Personality Cafe banner

which 90s years are valid cusper years?

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I've been continuously frustrated that some sociologists and market researchers sometimes use 1992 as a cusper year but gate keep 1991 out. Are there are legitimate sources that include 1991 as a cusper year? I really don't understand what separates 1991 and 1992 so much....It's just one year. Either include both in the cusp or don't include 91/92 in the cusp and start the cusp later.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
I ticked 1994-1998 based on my own confidence about who is Gen Y and who is Gen Z. For what it is worth, I have a copy of a book about Generation Y and have searched both physical books and the internet for information on generations and their birth years. This is just my opinion, but it is a conclusion that I came to after research:

I am 100% sure that those born in 1991 are generation y.

I am 99% sure about 1992. And the only reason I don't say 100% is because of the very happening that you have just mentioned. 1991 is not considered a cusp year but for some reason 1992 has not been likewise gate kept out of the cusp/generation z conversations. If people had left 1992 alone, the 1% of doubt would not exist.

I am 90% sure about 1993. I am confident that they are, but if 1992 is sometimes lumped into cusp conversations, then I am going to be less confident about 1993. 1992 is the last generation y year according to Canada, which would make me hesitate to exclude 1993 borns from a gen y/z cusp discussion.

I am more confident than not that 1994 is generation y but in my understanding, 1994 and onwards must be part of any cusp discussion.

1995 and onwards are generation z according to my research and I see no chance for anyone under the age of 25 to be considered generation y.
 

·
Registered
Not Like Other Boys™
Joined
·
88 Posts
I've been continuously frustrated that some sociologists and market researchers sometimes use 1992 as a cusper year but gate keep 1991 out. Are there are legitimate sources that include 1991 as a cusper year? I really don't understand what separates 1991 and 1992 so much....It's just one year. Either include both in the cusp or don't include 91/92 in the cusp and start the cusp later.
"gatekeep" lol what the heck, you WANT to be a Zoomer? I've never heard of anyone calling 1991 OR 1992 a Zoomer. Firstly, why do you care what generation you "technically" are? There are plenty of Zoomers who are socio-culturally Millennial af, and vice versa, even deep into their own respective cohort. You're caring too much about arbitrary labels, man. Don't drink the typology kool-aid too deeply. Secondly… I actually forget 😏 but regardless, lines have to be drawn somewhere, and your argument "why draw it here" can be argued unto absurdity, clearly, so it's a bad reason to protest. What lines ARE drawn, are 100% fuzzy and subjective, and are only useful in the aggregate anyway, so don't worry about whether you personally are one or the other.

874224
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
37,213 Posts
I've been continuously frustrated that some sociologists and market researchers sometimes use 1992 as a cusper year but gate keep 1991 out. Are there are legitimate sources that include 1991 as a cusper year? I really don't understand what separates 1991 and 1992 so much....It's just one year. Either include both in the cusp or don't include 91/92 in the cusp and start the cusp later.
A cusp what?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
I ticked 1994-1998 based on my own confidence about who is Gen Y and who is Gen Z. For what it is worth, I have a copy of a book about Generation Y and have searched both physical books and the internet for information on generations and their birth years. This is just my opinion, but it is a conclusion that I came to after research:

I am 100% sure that those born in 1991 are generation y.

I am 99% sure about 1992. And the only reason I don't say 100% is because of the very happening that you have just mentioned. 1991 is not considered a cusp year but for some reason 1992 has not been likewise gate kept out of the cusp/generation z conversations. If people had left 1992 alone, the 1% of doubt would not exist.

I am 90% sure about 1993. I am confident that they are, but if 1992 is sometimes lumped into cusp conversations, then I am going to be less confident about 1993. 1992 is the last generation y year according to Canada, which would make me hesitate to exclude 1993 borns from a gen y/z cusp discussion.

I am more confident than not that 1994 is generation y but in my understanding, 1994 and onwards must be part of any cusp discussion.

1995 and onwards are generation z according to my research and I see no chance for anyone under the age of 25 to be considered generation y.
I ticked 1994-1998 based on my own confidence about who is Gen Y and who is Gen Z. For what it is worth, I have a copy of a book about Generation Y and have searched both physical books and the internet for information on generations and their birth years. This is just my opinion, but it is a conclusion that I came to after research:

I am 100% sure that those born in 1991 are generation y.

I am 99% sure about 1992. And the only reason I don't say 100% is because of the very happening that you have just mentioned. 1991 is not considered a cusp year but for some reason 1992 has not been likewise gate kept out of the cusp/generation z conversations. If people had left 1992 alone, the 1% of doubt would not exist.

I am 90% sure about 1993. I am confident that they are, but if 1992 is sometimes lumped into cusp conversations, then I am going to be less confident about 1993. 1992 is the last generation y year according to Canada, which would make me hesitate to exclude 1993 borns from a gen y/z cusp discussion.

I am more confident than not that 1994 is generation y but in my understanding, 1994 and onwards must be part of any cusp discussion.

1995 and onwards are generation z according to my research and I see no chance for anyone under the age of 25 to be considered generation y.
2001 is now included on Wikipedia as a valid cusper year: Cusper - Wikipedia with this cited as a valid source: Sticking Points
My mind is blown that people don't gatekeep 2001 out of being a Millennial/Gen Z cusp but gatekeep 1991.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
"gatekeep" lol what the heck, you WANT to be a Zoomer? I've never heard of anyone calling 1991 OR 1992 a Zoomer. Firstly, why do you care what generation you "technically" are? There are plenty of Zoomers who are socio-culturally Millennial af, and vice versa, even deep into their own respective cohort. You're caring too much about arbitrary labels, man. Don't drink the typology kool-aid too deeply. Secondly… I actually forget 😏 but regardless, lines have to be drawn somewhere, and your argument "why draw it here" can be argued unto absurdity, clearly, so it's a bad reason to protest. What lines ARE drawn, are 100% fuzzy and subjective, and are only useful in the aggregate anyway, so don't worry about whether you personally are one or the other.

View attachment 874224
I don't want to be a zoomer but this is what bothers me. 2001 is now included on Wikipedia as a valid cusper year: Cusper - Wikipedia with this cited as a valid source: Sticking Points
If wikipedia validates this then media publications might start legitimizing 1992-2001 as valid cusper years. My mind is blown that people don't gatekeep 2001 out of being a Millennial/Gen Z cusp but gatekeep 1991. That's what upsets me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
I ticked 1994-1998 based on my own confidence about who is Gen Y and who is Gen Z. For what it is worth, I have a copy of a book about Generation Y and have searched both physical books and the internet for information on generations and their birth years. This is just my opinion, but it is a conclusion that I came to after research:

I am 100% sure that those born in 1991 are generation y.

I am 99% sure about 1992. And the only reason I don't say 100% is because of the very happening that you have just mentioned. 1991 is not considered a cusp year but for some reason 1992 has not been likewise gate kept out of the cusp/generation z conversations. If people had left 1992 alone, the 1% of doubt would not exist.

I am 90% sure about 1993. I am confident that they are, but if 1992 is sometimes lumped into cusp conversations, then I am going to be less confident about 1993. 1992 is the last generation y year according to Canada, which would make me hesitate to exclude 1993 borns from a gen y/z cusp discussion.

I am more confident than not that 1994 is generation y but in my understanding, 1994 and onwards must be part of any cusp discussion.

1995 and onwards are generation z according to my research and I see no chance for anyone under the age of 25 to be considered generation y.
My problem with all of this is that Wikipedia is legitimizing 1992 all the way up to 2001 as valid cusper years. They're pushing this hard much the same way they did with the hard cutoffs for Millennials/Gen Z.
2001 is now included on Wikipedia as a valid cusper year: Cusper - Wikipedia with this bullshit cited as a valid source: Sticking Points
My mind is blown that people don't gatekeep 2001 and are attempting to legitimize 2001 babies as cuspers but still gatekeep 1991.
 

·
Registered
Not Like Other Boys™
Joined
·
88 Posts
I think you're taking this too seriously lmao
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top