Slashdot Mirror


Tech Tools Fostering "Mini Generation Gaps"

Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times has an interesting report on the iGeneration, born in the '90s and this decade, comparing them to the Net Generation, born in the 1980s. The Net Generation spend two hours a day talking on the phone and still use e-mail frequently while the iGeneration — conceivably their younger siblings — spends considerably more time texting than talking on the phone, pays less attention to television than the older group, and tends to communicate more over instant-messenger networks. 'People two, three or four years apart are having completely different experiences with technology,' says Lee Rainie, director of the Pew Research Center's Internet and American Life Project. 'College students scratch their heads at what their high school siblings are doing, and they scratch their heads at their younger siblings. It has sped up generational differences.' Dr. Larry Rosen, a professor of psychology at California State University, says that the iGeneration, unlike their older peers, expect an instant response from everyone they communicate with, and don't have the patience for anything less. 'They'll want their teachers and professors to respond to them immediately, and they will expect instantaneous access to everyone, because after all, that is the experience they have growing up,' says Rosen." Read below for another intra-generational wrinkle.
Another intra-generational gap is the iGeneration comfort in multi-tasking. Studies show that 16- to 18-year-olds perform seven tasks, on average, in their free time — like texting on the phone, sending instant messages, and checking Facebook while sitting in front of the television; while people in their early 20s can handle only six, and those in their 30s about five and a half. "That versatility is great when they're killing time, but will a younger generation be as focused at school and work as their forebears?" writes Brad Smith. "I worry that young people won't be able to summon the capacity to focus and concentrate when they need to," says Vicky Rideout, a vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation.

34 of 322 comments (clear)

  1. Bullshit level: High - Storm likely. by sakdoctor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I guess I'm Net generation. Except that doesn't sound right for anyone I know of my age group.
    Furthermore, I've always adopted the best tools for the job, and ignored blatant fads such as twitter.

    As for multi-tasking; Again, not a generation issue, as task switching just interrupts. Texting and facebook updating is a leisure activity, and doesn't mix with work at all.

    1. Re:Bullshit level: High - Storm likely. by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Furthermore, I've always adopted the best tools for the job, and ignored blatant fads such as twitter.

      Exactly. I was born in the early 1970s and I've used the Net and electronic communications in general since the early-to-mid 1980s. I use text messages. I used to pay much more attention to the TV than I do now.

      These distinctions, I think, are artificial at best, and at worst, stereotyping.

    2. Re:Bullshit level: High - Storm likely. by fast+turtle · · Score: 5, Funny

      Get Off My Lawn Kids

      Having been classified as ADHD in the early 70's it's so nice to finally get my revenge now that everyone has been infected with the damn Attention Deficit Syndrome. Those who don't learn to focus and develop short term memory are bound to fail and I can sincerely state "Welcome to my World" - sukkers.

      --
      Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
    3. Re:Bullshit level: High - Storm likely. by c_forq · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've always adopted the best tools for the job, and ignored blatant fads such as twitter

      What? Sometimes twitter is the best tool for the job. I was born in the mid-80's, and have found twitter to be a great tool for meeting friends at the pub. It is more effective than a facebook update or mass text.

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    4. Re:Bullshit level: High - Storm likely. by RobertM1968 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Agreed... my own experience is this article is nonsense and not indicative of such as a whole.

      I've been using computers since 1979 (at the schools I went to), started programming in BASIC back then, worked my way up. I'd been using BBS's since the first computer I owned - which was an IBM PC Portable (an IBM XT in a suitcase sized case with amber screen). I was in the first bunch of people to actually use the Internet (I used OS/2 almost exclusively, and we had actual Internet access long before Windows - while Windows users were suckered... I mean stuck with AOL or NetCom). Nowadays, besides the "Net Generation" stuff, I regularly text, IM, use Facebook, read blogs, etc - along with all of the other "iGeneration" stuff. And accessing all my stuff from my phone (TMo G1) when I am not in front of the computer... email, visual voicemail, IM, chat, text messaging, web, Facebook, etc.

      So, if this "old dog can learn new tricks" and my friends have as well... I doubt there is any real divide as indicated by the article. But I could be wrong... most of my friends are very tech savvy - but even so, I doubt the "divide" is anything to speak of. Even my mom text messages and such.

    5. Re:Bullshit level: High - Storm likely. by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...You are on Slashdot. You are not the norm. The fact you are even on this site shows that you are more inclined to use a computer than other people your age.

      As for TV, the quality of programming has gone downhill, even news shows are nothing more than glorified tabloids. Networks that used to have interesting programming has shifted to more crap. Discovery is more about blowing stuff up than explaining science, the History channel seems to be nothing more than WWII and explosions.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    6. Re:Bullshit level: High - Storm likely. by icebike · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I guess I'm Net generation. Except that doesn't sound right for anyone I know of my age group.
      Furthermore, I've always adopted the best tools for the job, and ignored blatant fads such as twitter.

