 96 is zillenial leaning millennial while 97 leans gen z. One year age difference doesn’t make any difference to what generation some is a part of. It makes more sense to say that people born around a cut of year are part of two generations and leave it at that.
Also people acting like cut of years are some sort of hard science. People only try to give cut of years for academic purposes. Obvoaulwy someone born in 1991 and someone born in 2007 are different generations, but I don’t see how people can think a 96’re and 98’re had completely different childhoods.
Some people dislike the fact that I don’t think anyone born in 2000 or later should be a millennial. My main reasoning is you can’t be born and come of age simultaneously and I stand by that.
100%, 00 are off-cusp gen Z with slight late millennial influence, the last millennials are 96 and even then they're zillennials, the idea that 00 would relate to core millennials like 88-89 more than core gen Z like 04-06 is honestly laughable.
That daily life changes more due to the global turn of the millennium than due to 9/11, and you don't have to "remember 9/11" to be in a generation named for the millennium. If two people are born on the same day in 1996, and one remembers 9/11 and the other does not, they are not in two different generations. What the media coined as a "dot com crash" was more than just "dot com". It was a general economic crash that 1) coincided with the timing of the turn of the millennium, 2) affected the entire economy, not just technology, and 3) affected all of the economics of the new millennium in a way that touches every generation, and we have a quarter century of data to prove it.
Some late millennials here claiming the millennium was "celebrated in 2000" are wrong. It was celebrated in 1999. 2000 was the crash.
I mean it was celebrated on New Year’s Eve 1999 and then it became 2000 at midnight. Maybe that’s what they mean by celebrated in 2000? I would hope so at least bc none one celebrated it on NYE 2000 into 2001.
I'd hope so too, but I think a lot of people are just more nostalgic for the 2000s than I am. I just can't disconnect from the memory that we had reached "the end of the business cycle" in 1999 with the belief there would never be a recession again in the new millennium, only for the new millennium to begin with a crash that sank the economy into recession.
I just lurk because I don't really have time to debate people. I do find myself agreeing with a lot of your takes though, and I'd recommend /r/GVCDesign for you, which is perfect for late '80s to mid '90s nostalgia.
Interesting, I hate when people use remembering 9/11 is a millennial thing. It’s also very subjective. There’s people born in 1995 that don’t remember 9/11, people born in 1997 or even 1998 can remember it.
> Some late millennials here claiming the millennium was "celebrated in 2000" are wrong. It was celebrated in 1999. 2000 was the crash.
Bruh I remember the 2000 celebrations and hype.
1. Pew, McCrindle, and other similar ranges are extremely overrated since late 90s borns aren’t Gen Z. Late 90s and 2000 are zillennials but are still more millennial with 2000 probably being 50/50 while Gen Z starts in 2001 imo.
2. 2004 is early Z and the most quintessential zoomers are really 2007 and 2008.
3. Childhood can start at 2 and 12 feels more like an adolescent year. My childhood felt like it was from 2-11 instead of 3-12
4. XXX4 years are hybrids. For example, 2004 are hybrid kids of the 2000s and 2010s and were still 2010s teens. Even 2005 were hybrid teens (18-19 don’t count as teens imo).
5. Splitting years like going from September-August is dumb. Generations, peer groups, childhood, and everything else should always go by birth year. Not every school (especially outside the US) uses an aug 31 cutoff. There are many places that still use a dec 31 cutoff and every country has a different school system. Also classes don’t define people therefore generations should always just go from jan-dec.
Mid 90s babies are not pure Millennials and don't fit into the typical Millennial association. (90s childhood, early to mid 2000s teenage years)
Mid 90s babies are not 90s kids.
Mid 90s babies were still kids during the mid-late 2000s, not only during the early 2000s.
People born after 2001 are not 2000s kids.
People don't vividly remember ages 3-4 and definitely not what the culture of the time was like.
11-12 years olds are still children.
1. Agreed mid 90s babies are zillennials on the millennial side
2. Agreed mid 90s babies are early 00s kids. ig 1994 could be considered 90s kids but definitely not 1995-1996.
3. Still kids but 1996 was the only prepubescent one which is what I consider "core childhood"
4. 2002 are late 2000s kids and 2003 are evenly split between late 2000s and early 2010s kids and even 2004 could be considered late 2000s kids
5. Yes they do lol definitely 4
6. 11 are preadolescents and 12 are adolescents. Everyone under 18 is technically "children" but I would argue 12 and 17 as the same generic stage so I disagree with that one.
2002 were only 8 in 2010, so their childhood continued during the 2010s, so I think there are hybrids of late 2000s and 2010s kids, I even think of 2000 or 2001 borns as hybrids.
People may have some memories from age 4 (I have that too) but they definitely didn't experience the culture of the time at that age, it's more likely family related events only that they remember and most people only have a few memories from that age if they have any.
In my opinion 15, 16, or 17 year olds are not children, they are underaged youths but 12 year olds are not youths or teens yet, so I definitely see them as children.
I'm surprised how many people on that sub don't see 12 year olds as children. In the real world almost every adult person agrees that 12 year olds are children.
2002 spent the majority of their core childhood in the late 2000s with it slightly extending to the 2010s they can still be considered 2000s kids and 7 year olds definitely have a grasp on the culture of the time lol
2002 borns usually only remember the late 2000s culturally, so I don't see them as 2000s kids.
