Gen Z is (will be) the most conservative since the Boomers?

[Whippy McGee]

While Gen Z will be more conservative than Millennials, so are Gen X and they are also more Conservative than Boomers.

In order left to right:

Millennials > Boomers > Gen Z ???? > Gen X

 

[ehtheist]

Boomers conservative?? LMFAO, they only became conservative in their old age due to their selfishness.

Interesting... Spending a lot of time around people at a university and hearing lots from the "old people shouldn't be allowed to vote" crowd I have to ask, what makes you sure that Boomers only became conservative because of their selfishness and why do you rule out other reasons for becoming conservative?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Is the educational achievement broken down by fields of study? Are people that major in STEM majors more likely to be conservative? What about people that major in medical fields?

I haven't seen a breakdown by field of study. You probably run into sample-size issues there.

Here's something on doctors:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/...an-your-psychiatrist-probably-a-democrat.html

Pretty even split, most are Democrats but not by much. Surgeons are overwhelmingly Republican.

Interesting... Spending a lot of time around people at a university and hearing lots from the "old people shouldn't be allowed to vote" crowd I have to ask, what makes you sure that Boomers only became conservative because of their selfishness and why do you rule out other reasons for becoming conservative?

Out of curiosity, what are some of those reasons?

 

[ehtheist]

Out of curiosity, what are some of those reasons?

I don't recall professing to know why a Baby boomer might have become more conservative as time went on. Perhaps you should ask a Baby boomer who went more conservative rather than a Gen X'er in myself? I'm merely speculating that there are other reasons outside of selfishness for becoming more conservative. I really can't speak to them as I've become more Left oriented as time has gone on.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't recall professing to know why a Baby boomer might have become more conservative as time went on. Perhaps you should ask a Baby boomer who went more conservative rather than a Gen X'er in myself? I'm merely speculating that there are other reasons outside of selfishness for becoming more conservative. I really can't speak to them as I've become more Left oriented as time has gone on.

OK, OK. No need to get so defensive. The other guy was doing the same thing Mick was (coming up with a short, simplified, self-serving explanation) so I doubt it was correct. But the subject of *why* someone chooses their leaning is interesting and underexplored here, I think.

 

[ehtheist]

OK, OK. No need to get so defensive. The other guy was doing the same thing Mick was (coming up with a short, simplified, self-serving explanation) so I doubt it was correct. But the subject of *why* someone chooses their leaning is interesting and underexplored here, I think.

I notice you like to describe someone answering your questions as being "defensive"... Why is that?

I tend to agree. I think there are a wide range of reasons as to why people lean as they do, politically, and why those leanings sometimes change over time. I don't know why individuals change their politics over time and I'd imagine you'd have to ask them to find out.

For me, it's mainly an attempt at rational consistency that has made me more left leaning as time has gone on. I suspect that rational consistency isn't as important for many people though.

 

[theBLADE1]

Hrm... Why bring sporting records into it? It's pretty obvious that the science of athletics has advanced *tremendously* over the decades so it's hardly a level playing field. Is your suggestion, seriously, that Millennials are breaking those records because they're harder workers rather than because their equipment, training methodology, and pharmaceutical and supplemental support? I mean, if we compare say, Mark Spitz to Michael Phelps, I'm pretty sure that Spitz didn't do things like sleep in a hyperbaric chamber every night to aid his recovery. Is comparing athletes from decades ago to athletes now in *any* way a fair comparison, when modern athletes have the advantage of decades of science on their side?

I'm not saying your base premise is wrong. I'm just wondering about the one example you chose and if you have any better examples.

I'm sure there are many mitigating factors. What I am saying is that you cannot be a high level athlete that breaks world records and their respective's boarding fields if they aren't EXTREMELY dedicated to the their craft. Putting in the necessary amounts of work and training and just overall knowing that nothing good will come to you unless you work your ass off for it.

It might not of been the greatest example but I think it's at least worth mentioning.

It was brought up in this video which I feel perfectly hits the nail on the head.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I notice you like to describe someone answering your questions as being "defensive"... Why is that?

It's interesting that you consider what you wrote to be "answering my question." Why is that?

For me, it's mainly an attempt at rational consistency that has made me more left leaning as time has gone on. I suspect that rational consistency isn't as important for many people though.