      For work issues, I don't even answer email immediately, because I have no intention of serving as a brain trust for people who will not think. I let them age. The more I get from a single source the more I let them age.

      For recreational use, I still prefer an email for anything other than the "What time will you arrive" question via text.

      Thinking carefully, I can not come up with a single person I care to follow on twitter, but it is nice for breaking news issues if you are a news junkie.

      I think we are breeding the first generation of the BORG. People who can't think and can't act without first checking in with the collective.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    7. Re:Bullshit level: High - Storm likely. by RDW · · Score: 5, Interesting

      'Texting and facebook updating is a leisure activity, and doesn't mix with work at all.'

      I wonder how many of the other supposed differences are really down to the younger generation being, well, younger? A text message is probably cheaper than a voice call, which is handy if you're on a limited budget with a PAYG phone. A school or college age kid may have a wider social network than an older person in a full-time job, so online networking tools could be more useful. There be may less tendency to veg out in front of passive TV entertainment like an exhausted wage slave if you're out enjoying yourself all the time. Multitasking could be less difficult for a younger brain, etc. Of course, these are just the senile ramblings of an ageing mind, so take them with a pinch of salt. And get off my lawn.

    8. Re:Bullshit level: High - Storm likely. by FuckingNickName · · Score: 4, Insightful

      glorifying manual labor

      TV = leisure.

      When most people are working in a factory, they want to come home and dream of the stars.

      When most people are in the educated middle class, they play with the stars at work, realise not every day's a Moon landing, and want to come home and dream of actually being able to build something in a weekend that works.

      It's not that leisure is dumbing down per se, it's that work requires you to be less dumb than ever before. Entertainment is a break from that.

    9. Re:Bullshit level: High - Storm likely. by value_added · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So, if this "old dog can learn new tricks" and my friends have as well...

      The question that I'd like answered is whether the new dogs can learn what the old dogs have learned, or whether they're too enamoured of (or distracted by) gadgets and interfaces so as to believe no such effort is necessary.

    10. Re:Bullshit level: High - Storm likely. by PyroMosh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I was born in 79, and while I think the article is exaggerated a bit, I'd say it's basically accurate from my experience.

      I suspect that you're doing something people do all too often: seeing others through the lens other your own worldview, and being unable to imagine otherwise.

      As others have pointed out; your very presence here on Slashdot proves you're not the norm for your, or any generation. People here use alternative OSes, (and know what an OS is, for that matter), terminal services, were on BBSes when they came out, and are generally more "wired" and comfortable with technology in general than the general populace.

      Yes, lots of people are on Facebook. That doesn't prove anything. Facebook is just the new "cool" communication medium that everyone jumped on (last cycle it was MySpace).

      I will cay this, though - While I think the author's data is basically correct, I'm not sure all of the conclusions they draw from their data are correct. For instance, the Pwe study he cites mentions a marked decrease in usage of IMs between teens and 20-somethings. Well, I'm 30. And I know I used IM constantly in high school, and through my early 20s. As I grew older, I used it less and less. Likewise, all my friends who I used to IM with are in the same boat. For us, it wasn't a correlation of generation, but of simple age, and where we are in our lives.

      Teens go to more concerts and play more sports than their 20-something counterparts too. This isn't a function of "generations", but of simple age.

      I actually suspect that if a formal study was done, following folks usage patterns across generations for a long period of time, that you'd see my generation at 20 used IM more than the current crop of 20-year-olds. We didn't have Facebook and Twitter, or even text messages. IM, email, and the phone were basically it for us. So we used IM quite extensively. The average kid today lives much more by his or her cell phone than their PC compared to how my "generation" did.

    11. Re:Bullshit level: High - Storm likely. by demonlapin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And subject to time-of-life constraints.

      A high schooler will use IM because they, and all their friends, go to school and come home at the same time - everybody's there - and because they can discuss forbidden topics without it being obvious to parents. A college student or recent grad will be much more interested in the FB/Twitter update experience as they plan their evenings. And someone with a home and kids will appreciate that using a phone as a phone means that your hands are free and your eyes are not occupied - so you can spot when the three-year-old is about to see if daddy's PS3 likes carrots.

    12. Re:Bullshit level: High - Storm likely. by tengu1sd · · Score: 3, Funny
      >>> When someone starts talking to you, you have two options: a) schedule them in with the rest, and make them believe you're not paying attention (and/or are unable to, hence ADHD), or b) throw your whole state of mind out the window, and listen to their highly informative and productive inane ramblings.

      It's called marriage.