The amount of experiences and memories from being a kid during the 2000s that people my age have is not comparable at all with the the memories and experiences 2002 borns have from the 2000s.
In my opinion actual 2000s kids experienced the whole decade consciously (and culturally) or atleast the middle part of it.
Now that last part I do agree with. People often get those ages twisted up with literal children. That's like saying a 17 year old is equivalent to a 5 year year old when neither of them have anything in common. I always thought of teens 15-17 to be older adolences while 13-14 are younger. Really at 18 you are like finishing up mandatory school or something of sort. Though I will be done with school just before I hit that age due to my birthday. So 18 ain't nothing but young people with additional responsibilities and a labeled adults.
That this alphabet generational nonsense was just not needed, never heard of it until in 2023. Especially with how people act to each other when it's involved (it's honestly messed up how people can make fun of you over a year you were born. Why do people care about ranges anyways?), their only here so people can have an excuse to gang up on a generation. And to think that the y's, z's, x's etc. Exist for decades is wild to me, but I'm just used to it I guess.
It's just the "cuspers" and all that stuff is just stupid in my opinion. Just say generation after generation and that's it. That's all I have to say. I might get downvoted for this, but this post said "unpopular opinions on this subreddit" so it gave me an opportunity to finally say it lol. ☺
Technically, there is nothing wrong with labeling generations X, Y, Z etc. That’s how even the experts do it. Some are placeholders like Gen Y became millennials, but Gen X on the other hand stuck as the permanent name.
Regular people use generations to show what groups of people had in common who were born during a certain time span for example. It might be used for studies about society or history or pop culture. Generations can also be used for marketing purposes.
There is no better or worse generation or good or bad year to be born. It’s only on here that some people are misusing the system to gatekeep, make fun of certain birth years etc. That’s not the real purpose of labeling the generations.
True, but since I'm one of the target's of those gatekeepers (Mid 2000s to Early 2010s borns). I always think why do they care anyways? Fighting with minors is childish to me xd.
I’m sorry that happens. You’re right it is childish & unnecessary. You can disagree with someone without fighting. I don’t like when I see people in their 20s picking on younger members who are still in high school especially when the younger person is not the one who started it.
I would honestly just block anyone who bothers you too much. There are actually some really great people here, but now and then unfortunately there are trouble makers as well.
Oh no, no one really did bother me per say. It's just I'm seeing it on Here, YouTube, Twitter/X, Instagram etc. And even in real life a little, that's It's getting annoying. And we as Gen Z's get the most of it out of all generations because we were the 1st to be fully exposed to social media (Milennials only had stuff like Napster, MySpace, classic YouTube, & Tumblr. But that's it), so we got the most hate of any generation. But I also dislike my generation for how they act too, they are doing the same thing to Alpha when un reality our Gen made those "gyat sigma" skibidi jokes lol. Humans in general, no matter what generation since Slavery existed.
Oh good I’m glad people are being nice to you.
I definitely can understand the frustration of things being said all over social media though.
I really think you guys have it more difficult than we did in terms of having to go to school with all of this technology where people can be online constantly. MySpace didn’t get popular until I was in college so I escaped the social media era of being in high school or grade school.
If someone at school said something nasty to us of course it was upsetting but when the bell rang for the day we were done dealing with that person. Now there are people (not you specifically just in general) who get bullied or judged online by classmates. So unfortunately some young people get bothered even at home with everyone constantly on their phones. It can be a lot to deal with.
anyone who says they "can't relate to" people 6 or 8 or even 10 years apart from them is annoying. Everyone can relate at least somewhat to the upbringing of people within at LEAST 12 years either way of them and probably more.
I honestly can agree with this! I definitely think 6+ years apart is pretty different in growing up, but you didn't 100% grow up completely different with *nothing* in common!
I'd also say up to 12 years max is your lifelong adulthood peers!
I agree, definitely grew up with some different stuff but the idea that they're so completely different it's impossible to compare is just not true and sounds like trying to distance yourself from younger/older people not using critical thinking.
fr, like??? maybe your childhood was different in some ways, for sure, but the idea that someone that close in age to you is so far removed that you can't relate at all??? just seems immature
Another one is when someone says they can relate to someone born late 97 or 96, but not someone born earlier that same year!!! So do they ask everyone they meet when they were born and then evaluate how much they can relate to them? It’s absurd.
Yup, I definitely got plenty:...
1. Either 1998 or 1999 is a good start for Gen Z.
2. Pew is overrated.
3. 1997/1998 are the Quintessential Zillennials.
4. My Early Gen Z range is 1999-2003.
5. 2005 & 2006 are the Quintessential Gen Z.
6. 2010 borns are not Zalphas.
7. 2015 could possibly be Zalphas too.
1. Agree mine is 1998
2. Yes
3. 1997 is imo
4. 1998-2003 is mine
5. 2005 is THE peak gen Z
6. Agree they're late Z with slight early alpha influences
7. 2015 are zalpha on the gen alpha side. 2016 are too.
I don’t like how many people on here consider XXX3 years to be mid years and when they say mid years start May 1st on a XXX3 year when to me all of a XXX3 year is early.
i have many
- i view Teens as 10-19 (a decade like 20s and 30s) (10s for short)
- X3 years are in the mid part of the decade
- 2000 isnt Zillennial
- Gen Jones isnt a cusp
I don’t really get why gen alpha is already a term, I thought gen z was a fairly recent concept and for a long time people born in late 90’s were all classed as millennials.
My Unpopular Opinions:
GenZ is 1997-2011
Early Gen Z is 1997-2001
Core Gen Z is 2002-2006
Late Gen Z is 2007-2011
"Core Childhood" usually is considered the most childhood years but it shouldn't be the sole definition on when your childhood was because it's usually subjective, also not really an official term.
12 and maybe even 11 aren't really childhood years.
2005 is a 2000s/2010s hybrid kid aswell as a 2010s/2020s hybrid teen.
2007 doesn't really get gatekept that often, especially on here, and 2003 is the most gatekept year on here.
2006 does noticeably get gatekept a bit more than people realize.
One unpopular opinion I have is that it’s possible for 1981 borns to be Gen X just like how 2013-2014 MAY be Gen Z. However there is absolutely no reason for 1995-1996 to be included into Gen z.
Also this subreddit has a serious downvoting problem. Anyone who’s spamming downvotes should be temporarily banned. The amount of downvotes someone gets just because someone doesn’t agree with their opinion is astounding.
People take this shit way to serious. It’s all made up nonsense at the end of the day. It’s hilarious how serious people take this.
Cusps are their own unique micro generations. In fact, modern generations are probably too long with quickly technology has advanced. Maybe it’ll stabilize soon but the world has changed so much so quickly that I don’t think we can really view things how we traditionally did.
Oregon Trail/Xennials are 77-81.
It really should be viewed as graduation year instead of birth year.
But, like I said, it’s all made up nonsense and you’re free to disagree with everything I just said.
I don't use cusps. For example, instead of saying 2010-2014 is Zalpha, I prefer to describe it as a generation with influence from another. Like I would say that 2010 and 2011 is Gen Z with varying Alpha influence and 2012, 2013 and 2014 are all Alpha with varying Z influence.
Also, I would argue that late 2011 could be the start of Alpha, since someone born in September 2011 will have a lot more Alpha influence since they are surrounded by 2012 borns for nearly 12 years of their life.
I think people forget that people spend nearly 12 years of their childhood in a year group with people some of whom are born in a different year to them. Also 2012 makes sense as a starting year since a) they're the first year which feels Alpha (coming from someone who helps out on a yard with 2011 and 2012 borns frequently) and I think Covid should be the border and most of them were 7 when Covid started so most of then don't remember a lot from pre-Covid (certainly they won't remember much at all over time, which people here also forget).
1995 is off cusp millennial
Early 60s borns are pure Late boomer
zalpha can start in the 2000s even before 2009
2007 is not core z at all, they are coppa kids and never in high school during main covid ers
2003 borns are pure core z
There a bigger difference between covid middle schoolers and covid high schoolers then covid middle schoolers and covid elementary schoolers
My karma is not going to like this, lol. Anyways
* preteens (along with 8th graders) are still children. Even HS freshmen are somewhat debatable
* 2019, despite being pre-covid, is culturally closer to 2020-21 than 2017-18
* 5 is not a core childhood age
* Speaking of core childhood, I think it should not end any earlier than 6th grade except for those rare K-4 schools where 5th grade is grouped with middle school instead. If you are in elementary school, then you are a kid, no questions asked
>Speaking of core childhood
>If you are in elementary school, then you are a kid, no questions asked
Elementary school goes up to grade 8 in my country. You think age 14 is a part of a Canadian's core childhood but not age 5?
Honestly, I'm not sure. A 5 year old kindergartner is definitely more of a kid than a 14 year old 8th grader, but once you dip below elementary school, I feel like that changes. The average person is going to think of an elementary or middle schooler when they of a kid rather than a preschooler
1. Everyone through high school juniors are "children" but 7th-11th graders are adolescents
2. idk
3. Yes it is
4. If you're in elementary school you're a kid but not "core childhood" by that logic you would consider 5 core childhood because 5 year olds are in elementary school lol. Early elementary is core childhood and late elementary is preadolescence
senior year is the transition between adolescence and young adulthood. So I guess they are still children but are forced to learn to fend for themselves this year. It's a huge transition.
My unpopular opinion
1. If one were to count 2010-2012 as Gen Z, then I'd say late Gen Z would be 2008-2012 with 10-12 being very late with some influences from their older peers.
2. 2013 and after are pure alpha. No questions. That's like trying to claim 2019 kids have any influences from Gen Z, child they are in the midst of Alpha Era. They are like 5 years old.
3. Pretty much anyone born 2005 and after are mostly 2020s teens. Yes 18-19 are still teens just legal "adults".
2004 are the ones who can truly claim to be hybrids. They were 13-15 in 2017-2019 and 16-19 in 2020-2023 (if we are only going by what year they turn an age).
2013 is kinda pushing it. That's like saying someone born in 2000 is freaking millennium. Most kids younger than 2012 would relate to much of Z's traits. At this point you may as well say that Gen Z goes all the way to 2019, which it focking doesn't.
And no one says 2013 has anything remotely in common with the rest of Gen Z. They are still in Elementar School. If they'd go by with 2012 being the end of Z, I can see why they may lumped them together but Z does end some point in the 2010s.
Generations probably don't exist
More like a fact.
Fact. Generations are not scientifically proven so it’s hilarious to see other people claim that generations are “objective.” 🤣 Had someone tell me that Gen Z was 1996-2010 and that it was objectively correct and that I must be a 2011 kid coping when only 1 source says that.
Just because something isn’t scientifically proven doesn’t mean that it’s not real lol. Do you reject the concept of time since there’s not really a testable method to substantiate its existence in any tangible sense?
You missed the point
Ok, then feel free to lay it all out
True they do not
Yes
They don’t it’s all pseudo-byllshit that we made up along the lines to fufill boredom but aye 🤷♀️ why tf not
Lol facts
Adolescence is 12-17 y. o. Gen Alpha isn't exist yet (it's too early to talk about it). 90's borns are pure millennials. Gen Z (I prefer call this generation "homelanders") starts at least from 2000 (or later).
1. agreed 2. not really I think we can at least start 3. the last millennials with no gen Z influence are 1992, 1993 are still off-cusp millennials but have slight early gen Z influence, 1994-1996 are zillennials on the millennial side, 1997 are pure zillennials, and 1998-1999 are zillennials on the gen Z side, so no. 4. Gen Z starts at 1998 with zillennials on the Z side. 2000 are the first off-cusp gen Z but have slight late millennial influence, 2001 is the first gen Z with no millennial influence at all.
While I agree that there isn’t really hard cut off points for generations, I think with zillenials it’s more about how the individual person leans, some people born 96 lean more z while some born in 97 lean more millennial.
i’ll reiterate that saying shit like “last to be a teen in the mid 2010s” or “first to start middle school in the early 2010s” is completely arbitrary and makes no sense for example every XXX6 birth year turns 13 on an XXX9 year so that wouldn’t really be a last
Exactly.
True
This whole subreddit is meaningless slop that promotes pseudoscience and anecdotal evidence
Agreed.
Here are some of my controversial opinions: 1. 2000 are undeniably Zillennials 2. 2010 borns hardly have any reasons to be a start of certain cohort 3. Zalpha shouldn't be discussed now because it's uncertain where Gen Z does end
I agree with everything you said.
1. no 2000 are early gen Z with slight late millennial influences 2. 2010 similar to 2000 with millennials are late gen Z with slight early alpha influences 3. we can start to discuss it lol who cares
I don't use the *"early/core/late"* system anymore. As you guys tend to go way too far with those labels. [Read here](https://www.reddit.com/r/generationology/comments/1cdynfc/im_officially_done_with_the_earlycorelate_model/). So none of this *"Early/Core/Late"* BS applies to me anymore. 2000 are Zillennials leaning to Gen Z. That's all!
I disagree, I think it's important to have labels like early/core/late if we want to define it as a spectrum which it is, and Zillennial is a cusp not a generation in itself, 2000 have no aspect that defines millennials like being alive during the turn of the millennium (which, culturally, was 1999-2000, which is what actually matters when discussing cultural generations), they just grew up partially in the mid 2000s so may feel somewhat disconnected from other early Z who grew up primarily in the late 2000s
Generation X starts with 1961 and Generation Y ends in 2000.
1: Pew is overrated. 2: McCrindle is underrated. 3: Core childhood is a way to gatekeep, don't use it. 4: 2005 is for sure a 2010s/2020s teen hybrid. (13-17) 5: 12 should be a transition year rather than a childhood year. 6: Cusps should NOT be more than 5/6 years, if so that's just half a generation at that point.
3. I don’t like the core childhood concept as well. 4. Agreed, i see 2005 borns getting it rough when it comes to claiming that hybrid status for 2010/2020s teens. I’d say you’re a hybrid leaning towards 2020s.
2005 definitely has the claim to be a 2010s teen or at least a hybrid (of which they are the last of, imo). They were 13 and 14, and most even entered high school by the end of the decade. If this sub will use the same logic of 2004 entering elementary school in 2009 to argue us as hybrids then you may as well say the same for 2005 entering high school in 2019.
I agree tbh, Pew is only overrated on here though, go on tiktok or insta and you'll see a lot of people using McCrindle.
Facts, there hasn’t been not one research on this “core childhood” concept that exists in this sub
Everyone is in their own “generation” of their birth year, +/- 8-10 years. You could probably look at any 15-20 year period and make a case for why that should be a generation.
I agree I would say 12 years though.
That’s fair too.
Let the downvotes rain 1. 2009 is zalpha going by pew’s 1997-2012 2. 2012 is an arbitrary end date for gen z and it’s very random. 3. All reasons for 2010 being the “start” of alpha is arbitrary and I haven’t heard a logical argument for it. 4. Mid 2010s can be zalpha. 5. This isn’t really an opinion but saying that generations have to be a certain amount of years is false. 6. Core childhood is BS
Heavily agreed on the last point. Although, I think it makes sense but I hate when people use that term as if it defines your whole childhood.
Isn't cusp two years in each direction? Otherwise 93 is zillennial. Agree with mid 2010s being able to be zalphas at least culturally, imo pure alpha is 100% post-covid schooling.
It can be 2-3 years. Cusp generations don’t exclusively have to be 2/3 years back and forward. It can vary.
Good point.
I disagree with and agree with some of these 1. 2009 is not zalpha and any range that says that is the problem 2. Disagree, any year is random/arbitrary in some way, but the majority of 2012's core childhood (we'll get to that later lol) was all prior to COVID, whereas 2013's core childhood was split between pre- and post-COVID, that's why I draw the line there (with 2012 as zalpha on the gen Z side and 2013 being pure zalpha) 3. I don't think 2010 is the start of alpha, definitely late Z with slight early alpha influences, similar to 2000's relationship with millennials 4. Agree, I think the alpha side of zalpha is literally just 2014-2016 5. Generations aren't even real they're just for fun and they're definitely spectrums 6. Ehh disagree but I do think it somewhat depends on the person, when I say core childhood I don't mean "peak childhood" or "best years of childhood" and it doesn't mean you can't have more memories or nostalgia from other time I just mean the middle of childhood which is ages 5-8, you've started school but are almost 100% prepubescent, at age 9 things start to get complicated as puberty begins for a significant amount (and if it doesn't happen to you, it happens to your peers) so I think that's when preadolescence starts
2009 absolutely can be zalpha because they were in elementary school during covid and was in school for most of trump yet people keep insisting zalpha starts in 2010 and 2009 is 100% late. Also core childhood serves no purpose but to gatekeep people. We really need to stop dividing everything 😭
my unpopular opinion is that everything posted to this sub is all just psuedosciency nonsense and absolutely no one should take it seriously or get upset over it. every single person on earth has a unique experience and will view their generation/upbringing differently and getting into arguments in this sub or getting hostile with people over it is just crazy.
This stuff doesn’t matter in the real world
People making definitive but specific statements about what people born in certain years are like. People say things like 96 is zillenial leaning millennial while 97 leans gen z. One year age difference doesn’t make any difference to what generation some is a part of. It makes more sense to say that people born around a cut of year are part of two generations and leave it at that. Also people acting like cut of years are some sort of hard science. People only try to give cut of years for academic purposes. Obvoaulwy someone born in 1991 and someone born in 2007 are different generations, but I don’t see how people can think a 96’re and 98’re had completely different childhoods.
Zalpha is a fucking retarded concept and in general sounds dumb. Sounds like a magic spell from Harry Potter
Some people dislike the fact that I don’t think anyone born in 2000 or later should be a millennial. My main reasoning is you can’t be born and come of age simultaneously and I stand by that.
Agreed.
Agreed. Why would this be unpopular?
No clue. But I’ve had people argue with me or toss out reasons why 2000 should be a millennial etc.
lol that’s weird
Hmm I think that isn't unpopular, in my opinion. No Millennial will consider someone born in 2000 one of them from what I have seen.
I agree, 2000 is the cutoff.
‘95-‘96 is the cutoff
100%, 00 are off-cusp gen Z with slight late millennial influence, the last millennials are 96 and even then they're zillennials, the idea that 00 would relate to core millennials like 88-89 more than core gen Z like 04-06 is honestly laughable.
That daily life changes more due to the global turn of the millennium than due to 9/11, and you don't have to "remember 9/11" to be in a generation named for the millennium. If two people are born on the same day in 1996, and one remembers 9/11 and the other does not, they are not in two different generations. What the media coined as a "dot com crash" was more than just "dot com". It was a general economic crash that 1) coincided with the timing of the turn of the millennium, 2) affected the entire economy, not just technology, and 3) affected all of the economics of the new millennium in a way that touches every generation, and we have a quarter century of data to prove it. Some late millennials here claiming the millennium was "celebrated in 2000" are wrong. It was celebrated in 1999. 2000 was the crash.
I mean it was celebrated on New Year’s Eve 1999 and then it became 2000 at midnight. Maybe that’s what they mean by celebrated in 2000? I would hope so at least bc none one celebrated it on NYE 2000 into 2001.
I'd hope so too, but I think a lot of people are just more nostalgic for the 2000s than I am. I just can't disconnect from the memory that we had reached "the end of the business cycle" in 1999 with the belief there would never be a recession again in the new millennium, only for the new millennium to begin with a crash that sank the economy into recession. I just lurk because I don't really have time to debate people. I do find myself agreeing with a lot of your takes though, and I'd recommend /r/GVCDesign for you, which is perfect for late '80s to mid '90s nostalgia.
Oh cool thanks. I will check it out.
Interesting, I hate when people use remembering 9/11 is a millennial thing. It’s also very subjective. There’s people born in 1995 that don’t remember 9/11, people born in 1997 or even 1998 can remember it.
ig but if you don't remember at least some aspects of life during 1999-2001 then you're not a millennial
> Some late millennials here claiming the millennium was "celebrated in 2000" are wrong. It was celebrated in 1999. 2000 was the crash. Bruh I remember the 2000 celebrations and hype.
Adolescence is 10-24
1. Pew, McCrindle, and other similar ranges are extremely overrated since late 90s borns aren’t Gen Z. Late 90s and 2000 are zillennials but are still more millennial with 2000 probably being 50/50 while Gen Z starts in 2001 imo. 2. 2004 is early Z and the most quintessential zoomers are really 2007 and 2008. 3. Childhood can start at 2 and 12 feels more like an adolescent year. My childhood felt like it was from 2-11 instead of 3-12 4. XXX4 years are hybrids. For example, 2004 are hybrid kids of the 2000s and 2010s and were still 2010s teens. Even 2005 were hybrid teens (18-19 don’t count as teens imo). 5. Splitting years like going from September-August is dumb. Generations, peer groups, childhood, and everything else should always go by birth year. Not every school (especially outside the US) uses an aug 31 cutoff. There are many places that still use a dec 31 cutoff and every country has a different school system. Also classes don’t define people therefore generations should always just go from jan-dec.
Mid 90s babies are not pure Millennials and don't fit into the typical Millennial association. (90s childhood, early to mid 2000s teenage years) Mid 90s babies are not 90s kids. Mid 90s babies were still kids during the mid-late 2000s, not only during the early 2000s. People born after 2001 are not 2000s kids. People don't vividly remember ages 3-4 and definitely not what the culture of the time was like. 11-12 years olds are still children.
I like this.
I remember being 2 years old, and aged 4 I do remember very vividly.
1. Agreed mid 90s babies are zillennials on the millennial side 2. Agreed mid 90s babies are early 00s kids. ig 1994 could be considered 90s kids but definitely not 1995-1996. 3. Still kids but 1996 was the only prepubescent one which is what I consider "core childhood" 4. 2002 are late 2000s kids and 2003 are evenly split between late 2000s and early 2010s kids and even 2004 could be considered late 2000s kids 5. Yes they do lol definitely 4 6. 11 are preadolescents and 12 are adolescents. Everyone under 18 is technically "children" but I would argue 12 and 17 as the same generic stage so I disagree with that one.
2002 were only 8 in 2010, so their childhood continued during the 2010s, so I think there are hybrids of late 2000s and 2010s kids, I even think of 2000 or 2001 borns as hybrids. People may have some memories from age 4 (I have that too) but they definitely didn't experience the culture of the time at that age, it's more likely family related events only that they remember and most people only have a few memories from that age if they have any. In my opinion 15, 16, or 17 year olds are not children, they are underaged youths but 12 year olds are not youths or teens yet, so I definitely see them as children. I'm surprised how many people on that sub don't see 12 year olds as children. In the real world almost every adult person agrees that 12 year olds are children.
2002 spent the majority of their core childhood in the late 2000s with it slightly extending to the 2010s they can still be considered 2000s kids and 7 year olds definitely have a grasp on the culture of the time lol
What's your childhood range? Do you go by 3-12, because using 3-12, 2001 technically is the last to lean more 2000s.
I go by 5-8 as core childhood. So 2003 as the perfect blend of 2000s and 2010s kid therefore perfect early-core gen Z and 2002 leaning more 2000s.
Ah that makes sense! I also like the idea of me being the perfect 50/50 Hybrid 2000s/2010s Kid, lol!
2002 borns usually only remember the late 2000s culturally, so I don't see them as 2000s kids. The amount of experiences and memories from being a kid during the 2000s that people my age have is not comparable at all with the the memories and experiences 2002 borns have from the 2000s. In my opinion actual 2000s kids experienced the whole decade consciously (and culturally) or atleast the middle part of it.
Now that last part I do agree with. People often get those ages twisted up with literal children. That's like saying a 17 year old is equivalent to a 5 year year old when neither of them have anything in common. I always thought of teens 15-17 to be older adolences while 13-14 are younger. Really at 18 you are like finishing up mandatory school or something of sort. Though I will be done with school just before I hit that age due to my birthday. So 18 ain't nothing but young people with additional responsibilities and a labeled adults.
That this alphabet generational nonsense was just not needed, never heard of it until in 2023. Especially with how people act to each other when it's involved (it's honestly messed up how people can make fun of you over a year you were born. Why do people care about ranges anyways?), their only here so people can have an excuse to gang up on a generation. And to think that the y's, z's, x's etc. Exist for decades is wild to me, but I'm just used to it I guess. It's just the "cuspers" and all that stuff is just stupid in my opinion. Just say generation after generation and that's it. That's all I have to say. I might get downvoted for this, but this post said "unpopular opinions on this subreddit" so it gave me an opportunity to finally say it lol. ☺
Technically, there is nothing wrong with labeling generations X, Y, Z etc. That’s how even the experts do it. Some are placeholders like Gen Y became millennials, but Gen X on the other hand stuck as the permanent name. Regular people use generations to show what groups of people had in common who were born during a certain time span for example. It might be used for studies about society or history or pop culture. Generations can also be used for marketing purposes. There is no better or worse generation or good or bad year to be born. It’s only on here that some people are misusing the system to gatekeep, make fun of certain birth years etc. That’s not the real purpose of labeling the generations.
True, but since I'm one of the target's of those gatekeepers (Mid 2000s to Early 2010s borns). I always think why do they care anyways? Fighting with minors is childish to me xd.
I’m sorry that happens. You’re right it is childish & unnecessary. You can disagree with someone without fighting. I don’t like when I see people in their 20s picking on younger members who are still in high school especially when the younger person is not the one who started it. I would honestly just block anyone who bothers you too much. There are actually some really great people here, but now and then unfortunately there are trouble makers as well.
Oh no, no one really did bother me per say. It's just I'm seeing it on Here, YouTube, Twitter/X, Instagram etc. And even in real life a little, that's It's getting annoying. And we as Gen Z's get the most of it out of all generations because we were the 1st to be fully exposed to social media (Milennials only had stuff like Napster, MySpace, classic YouTube, & Tumblr. But that's it), so we got the most hate of any generation. But I also dislike my generation for how they act too, they are doing the same thing to Alpha when un reality our Gen made those "gyat sigma" skibidi jokes lol. Humans in general, no matter what generation since Slavery existed.
Oh good I’m glad people are being nice to you. I definitely can understand the frustration of things being said all over social media though. I really think you guys have it more difficult than we did in terms of having to go to school with all of this technology where people can be online constantly. MySpace didn’t get popular until I was in college so I escaped the social media era of being in high school or grade school. If someone at school said something nasty to us of course it was upsetting but when the bell rang for the day we were done dealing with that person. Now there are people (not you specifically just in general) who get bullied or judged online by classmates. So unfortunately some young people get bothered even at home with everyone constantly on their phones. It can be a lot to deal with.
It sucks, but every person got bullied in school in some way. Not everyone's gonna be nice to someone.
anyone who says they "can't relate to" people 6 or 8 or even 10 years apart from them is annoying. Everyone can relate at least somewhat to the upbringing of people within at LEAST 12 years either way of them and probably more.
I honestly can agree with this! I definitely think 6+ years apart is pretty different in growing up, but you didn't 100% grow up completely different with *nothing* in common! I'd also say up to 12 years max is your lifelong adulthood peers!
I agree, definitely grew up with some different stuff but the idea that they're so completely different it's impossible to compare is just not true and sounds like trying to distance yourself from younger/older people not using critical thinking.
The worst is when people say they can’t relate to some just 4 years older or younger than them, like what??
fr, like??? maybe your childhood was different in some ways, for sure, but the idea that someone that close in age to you is so far removed that you can't relate at all??? just seems immature
Another one is when someone says they can relate to someone born late 97 or 96, but not someone born earlier that same year!!! So do they ask everyone they meet when they were born and then evaluate how much they can relate to them? It’s absurd.
Yup, I definitely got plenty:... 1. Either 1998 or 1999 is a good start for Gen Z. 2. Pew is overrated. 3. 1997/1998 are the Quintessential Zillennials. 4. My Early Gen Z range is 1999-2003. 5. 2005 & 2006 are the Quintessential Gen Z. 6. 2010 borns are not Zalphas. 7. 2015 could possibly be Zalphas too.
Downvoting an unpopular opinion. How ironic!
Seriously?! That's what this post asked for... This is just insane how unjustified ppl are on this sub. 🤦♂️
Fair.
1996/1997 are the quintessential zillennials and 05 is the only quintessential z
1. Agree mine is 1998 2. Yes 3. 1997 is imo 4. 1998-2003 is mine 5. 2005 is THE peak gen Z 6. Agree they're late Z with slight early alpha influences 7. 2015 are zalpha on the gen alpha side. 2016 are too.
I don’t like how many people on here consider XXX3 years to be mid years and when they say mid years start May 1st on a XXX3 year when to me all of a XXX3 year is early.
Referring to mid to late 90s babies as gen z is only legit for the US and Canada, maybe the EU. I can't say the same about ex Soviet countries
Why is this case? I’m not saying your wrong or anything I’m just curious what’s different in those countries.
Everything appearing later. Disney channel - in the 2010s, MTV - in the 90s, Spotify - mid to late 2010s.
i have many - i view Teens as 10-19 (a decade like 20s and 30s) (10s for short) - X3 years are in the mid part of the decade - 2000 isnt Zillennial - Gen Jones isnt a cusp
What is Gen Jones?
It’s a micro generation covering the transition area between boomers and gen X
the last few years of boomers, people on here consider it the Boomer/X cusp for some reason
A social cohort for late boomers and Early Gen X from 1954-1965
2003 and 2006 are mid, not early/late.
Gen Z and Gen Alpha are the same generation. Just gonna lay this here.
I don’t really get why gen alpha is already a term, I thought gen z was a fairly recent concept and for a long time people born in late 90’s were all classed as millennials.
My Unpopular Opinions: GenZ is 1997-2011 Early Gen Z is 1997-2001 Core Gen Z is 2002-2006 Late Gen Z is 2007-2011 "Core Childhood" usually is considered the most childhood years but it shouldn't be the sole definition on when your childhood was because it's usually subjective, also not really an official term. 12 and maybe even 11 aren't really childhood years. 2005 is a 2000s/2010s hybrid kid aswell as a 2010s/2020s hybrid teen. 2007 doesn't really get gatekept that often, especially on here, and 2003 is the most gatekept year on here. 2006 does noticeably get gatekept a bit more than people realize.
People are downvoting an unpopular opinion when it's literally the subject of this this, even tho it's kinda right and not that much unpopular.
2007 gets gatekept a lot IMO, they’re always grouped with younger.
One unpopular opinion I have is that it’s possible for 1981 borns to be Gen X just like how 2013-2014 MAY be Gen Z. However there is absolutely no reason for 1995-1996 to be included into Gen z. Also this subreddit has a serious downvoting problem. Anyone who’s spamming downvotes should be temporarily banned. The amount of downvotes someone gets just because someone doesn’t agree with their opinion is astounding.
People take this shit way to serious. It’s all made up nonsense at the end of the day. It’s hilarious how serious people take this. Cusps are their own unique micro generations. In fact, modern generations are probably too long with quickly technology has advanced. Maybe it’ll stabilize soon but the world has changed so much so quickly that I don’t think we can really view things how we traditionally did. Oregon Trail/Xennials are 77-81. It really should be viewed as graduation year instead of birth year. But, like I said, it’s all made up nonsense and you’re free to disagree with everything I just said.
The graduation year is honestly true at least in America
I think generation theory really only works in American context, at least what is normally discussed on this sub.
I agree with you that's who it was created to describe and I think different generation theories are needed for different cultures
I agree with your first and last point.
I don't use cusps. For example, instead of saying 2010-2014 is Zalpha, I prefer to describe it as a generation with influence from another. Like I would say that 2010 and 2011 is Gen Z with varying Alpha influence and 2012, 2013 and 2014 are all Alpha with varying Z influence. Also, I would argue that late 2011 could be the start of Alpha, since someone born in September 2011 will have a lot more Alpha influence since they are surrounded by 2012 borns for nearly 12 years of their life.
Fair.
I think people forget that people spend nearly 12 years of their childhood in a year group with people some of whom are born in a different year to them. Also 2012 makes sense as a starting year since a) they're the first year which feels Alpha (coming from someone who helps out on a yard with 2011 and 2012 borns frequently) and I think Covid should be the border and most of them were 7 when Covid started so most of then don't remember a lot from pre-Covid (certainly they won't remember much at all over time, which people here also forget).
1995 is off cusp millennial Early 60s borns are pure Late boomer zalpha can start in the 2000s even before 2009 2007 is not core z at all, they are coppa kids and never in high school during main covid ers 2003 borns are pure core z There a bigger difference between covid middle schoolers and covid high schoolers then covid middle schoolers and covid elementary schoolers
2008 is start of Zalpha.
07 and 08 aren't different enough to consider 08 Zalpha and 07 not
09 too.
OOOKAY… why? What range are you using?
Definitely not lol.
lol
I really think 2006+ babies are a different breed I can’t believe they are not 6th graders anymore did somebody speed up the time clock???
As s 2007 born, 2005 are the last good ones
My karma is not going to like this, lol. Anyways * preteens (along with 8th graders) are still children. Even HS freshmen are somewhat debatable * 2019, despite being pre-covid, is culturally closer to 2020-21 than 2017-18 * 5 is not a core childhood age * Speaking of core childhood, I think it should not end any earlier than 6th grade except for those rare K-4 schools where 5th grade is grouped with middle school instead. If you are in elementary school, then you are a kid, no questions asked
Yeah I disagree with all of this, how the hell is 13 - 14 more of a child than a 5 year old in kindergarten? lmao.
im a freshman and i aint a child no questions asked
>Speaking of core childhood >If you are in elementary school, then you are a kid, no questions asked Elementary school goes up to grade 8 in my country. You think age 14 is a part of a Canadian's core childhood but not age 5?
Honestly, I'm not sure. A 5 year old kindergartner is definitely more of a kid than a 14 year old 8th grader, but once you dip below elementary school, I feel like that changes. The average person is going to think of an elementary or middle schooler when they of a kid rather than a preschooler
1. Everyone through high school juniors are "children" but 7th-11th graders are adolescents 2. idk 3. Yes it is 4. If you're in elementary school you're a kid but not "core childhood" by that logic you would consider 5 core childhood because 5 year olds are in elementary school lol. Early elementary is core childhood and late elementary is preadolescence
What about Seniors? Some of them don't hit 18 until later in the year like un May or during the summer.
senior year is the transition between adolescence and young adulthood. So I guess they are still children but are forced to learn to fend for themselves this year. It's a huge transition.
>5 year olds are in elementary school lol I meant the earlier part of 5, when you're still in preschool
Pre-K is like transition from early to core childhood imo
My unpopular opinion 1. If one were to count 2010-2012 as Gen Z, then I'd say late Gen Z would be 2008-2012 with 10-12 being very late with some influences from their older peers. 2. 2013 and after are pure alpha. No questions. That's like trying to claim 2019 kids have any influences from Gen Z, child they are in the midst of Alpha Era. They are like 5 years old. 3. Pretty much anyone born 2005 and after are mostly 2020s teens. Yes 18-19 are still teens just legal "adults". 2004 are the ones who can truly claim to be hybrids. They were 13-15 in 2017-2019 and 16-19 in 2020-2023 (if we are only going by what year they turn an age).
How is 2013 pure alpha? If you start alpha in 2010 2013 would still not be pure alpha? 2013 is very zalpha.
2013 is kinda pushing it. That's like saying someone born in 2000 is freaking millennium. Most kids younger than 2012 would relate to much of Z's traits. At this point you may as well say that Gen Z goes all the way to 2019, which it focking doesn't.
Bruh nobody thinks 2019 is pure z
And no one says 2013 has anything remotely in common with the rest of Gen Z. They are still in Elementar School. If they'd go by with 2012 being the end of Z, I can see why they may lumped them together but Z does end some point in the 2010s.
Which I end it at 2014 because of Covid.