Related to the Pew poll I referenced earlier, one of the big differences between people with advanced degrees and the general public was the tendency to be consistent in views, and the much higher proportion of consistent liberals come mostly not from consistent conservatives but from the "even" mix category. The general population is why more likely to give answers all over the place on a 10-question survey, while those with advanced degrees are way more likely to give consistently liberal answers. So your (alleged) evolution would be somewhat typical.

My leftward evolution is more about a growing realization that a lot of politically controversial issues have objectively true answers, and the right is objectively wrong. Part of that is that the right in America is handicapped by having to claim liberal virtues. For example, if someone favors regressive changes to the tax code, he's not going to campaign on Social Darwinist virtues of such policy or to claim that justice is the advantage of the stronger; he's going to implausibly assert that the policy will leave everyone materially better off, an army of hacks will defend that assertion, and someone taking everyone at face value and looking into it will conclude that the guy is wrong.

 

[ehtheist]

I'm sure there are many mitigating factors. What I am saying is that you cannot be a high level athlete that breaks world records and their respective's boarding fields if they aren't EXTREMELY dedicated to the their craft. Putting in the necessary amounts of work and training and just overall knowing that nothing good will come to you unless you work your ass off for it.

It might not of been the greatest example but I think it's at least worth mentioning.

It was brought up in this video which I feel perfectly hits the nail on the head.

Sorry, can't watch videos.

Why bring up an example in which there are obvious mitigating factors making a fair judgement impossible? I mean, it's a fact that the supporting science and methodology is advancing *tremendously* every decade so an athlete from now compared to even thirty years ago has a tremendous competitive advantage based on factors other than athletic ability or work ethic, so why bring this up?

Also, are you encountering a lot of people making the claim "there are no hard working Millennials"? I sure as hell am not. As such, I wonder what pointing out a few hard working athletes in a whole generation is supposed to prove.

Do you have other examples showing that Millennials are as hard or harder workers than Boomers and X'ers and all that? I've seen sources suggesting it - I'm wondering what other sources you have and why you chose one that references an obviously unbalanced field of comparison? Again, my issue isn't with your narrative, it's with a really bad example you seem to be fixated on. Even if we were to say, "Well, Phelps far exceeded the times that Spitz was able to achieve because he was a harder worker" we could never objectively measure it because Phelps has a *huge* competitive example because of the science and methodology of the time he was born. It's like comparing Phelps to a swimmer from Nigeria at the time he was competing - Phelps might actually work less hard and be less naturally talented than the Nigerian swimmer but still dominate due to a *massive* competitive advantage of resources and technology, so what purpose does directly comparing them serve? What exactly does this example of athletes breaking old records show for Millennials as a group?

 

[ehtheist]

It's interesting that you consider what you wrote to be "answering my question." Why is that?

Yeah, I suppose you're not the most familiar person on the forum with the concept of answering questions... You asked me "Out of curiosity, what are some of those reasons?" and I responded pointing to why I don't have the answer to your question and suggesting who you might ask - when I said "Perhaps you should ask a Baby boomer who went more conservative rather than a Gen X'er in myself?". In short, I answered your question with a question because I don't have the factual answers to your question. I realize it's likely not the answer you wanted, but it certainly was an answer.

Related to the Pew poll I referenced earlier, one of the big differences between people with advanced degrees and the general public was the tendency to be consistent in views, and the much higher proportion of consistent liberals come mostly not from consistent conservatives but from the "even" mix category. The general population is why more likely to give answers all over the place on a 10-question survey, while those with advanced degrees are way more likely to give consistently liberal answers. So your (alleged) evolution would be somewhat typical.

My leftward evolution is more about a growing realization that a lot of politically controversial issues have objectively true answers, and the right is objectively wrong. Part of that is that the right in America is handicapped by having to claim liberal virtues. For example, if someone favors regressive changes to the tax code, he's going to campaign on Social Darwinist virtues of such policy or to claim that justice is the advantage of the stronger; he's going to implausibly assert that the policy will leave everyone materially better off, an army of hacks will defend that assertion, and someone taking everyone at face value and looking into it will conclude that the guy is wrong.