  2. Let me get out my violin... by Pluvius · · Score: 5, Funny

    They'll want their teachers and professors to respond to them immediately, and they will expect instantaneous access to everyone

    And they're going to be quickly disappointed.

    Rob

    1. Re:Let me get out my violin... by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A failure to out grow the "Are We There Yet" syndrome.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    2. Re:Let me get out my violin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      They'll want their teachers and professors to respond to them immediately, and they will expect instantaneous access to everyone

      And they're going to be quickly disappointed.

      Rob

      Dammit, we are tired of waiting for quick disappointment! We demand INSTANT disappointment!

    3. Re:Let me get out my violin... by sohp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's OK, they'll get their comeuppance when they go into the workforce and find management also expects instantaneous access to them -- 24/7/365.

    4. Re:Let me get out my violin... by Grundlefleck · · Score: 5, Informative

      Dammit, we are tired of waiting for quick disappointment! We demand INSTANT disappointment!

      I've been providing this to women for years!

      --
      I accept I know nothing. Insulting my ignorance is wasted on me.
  3. One _chooses_ to stagnate, in large part by sznupi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm from the beginning of the 80s...and not only that, I'm from a country that was under Soviet influence. Meaning "radio, telephone and TV" for a few decades; few generations knew nothing else. Till the first half of 90s I knew nothing else.

    And yet, when reading TFS, I have a strong impression its description of people born in the 90s and 00s fits nicely to me. I guess in large part because I fully realize "our times were better" is only BS meant to make oneself feel better about youth that has passed or is passing away. And it causes harm by unreasonably valuing the past above present, which is almost universally better. You only have to embrace it (well, I do pick what I want; but the time of introduction doesn't play big role)

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter
    1. Re:One _chooses_ to stagnate, in large part by PitaBred · · Score: 3, Informative

      Some people keep learning and changing as they get older. The vast majority do not... they stick with what they learned when they were kids, habits and so on, and that's that. You're an aberration ;)

    2. Re:One _chooses_ to stagnate, in large part by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Same here. Born in the USSR in mid-80s, and I've first seen a PC (which was also the first programmable computer to me) in 1995. Cellphones came a lot later, too - I've only got a personal one in 2000. Internet? Don't recall now, but it was late 90s, and even then it was dial-up, payed per-minute, with rather insane prices, which effectively rules out many things (e.g. IM).

      And yet, I don't watch TV, I prefer SMS to voice calls (both sending and receiving), and I use IM more often than email.

      Then again, my motivation is different than the one claimed in TFA ("expecting immediate response"); for SMS, for example, it's quite the opposite - it doesn't require the person receiving them to pay immediate attention, but lets them respond at leisure. I appreciate when people are considerate of my time like that, and try to be considerate of theirs. And with IM, it's just more convenient, UI-wise, for short messages on no particular topic, compared to email, but also doesn't require immediate reply (as evidenced by the fact that any decent IM network these days lets one send messages to offline users; hey, even MSN/Live learned that trick!).

      I also agree with your reasoning as to why you prefer all those things in general. Progress is good; why wouldn't I embrace it?

  4. Instant response? I don't think so. by hackwrench · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dr. Larry Rosen, a professor of psychology at California State University, says that the iGeneration, unlike their older peers, expect an instant response from everyone they communicate with, and don't have the patience for anything less.

    I thought that one of the benefits of texting was that you don't have to have a response immediately, or even read it immediately.

  5. Patience by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Which all sounds like a polite way of saying that kids these days have been spoiled. Instant gratification, be it through next-day felivery net-based purchases, simplistic video games or instantly downloaded media, means they have no patience.

    Younger people scratch their heads in amazement at the things people of my generation and older have done that required supreme patience, whether learning a complex skill or finely crafting a model. This comes right on the heels of lacking discipline. If you can't see the value or take the time to perfect anything, how will you ever get good at anything except the trivial?

    Oh, and get off my lawn.

    --
    Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
    altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
  6. It was better in the old days... by Baron_Yam · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When I was a child, there was no public Internet. In my late teens we had dial-up web sites that would pass messages back and forth with each other as far as a local call would go.

    I don't miss those days - I think information should be available more or less instantly 24/7 if possible.

    However, the current constant phone texting, Facebook, etc crap is just that, crap. It's electronic substitution for true socializing, and I can't help but feel that when a bunch of people stand around unable to interact with the people in their immediate vicinity because they're texting with someone who couldn't be bothered to actually show up... well, I think there's something wrong with that.

    Sometimes the younger generations ARE wrong. I think the problem is these technologies are fad technologies and the people making them popular haven't outgrown them yet.

    Call me if the text-aholics of today are still rabidly texting when they're 30.

    1. Re:It was better in the old days... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let "true socializing" mean socializing with uninteresting people in your local neighborhood and "false socializing" mean socializing within boundaryless global pools of people who share your interests.

