Generation-X culture vs Boomer culture

[Ted 79]

I'm a late-Xer son of a 1940 Silent and a 1943 War Baby cusper.

Speaking only for myself: I have never hated Boomers, instead I've generally looked up to them and wished I'd lived through the times they did. But I don't understand them, and they often react badly to me.

The draft is a very Boomer perspective, and thus valuable for those who want to know what things look like to Boomers and why Boomers often react badly to Xers.

I had to laugh, though, because all the experiences you've had of "inexplicable hostility" from Xers, I've had from Boomers. It's a cultural clash, not one culture being evil. And I had to laugh again when you wrote about how easy it is to get along with Millennials...because sure it's easy. For Boomers. For Xers, no way.

I have had so many bad experiences with Millennials...and when I tried to explain this to a Millennial relative, he just took it as "Xers hate Millennials." (Sound familiar?)

Now to look at some of the specific cultural clashes you discuss.

You have had Xers accuse you of being disrespectful when you were trying to be respectful -- I have had Boomers do the same to me. Including one Boomer where I was bending over backwards to be respectful of both him and his opinion even though I disagreed, because I genuinely liked and admired him and usually agreed with him...yet he still became so enraged at me that he began announcing that if we'd been having this discussion in person, he'd physically beat me up. I still don't know what I did there.

I once had a Boomer boss *crying* as she asked why I treated a Silent coworker with more "respect" than I gave her. I was stunned and didn't know what to do or say, because I thought I had treated the Silent with BLATANT DISrespect, and her with respect. I gave her complete honesty -- to me, that's respect. Him, I placated and lied to and maneuvered around. Often in cahoots with her! To me, that's disrespect.

This suggests a possible explanation for your experiences of being treated with "respect" only to be attacked: You saw it as "respect," the Xer saw it as "disrespect."

Similarly, a possible explanation for Xer managers' sudden anger at you: You thought you were treating them with respect by saying, "I have to tell you I think this is the wrong decision, but after I've told you then I'll do it your way" -- but they took it as disrespect.

I think I understand why you see that as respect: It's respect for the manager's authority over you.

But, well, as Uzi (a fellow 1979 Xer) said on the Fourth Turning boards...Xers were raised without respect for authority. (It's not that we have no morals at all, we just have different morals than Boomers. If we had no morals at all, we would never get outraged, but as you know from experience, we do.)

I guess in Boomer culture, a person can happily do something they are sure is the wrong decision, if they have respect for the authority figure who told them to do it. That is foreign to Xers. From an Xer POV, if you *really* think it's the wrong decision, you'll refuse to do it. From an Xer POV, the only reason to ever do something you think is a bad idea is if someone directly forces you into it because they both can threaten you into it (can beat you up, can fire you, etc.) and also are too stupid and/or overemotional to listen to reason. Xers only ever obey authority figures we've expressed disagreement with if we're being *forced* into it -- ie, we fear being fired. (And obviously, we feel no obligation whatsoever toward someone who has bullied us into doing something wrong. We may even feel vengeful toward such a person.)

So if you say, "I think this is the wrong decision, but I'll do as I'm told anyway," an Xer hears, "I disrespect you so much I won't even do you the courtesy of insisting on doing things the right way. Instead, I'll placate you, because you're too stupid and overemotional to even deserve a chance to change your mind."

To you, you were being respectful, but from an Xer POV, you were being disrespectful, and that's why you got outrage. The problem wasn't disagreeing at all -- the problem was saying you'd do as you were told anyway. I bet you would get much better reactions if you simply said, "I don't think this is the right decision," period.

But maybe not, because the flip side of the above is -- Xers do respect *experience*. To the point that if we only *think* there *might* be a problem, we won't say anything and will just do what the person whose experience we respect says. Yes, we do see "I *think* this *might* be the wrong decision" as pointless/rude nitpicking.

Xers need to learn to tolerate more "nitpicking," because it's not always as pointless as it might initially appear. But Boomers need to learn not to come off as placating, because Xers experience that as EXTREME disrespect. So your, "Don't plead," is right on -- but you need to add, "Don't say you're doing as you're told despite disagreement."

You'll probably get better results if you instead say, "I'm probably just nitpicking, but I feel an obligation to say that [describe the specifics] might be a problem."

Period. Absolutely *do not emphasize* or really even mention how you respect their authority and so you'll do it their way anyway! Go ahead and do that, if they don't listen to your "nitpicking" -- just don't say you're going to.

...

I think in trying to understand other generations, we need to remember one of S&H's main points: That each generation focuses on what went wrong for it, and tries to correct that in both society and in younger generations.

One example is as already mentioned: Xers were raised without respect for authority. Another example: Losts had a very strong prohibition against tattling. They so took it for granted that when directing the raising of Silents, they didn't think to encourage parents to teach kids not to tattle. The result was that Silents were raised without a prohibiton on tattling. And as Chas '88 pointed out on the TFT boards -- the tattling Silent is a stock character in films (he gave /9 to 5/ as an example), because such people are (or were when young) common IRL.

What Losts did have a problem with, and Silents were therefore raised with a strong prohibition on, is bullying. Silents were trained so intensely and so early in life not to bully that they grew up assuming not bullying was just instinctive. They taught little Xers not to tattle, but they didn't teach us not to bully. They didn't teach us how to be polite or how not to run roughshod over others without even meaning to. The result was that Xers have a serious problem with bullying. Just like the Lost.

Similarly...Xers, the Silents who controlled the culture around raising us, and the Boomers in between, all have as one of our values, "Don't talk about people behind their back." Not that we never do it, but we all recognize it as wrong and an attack. But Boomers have that prohibition so strongly that it didn't occur to them that Millennials needed to be taught this. They focused instead on teaching Millennials to express their feelings, but also not to hurt others' feelings. If you don't have the prohibition on backbiting, then the obvious way to both express your feelings and not hurt others' is: To express your negative feelings about someone *behind their back* rather than to their face.

And this is what Millennials do. For example, it was not until Millennials got online in large numbers that Livejournal (etc.) groups began popping up that were *specifically dedicated* to "ranting" about specific people or groups *behind their backs*.

Now since I was raised with the value not to do this, I could say: "Millennial culture is evil!" And I do feel outraged that Millennials do this, and I do think it's wrong. But well...Millennials were never taught *why* it's wrong. So here's why: This starts rumors that may *or may not* be true. Since it's behind the person's back, they aren't able to correct false rumors. And most people who hear that someone did or is a (fill in the blank) don't ask the person about it; they just change their behavior toward the person. The result is an environment in which people suddenly, mysteriously change their behavior toward you, and you never know why, you never know it's because of a false rumor, and so you never have the opportunity to correct the false rumor. That is why talking behind someone's back is at least an attack, and I would argue also wrong.

You as a Boomer already know all that -- but it's an example of what is needed. What Xers need from you, then, is a similar explanation as to why those of your values that you've noticed Xers lack, actually are valuable. Because we grew up without them and have no way of knowing.

In fact, I suspect such examples are one aspect of the elder Boomer's "Grey Champion" behavior.

[JR_in_Mass]

Terrific post, very insightful. Thank you.

Looking forward to other responses, lots to work with here.

[John]

Dear Ted,

Thanks for your posting. It contains a lot of valuable
information.

> You have had Xers accuse you of being disrespectful when you were
> trying to be respectful -- I have had Boomers do the same to
> me. Including one Boomer where I was bending over backwards to be
> respectful of both him and his opinion even though I disagreed,
> because I genuinely liked and admired him and usually agreed with
> him...yet he still became so enraged at me that he began
> announcing that if we'd been having this discussion in person,
> he'd physically beat me up. I still don't know what I did
> there.

I remember when I did that to someone. It was in 1985 when someone, a
young girl named Dawn, who admired me made some changes to the online
forum system we were using, and I really freaked out at her. I was
going through my divorce and was very depressed, and took it out on
her. After a few weeks, I just shut off my modem and didn't go online
again for over a year. I was really ashamed of myself for what I had
done, and I really learned a lesson because I've never done anything
like that again.

> But, well, as Uzi (a fellow 1979 Xer) said on the Fourth Turning
> boards...Xers were raised without respect for authority. (It's not
> that we have no morals at all, we just have different morals than
> Boomers. If we had no morals at all, we would never get outraged,
> but as you know from experience, we do.)

So how would you characterize Xer morals?

By the way, look at the quotes from Randolph Silliman Bourne, which I
believe characterize Lost/Xer morals. Or use the link to read
his entire book.

> To you, you were being respectful, but from an Xer POV, you were
> being disrespectful, and that's why you got outrage. The problem
> wasn't disagreeing at all -- the problem was saying you'd do as
> you were told anyway. I bet you would get much better reactions if
> you simply said, "I don't think this is the right decision,"
> period.

> But maybe not, because the flip side of the above is -- Xers do
> respect *experience*. To the point that if we only *think* there
> *might* be a problem, we won't say anything and will just do what
> the person whose experience we respect says. Yes, we do see "I
> *think* this *might* be the wrong decision" as pointless/rude
> nitpicking.

> Xers need to learn to tolerate more "nitpicking," because it's not
> always as pointless as it might initially appear. But Boomers need
> to learn not to come off as placating, because Xers experience
> that as EXTREME disrespect. So your, "Don't plead," is right on --
> but you need to add, "Don't say you're doing as you're told
> despite disagreement."

> You'll probably get better results if you instead say, "I'm
> probably just nitpicking, but I feel an obligation to say that
> [describe the specifics] might be a problem."

> Period. Absolutely *do not emphasize* or really even mention how
> you respect their authority and so you'll do it their way anyway!
> Go ahead and do that, if they don't listen to your "nitpicking" --
> just don't say you're going to.

This is the portion of your comments that I've been giving a great
deal of thought to in the last few days. And I've gone through all
the incidents I wrote about and replayed them in my mind to see if
your analysis applies.

First off, I don't actually say, "This is the right way to do it, but
I'll do it your way because you're the boss and I respect you." That
may be what I'm thinking, but I would never say that.

What I say is, "We may have a problem." And I explain the problem.
If the boss totally ignores me, I just say OK.

One of the examples that came to mind was a situation that arose in my
experience with General Dynamics about six months before I was fired.
One of the Gen-X supervisors called a group meeting to discuss a
documentation project. Each of the developers would have to write
some documentation, and a complete set of manuals would be written
within a month.

He made the announcement and asked if there were any questions. There
was total silence for a moment, but of course I couldn't just let the
moment pass. I should say that I'd been working with these people for
well over a year, so I felt comfortable being open with them. I said,
"If you're looking for someone to comment, then I will. There's no
way that this is going to work. This is a huge amount of work that
each person will have to do in addition to his regular work. There's
no way that this can be done in anything like a month."

The supervisor just smiled and ignored me, and of course I was right
and he was wrong, and that was probably one of the reasons I was
fired.

But the point of this story is that I wasn't nitpicking. It was
perfectly obvious that what he was proposing was impossible, but
he proposed it anyway.

So what I'm saying is something that I've said in the book over and
over. It has nothing to do with how I make the statement that there's
something wrong. The Gen-Xers I've been dealing with already KNEW
that their projects were failing. What they were angry at me about is
because they wanted to continue to collect salaries on a project they
knew would fail, because the alternative would be not to have the
project. (It never occurred to them that there was another
alternative -- to fix the problems, which is something that I could
have helped with. But that would have required taking advice from a
loathsome Boomer.) The crux of the matter is that they were laying
the groundwork to blame other people for their own failures, and when
I pipe up and say that there's something wrong, it puts their
blame-someone-else plans into danger. In fact, by firing me,
I become a convenient person to blame.

And so I would have to disagree that couching criticisms in words like
"I'm just nitpicking, but ..." doesn't solve the problem, because the
ONLY way to survive is to say nothing and just swallow and proceed
with the wrong way. If I were smart, then I would act that way, but
clearly I'm too dumb to do that.

This is the dilemma that I've described over and over. An employee in
this situation is being asked to do something incompetent or possibly
illegal, and has to decide how far to go in violating professional,
moral, ethical or legal standards, versus opening his mouth and
getting fired.

There's one other point worth repeating, and I also made this point
with some of Higgie's stories. When Boomers are bosses, they may get
mad at you and ignore you, but they generally won't try to screw you
and take revenge against you for being right. Gen-Xers will actively
look for ways to get revenge. Recall that the entire financial crisis
was caused by the creation of tens of trillions of dollars in
fraudulent securities. Gen-Xers created these securities to get
revenge against Boomers for "causing" the tech bubble crash. Getting
revenge is a big part of, and highly approved in the Gen-X culture,
while getting revenge is considered shameful in the Boomer culture.

> One example is as already mentioned: Xers were raised without
> respect for authority. Another example: Losts had a very strong
> prohibition against tattling. They so took it for granted that
> when directing the raising of Silents, they didn't think to
> encourage parents to teach kids not to tattle. The result was that
> Silents were raised without a prohibiton on tattling. And as Chas
> '88 pointed out on the TFT boards -- the tattling Silent is a
> stock character in films (he gave /9 to 5/ as an example), because
> such people are (or were when young) common IRL.

This prohibition against "tattling" is another way of describing a
major point of the book -- that Gen-Xers refuse to blame one another
for even the most heinous crimes. Thus, the Justice Department
refuses to investigate and prosecute the banksters who caused the
financial crisis, and the Lost Generation Germans refused to oppose
the Holocaust.

> You as a Boomer already know all that -- but it's an example of
> what is needed. What Xers need from you, then, is a similar
> explanation as to why those of your values that you've noticed
> Xers lack, actually are valuable. Because we grew up without them
> and have no way of knowing.

Well, hopefully my book does that.

John

[OLD1953]

There's a theme that I've seen in my own experience in the computer
industry, and that I've read, and it's this: Gen-Xers think that
Boomers are incredibly stupid, and they take it as a prized
accomplishment to talk a Boomer into something. The motivation is to
prove to themselves and each other that they can do anything they
want, and nobody can stop them.

John

I've see a good deal of that myself. It is also true that many/most Boomers worship youth, and try to act, appear and even lie about their ages to "stay young", while I've noticed a number of Xers that do the opposite and attempt to appear older, very likely to more easily manipulate their superiors in an organization. This does make it more difficult to separate out who is actually in what generation. As for the obvious (but seldom mentioned) sexual aspects inside business, I've always believed that with 50 good looking prostitutes that were both sophisticated and personally loyal to me, I could rule any company with an iron fist and do whatever I wanted, whether I worked for that company or not. Drugs and sexual favors have ruled the business world for decades, at least since the mid 80's. Wall Street lives for hookers and blow - a quote, but I don't remember who said it.

That said, it's also true that many organizations have a selection process for management that is driven from below as much as from above. A lot of questions get asked about "who can you work with" when there is a directors position open. I've seen some really stupid and easily manipulated people get pushed into those positions by such a process, and the intent was to get someone there that would allow anything that could be hidden from the board. As long as you are making money, the board often won't look into anything. The same goes for unions, only there it's a combination of company pressure and pressure from whatever radicals are in the union for reasons besides a paycheck. Which explains the crazy decisions by unions and why they get crazier over time.

[Trevor]

All right, I remember an earlier discussion in which Russia in WWII was considered a mid-cycle period and a possible reason for why they've gone an unusually long time without a crisis war. I'm of the opinion that it was a First Turning Reset, due to the brutality of the invasion.

If the war is very significant, it is probably a crisis war. If it is not significant than it cannot be a crisis war.
If the war has high genocidal violence, it must be a crisis war. If the war does not have high genocidal violence, it probably isn't a crisis war.
If the war is highly politicized, it cannot be a crisis war. If the war has non-political pursuits, it probably is a crisis war.

I'll be using the Generational Dynamics algorithm, in addition to the modifications previously made by Matt1989. http://generationaldynamics.com/forum/v ... c.php?t=84

Step 1: evaluate significance + sign indicates significance

Was the nation's foreign policy greatly changed for decades to come (+), or did the previous foreign policy remain (-)?
Before the Great Patriotic War, Russia adapted a policy of "Socialism in One Country". Afterwards, they changed their policy and did everything they could to spread their ideology throughout the world. On this, I would have to say (+)

Was the nation's economic policy greatly changed for decades to come (+), or did the previous policy remain (-)?
I don't see any real changes for their economic policy, so I would say (-)

Did the war have a decisive conclusion (+), or was there a stalemate (-)?
The Soviets marched into Germany and captured the eastern half, including Berlin, so yes (+)

Is/Will the war be remembered for centuries (+), or will it be forgotten (-)?
They still celebrate May 9, 1945 as Victory Day, so I'd say yes (+)

Was there a major governmental change (+)?
No, the Communists continued to control Russia (-)

Was a historically important or major city captured (+)?
The Russians succeeded in capturing the capital of Germany and earlier, lost Kiev and came close to losing Moscow, so yes (+)

Was there a major social change (I'm thinking of stuff like the end of slavery or serfdom) as a result of the time period (+)?
The Russian Orthodox church was revived, A new patriarch was elected, theological schools were opened, and thousands of churches began to function, so I'd say (+)

Did the nation pursue punitive punishments against the opposition (-)?
Hard to imagine how the Russians could have punished them more, as they turned East Germany into a puppet state, so (-)
(+)=5 (-)=3 Dividing line: +1

[Trevor]

(cont)

How do we determine the intensity, willpower, and energy?

Was there a pursued desire for ethnic cleansing without much national opposition (++)?
When the Red Army approached Germany, civilians fled for their lives and sometimes even committed suicide when they learned the Russians were coming. Not only that, but they were told: "Do not count days. Do not count miles. Count Bodies; count only the number of Germans you have killed. (++)

Was there a sustained program of mass murders, mass rapes, massacres, torture, destruction of entire towns (with inhabitants), forced relocation of huge populations of people - sustained over a period of months (a single battle doesn't count) (++)?
Let's see: they worked hundreds of thousands of German POWs to death, often shot them when trying to surrender, burned towns to the ground on their way to Berlin, raped about 2 million women and girls. I could go on and on about this (++)

Were civilians targeted without much national opposition (++), or did the nation go out of its way to protect civilians (--)?
They didn't give a damn about protecting German civilians; the Soviets killed hundreds of thousands of them (++)

Is there a well-defined a clear climax as described by Strauss and Howe (++), or not (-)?
I would say the final climax was the Prague Offensive and the Battle of Berlin and considering the energy, I'd say yes. (++)

Was there a "D-Day" type mass assault, a willingness to sacrifice one's own forces for victory (+), or not (-)?
The Russians were determined to defeat the Germans, no matter what kind of casualties they took, so (+)

Was there a refusal to capitulate, a willingness to fight to the death, even when defeat is almost certain (+), or was there an early capitulation (-)?
In the early days of the conflict, efforts were made to negotiate, but Hitler rebuffed them. Eventually, though, they fought to the death, in part because there was little choice, so I'm not sure about this one

Were the goals pursued very enthusiastically (+), or somewhat passively (-)?
They suffered greatly under the Germans and unlike during Napoleon's invasion, were willing to follow them into Germany and crush them (+)

Was there a massive revolt that spiraled out of control (+)?
This was an external war, so N/A

Was there a massive surprise attack on the enemy (+)?
No, this was an unexpected invasion by the Germans (-)

Was there a scorched earth policy to be used on enemy territory (+)?
It was used both against the Germans when they closed in on them and they did so in their own country to hinder them (+)

Did the nation perpetuate devastation on the enemy (+)?
Just look at the pictures of Berlin to answer that question (+)

Conclusion: yes (+10+

How do we determine political considerations?

+ sign indicates high politicization

Did the war have sustained high public support when things went wrong (--), or was it unpopular (+)?
Yes, it had high public support, especially in the days when it appears as if the Germans were going to win the war. (--)

If unpopular, was there simply political controversy (+), as opposed to violent conflict (--)? N/A

Were there political pauses (+), or were such pauses unthinkable (-)?
There were no truces, no attempts at a cease-fire, and pauses were considered anathema (-)

Was the cause of the conflict based on old fault lines (-), or was it a relatively new issue (+)?
This wasn't completely new to them, as they had fought in the previous world war, but there was no long-standing fault line (+)

If a civil war, was it between political parties (+), or was it between ethnic or religious groups (-)?
This is an external war, so N/A

Was the nation reluctant to go to war after it was triggered (+), or did they pursue it enthusiastically (-)?
Their survival was at stake, so they pursued it enthusiastically (-)

Was the cause of the war exogenous (+)?
Yes, an expected invasion by Germany

Was there a use of reasonable triggering political objectives for initial mobilization or termination (+)?
No, they would not be satisfied with anything less than the destruction of Nazi Germany (-)

Was initiation part of a power grab (+)?
Russia was not the country who began the war, so (-)

There was some at first, but once it became clear that their survival was at stake, it stopped, so I'd have to say that the politicization was low.

[John]

A reader has asked me to "name names" of people who should be
investigated and prosecuted. In response, I'm providing a
short list of the many, many articles I've written on this
subject.

** Stories of massive generational fraud and corruption continue to pour out
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... 14#e090414


** Financial Crisis Inquiry hearings provide 'smoking gun' evidence of widespread criminal fraud
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... king100414



** The Legacy of World War I and the Holocaust
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... b#e120221b


** Proposed explanation for repeated Jewish persecution throughout history
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... b#e120205b


** 11-Feb-12 News -- Price/earnings ratio (valuations) trending toward collapse
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... b#e120211b



** 23-Oct-10 News -- Foreclosure crisis will cost $10 trillion
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... 23#e101023



******** Naming names

In the following articles, I name specific names of people and quote
them as lying on CNBC and Bloomberg TV, usually about stock
valuations. These people all make 7 digit salaries, and they earn it
by lying on tv to protect their clients. CNBC and BBTV go along with
it to protect their advertisers.

In every one of these cases, an SEC / Justice Department is warranted,
but the SEC and the Justice Department refuse to investigate or
prosecute anyone for financial crimes. This attitude of unwillingness
to prosecute serious crimes is an almost universal characteristic of
Generation-X that is NOT shared by Boomers or Silents.

*** Professor Jeremy Siegel of the Wharton School
** 14-Apr-12 World View -- Wharton School's Jeremy Siegel is lying about stock valuations
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... 14#e120414


*** Ron Baron, chairman and CEO of Baron Capital,</a>
** 11-Feb-12 News -- Price/earnings ratio (valuations) trending toward collapse
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... b#e120211b


*** Abby Joseph Cohen, head of Global Markets Institute Management at Goldman Sachs
** 5-Oct-10 News -- Goldman Sachs's Cohen gives price/earnings fantasy
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... 05#e101005


*** Hank Smith, the Chief Investment Officer of Equity for Haverford Quality Investing
** 28-Oct-11 News -- Markets explode on crazy Rube Goldberg eurozone deal
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... b#e111028b


*** Charles Bobrinskoy, Vice Chairman, Director of Research, Ariel Investments
** 24-Aug-10 News -- Ariel's Bobrinskoy gives price/earnings fantasy
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... 24#e100824


John