Oh my, I feel like I'm one of those people who went around a town square gunning people down screaming "Allahu akbar!" but everyone in the media still calls the "alleged shooter"... That just tickles my rectum.

As for the rest of your story, how interesting.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yeah, I suppose you're not the most familiar person on the forum with the concept of answering questions.

An answer to the question "what are some of those reasons?" would be, you know, listing some of the reasons you had in mind. What you did was defensively tell me why you don't want to answer. That's how you roll so it's cool.

 

[ehtheist]

An answer to the question "what are some of those reasons?" would be, you know, listing some of the reasons you had in mind. What you did was defensively tell me why you don't want to answer. That's how you roll so it's cool.

"I don't know, but here's who you can ask" = "you're defensively telling me you don't want to answer." Would it make me less defensive if I actually made up some answers I don't currently have for you, and forego suggesting you ask people who might have real answers?

Did I at any point state I had particular reasons in mind? If the answer is "yes" please quote where I stated that.

 

[Jack V Savage]

"I don't know, but here's who you can ask" = "you're defensively telling me you don't want to answer."

Oh, this is very disingenuous. An earnest "here's who you could ask," would include names.

This is what you typed:

"I don't recall professing to know why a Baby boomer might have become more conservative as time went on. Perhaps you should ask a Baby boomer who went more conservative rather than a Gen X'er in myself?"

Surely you can see why one would see defensiveness rather than a helpful suggestion.

Did I at any point state I had particular reasons in mind? If the answer is "yes" please quote where I stated that.

You didn't explicitly type out "I, ehtheist, have other reasons in mind," but I assumed you were speaking English and communicating in good faith. That obviously is a mistake.

 

[nac386]

You honestly think "the left" is just going to die or something? You people amaze me.. I chewed out a Leftie for this kind of hyperbolic rhetoric the other day and it's no less stupid when one of you declares this the "Oh, the Left is dead now!" type shit.

The Left isn't going anywhere. Get used to it.

I agree. People say that after every election, regardless of who wins. Whoever wins, the other party is dead. It's pretty ridiculous.

 

[ehtheist]

Oh, this is very disingenuous. An earnest "here's who you could ask," would include names.

This is what you typed:

"I don't recall professing to know why a Baby boomer might have become more conservative as time went on. Perhaps you should ask a Baby boomer who went more conservative rather than a Gen X'er in myself?"

Surely you can see why one would see defensiveness rather than a helpful suggestion.



You didn't explicitly type out "I, ehtheist, have other reasons in mind," but I assumed you were speaking English and communicating in good faith. That obviously is a mistake.

Meh, false narrative. I saw someone making a claim I thought was a wild overreach, which was this:

Boomers conservative?? LMFAO, they only became conservative in their old age due to their selfishness.

Implying that the only reasonable way a Boomer became more conservative as time went on was if they were selfish. Seeing this overreach, I questioned the statement with this:

Interesting... Spending a lot of time around people at a university and hearing lots from the "old people shouldn't be allowed to vote" crowd I have to ask, what makes you sure that Boomers only became conservative because of their selfishness and why do you rule out other reasons for becoming conservative?

At no point do I intimate that I know why some Boomers go more conservative. Since then I have made it quite clear that I don't know why. At each step of this I have been direct in what I have been saying - which is precisely why you can't provide the quotes I am asking you to provide as you try and get me to commit to answers that I simply do not have.

So now, in my challenging something I suspect to be an overreach and refusing to make statements about things which I have asserted I do not know, you are going the route of the ridiculous smear with sarcastic comments like "but I assumed you were speaking English and communicating in good faith. That obviously is a mistake." Funny, apparently in order to communicate in good faith I need to talk out of my ass about subjects which I do not have answers on... How outrageously ridiculous of me to resist these reasonable proddings of yours. What bad faith I have as a communicator.

As for your claims of defensiveness... Eye of the beholder and all that. You ask me for answers I don't have, I tell you to ask the people who have it, I'm defensive. If that's how you want to read it....

Are we just about through here or do you have any more insults to fling my way before we move on to your next partners?

 

[GORETAURO]

I've been reading some interesting articles about Generation Z and about how they are already developing into more fiscally conservative and hard working than their predecessors.. Millennials.

I figured I'd link this one in particular because it has more of political overtone.

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/e...americans-gen-z-may-be-most-conservative-wwii

"Millennials were raised in a time of roaring prosperity, when video cassettes were a bigger influence than digital technology, and many came of age before the age of radical Islamic terror. Gen Z kids, by contrast, are “digital natives.” They’ve never known life without the Internet, and have grown up surrounded by instant access to the world’s harsh realities on their smart phones.

These young people are products of conflict and recession. They can only remember a news cycle “marred by economic stress, rising student debt … and war overseas.” As a result, they’ve taken on what one team of Goldman-Sachs analysts called a “more pragmatic” and conservative outlook on the world."

How do you feel about this? Do you believe it to be true? This isn't a one off thing as I've read several articles that go on about similar ideas. Are we in for more Republican politicians on the Federal level in the coming years?

Here's an interesting article about the difference between Gen Z'ers and Millennials from HuffPo

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-beall/8-key-differences-between_b_12814200.html

One more link

https://www.forbes.com/sites/deeppa...ll-shape-the-future-of-business/#69eef38a76e8

There is hope then.

 

[Madmick]

That's not actually true, of course. "Of course" because pat formulations accompanied by "Just So Stories" that flatter the speaker are wrong pretty much every time.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/partisan-loyalty-begins-at-age-18/
http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/section-1-how-generations-have-changed/
https://www.seeker.com/do-people-become-more-conservative-as-they-age-1765596891.html
https://books.google.com/books?id=3a927Jder6IC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22political+attitudes+over+the+life+span%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SnO9U63AF9DLsATrtYKgDA#v=onepage&q=%22political%20attitudes%20over%20the%20life%20span%22&f=false
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/2010/12/you_never_forget_your_first.html

All I see are a bunch of excuses for why people become more conservative (because of "shifting ideas about what Democrats and Republicans are"), and that despite the strongest correlation being established at early adulthood, for why Republicans have a special staying power once people have switched. There's a funny book about a group who of women who attended Bennington college. I'm sure that's a wonderful slice of Americana, but it doesn't seem very relevant. Then there's a cherry-picking of those born in the time frame of a single year, in 1983, because massive correlation apparently is hard. Those articles work so hard to deny the validity even of their own results, LOL.

Typical Jack.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Who gives a shit? The only two demographics that will matter in ten years will be

1. People who can read, see the value of reading, and do read
2. People who cant read, do not see the value of it, and dont read.

The former will be the small minority, ruled by those of the latter.....

 

[djacobox372]

Interesting... Spending a lot of time around people at a university and hearing lots from the "old people shouldn't be allowed to vote" crowd I have to ask, what makes you sure that Boomers only became conservative because of their selfishness and why do you rule out other reasons for becoming conservative?

I'm sure there are lots of other reasons, but selfishness is surely one of the most common for their generation.

Let's track a common political path of a boomers:

1960's = anti war hippy
1970's = socialist looking for handouts
80's and 90s = pro-business, pro-war libertarians
2000 until now = anti-government social conservatives

Basically:

• When they were young enough to go to war, they were anti war. Once they became too old for war they started saber rattling.
• They LOVED socialist programs that helped them get started, now that they have theirs--socialism is evil.
• When they were young they loved drugs and sex. Now they deride the younger generation as "immoral" even though they are far less wild than they were.

Of course nearly half of boomers are liberals, so this is all just stereotyping.

 

[ehtheist]

I'm sure there are lots of other reasons, but selfishness is surely one of the most common for their generation.

Let's track a common political path of a boomers:

1960's = anti war hippy
1970's = socialist looking for handouts
80's and 90s = pro-business, pro-war libertarians
2000 until now = anti-government social conservatives

Basically:

• When they were young enough to go to war, they were anti war. Once they became too old for war they started saber rattling.
• They LOVED socialist programs that helped them get started, now that they have theirs--socialism is evil.
• When they were young they loved drugs and sex. Now they deride the younger generation as "immoral" even though they are far less wild than they were.

Of course nearly half of boomers are liberals, so this is all just stereotyping.

So, how did you determine this political trajectory and "selfishness is surely one of the most common for their generation"? I'm assuming you must have some sources since you've determined this about the majority of Boomer conservatives.