      My brother has met all kinds of people to go off-roading with in his larger than local sphere. That kind of possibility simply wasn't there before instant messaging made everyone seem closer to their shared interests. I'm certainly no authority on socializing, but I don't believe that there's any social sense of being a human being that's lost when you socialize over a text medium vs in person. If anything, it allows us to socialize with more people than ever before.

      Only thing that's not great about it is that we are likely to be more exposed to social networks we do not agree with, which may cause larger conflicts vs smaller isolated instances of ostracization. But that's inherent in the risks of globalization as a whole.

  7. Too true by Icarium · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm in my early thirties and I avoid multitasking like the plague. My younger colleagues and siblings seem to have no problems with doing several things at once - but the flip side is they end up doing many things twice simply because they sacrifice focus for versatility. They're so busy trying to do too many things at once that they rarely get anything done properly.

    As for being always in contact, I couldn't care less. I'll usually answer as soon as possible, but I have no qualms when it comes to ignoring calls or messages if I'm busy with something, or simply don't feel like talking to someone. I don't expect people to be available on my schedule and see no reason why I am obligated to be always available when it suits them.

  8. I don't have time to read this... by erroneus · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... would someone just FAX it to me and I'll read it while I'm on the toilet?

  9. Calling BS by clinko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would like to add this one:

    As a member of the "Net Generation", I feel we have tuned ourselves to calling out Bullshit...
    We have an ability to figure out that some stuff is the result of marketing vs. actual Buzz. That's why fake "viral videos" are so painful to watch.

    Examples:
    - Cyber Monday (We know this WAS fake, but stores use it to market now)
    - MySpace Buzz (We knew this was dead years ago)
    - CNN trying to be "hip" (We saw this from a mile away)
    - The ACTUAL relevancy of Twitter vs. what is said on TV (Regis has a twitter account, it's officially uncool)
    - 3DTV (A new one from this week due to CES. Seriously, I/We're not feeling it)

    Now we can easily add the phrases "iGeneration" and "Net Generation"

    We know these phrases are bullshit, but get ready to hear more about it.

    1. Re:Calling BS by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But that's true of every generation. Just as each generation thinks it invented sex, each generation thinks it invented the sophistication to call bullshit to marketing techniques.

      The truth is, pitch tuning is a fine art, and most intelligent people see the bullshit in a sales pitch tuned for someone else. The teenagers wonder why their parents fall for X, while the parents watch their kids fall for why. Urban mocks rural for falling for Z, rural scoffs at urban for falling for W. Everyone thinks they are the one independent thinker in a herd of sheep.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  10. Re:The lack of attention span is certainly true! by dangitman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Many of these people born in the 1990s feel that the entire world should instantly respond to them and they get extremely impatient when it doesn't.

    Sounds like how teenagers have always been.

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
  11. Where does this leave old Gen-X farts like me? by multiplexo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm 44. I can remember rotary phones, black and white televisions and when it was a big deal when televisions became solid state (with the exception of the CRT) in the mid 1970s, tube testers at grocery and drug stores and going to the library to do research using card catalogs and the Reader's Periodical Guide. Christ, I'm probably going to be processed into Soylent Green soon. Either that or the Sandmen are going to come and get me.

    --
    cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
  12. Not even sure this is true by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The article makes a couple of leaps and doesn't seem to understand tech.

    First off, the number of tasks in front of the tv. Is this a generation difference OR an age difference? They seem to claim that young people do more tasks because they are exposed to more modern technology at a younger age. HOWEVER this would ONLY be valid if they KEEP doing this as they get older. Else the conclusion must be that as you get older, you do fewer things at the same time.

    And then they claim that instant messaging results in an instant reply. But SMS is NOT instant, voice is. So, if they want an instant reply, why do they send an SMS?

    I think the author of the article tries to hard to make connections.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  13. Re:Instantly communcation indeed by Bunji+X · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Interest isn't relevant.
     
    Do they want to learn? (Hopefully) Do the professor have the knowledge? (Hopefully) Do the professor have time to have one-on-one discussions with every singel student? (Unlikely)

    Maybe they will have to get used to not recieving instant gratification, or learn some things the hard way.

    --
    ---
    The combined human population is enough to feed every living tiger for app. 28000 years.
  14. Discovery channels is way more than blowing things by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Funny

    Discovery is more about blowing stuff up than explaining science, the History channel seems to be nothing more than WWII and explosions.

    Come on Discovery channel is way more than explosions. They got computer generated imagery of dinosaurs, shark bites, more dinosaurs, disgusting food from tribals, some more dinosaurs, disaster videos, and some dinosaurs, some more shark bites and did I mention dinosaurs?

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact