Comments on: What generation are you part of, really? Take this test.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Sun, 25 Dec 2011 18:55:02 +0000

This is the most patently stupid thing I've seen.
Your Generation designation is based on when you were born, not what you like or are "in to".
It is a definition clearly defined by specific dates, and very easy to google what the designations are.
You don't take some stupid "test".

By: Natty

Natty — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:35:42 +0000

I scored 17, which puts me in Gen Y despite the fact that many online resources try to shove me into Gen X (born 1976). Truth is, I have little in common with people who spent their teens in the 80's, since I spent mine dealing with computers and the internet in the 90's. I've NEVER understood why 1976 gets lumped into a category filled with people born in the 1960s, when it is so much more logical to pair us with individuals born in the late 70s and early 1980's (where we belong).

By: john aponick

john aponick — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 15:48:05 +0000

The determination that use of electronic media determines membership in a generation and being part of a generation determies intent attitudes towards change, gives a false and satisfying picture. Use of technology shows an ability to communicate and manipulate, but not what was the intention of the manipulation.

Changing this world is internal. Use of technology with no intent to make this planet a better place, is really a misuse of technology.

By: J.L.

J.L. — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:19:00 +0000

Argh, free music is not automatically the same as illegal!
There are a fair chunk of individuals who make music and release either short versions (e.g. the artist of the site Music To Wear Pants To) or even whole versions (e.g. Interrobang Cartel) for free. Some make music with zero intent of getting money out of it, because it is just a hobby and the contribution to the community makes them happy enough – and if they get popular enough they happily release collector CDs (several artists at for instance the site Nico Nico Douga) and so on. It is similar to webcomics: There is a ton of free stuff if you know where to look, yet a lot of it is also happily sold as paper books / physical CDs if it gets popular enough. This after frequently taking donations while putting stuff up for free in order to keep the site running. Essentially – those who are willing to contribute can if permitted by the artist, and then you can even buy merch or collections of the online content you have frequented. Those who cannot or will not can also take advantage of the free content, which is exactly why it's good, as those people are likely to introduce others to the original source, both more people who do not help the artist financially as well as more who do. Just because I have bought several CDs, as well as high quality mp3s of mp3s I already have, does not make the music any less free – as it was merely me choosing to buy the fancier versions – this was not required in any way whatsoever. As said as well, there area few mp3s I could never pay for no matter how much I would like to, because the artists do not take money and they do not want to risk turning the responsibility-free "fun" into some kind of work. Or some just post stuff and then later on ditch their old online persona/accounts (and a few just die and abandon stuff that way).

Jonathan Coulton (known for instance for his "Still Alive" song from Portal 1) is a great example of someone who frequently releases whole mp3s in decent quality for free, while also accepting donations, on top of selling better quality mp3s and CDs, and does a lot of live concerts based partially on demand (measured by people more or less "voting" for locations for him to go to, i.e. if there are enough people in some city that would happily attend a concert, and it's not inconvenient to go there, he might go there).Free music is NOT automatically illegal! Get this stuff right!Implying that free music is illegal by definition just showcases great ignorance.

"Free (illegal)" parses as "free i.e. illegal", while "free (and possibly illegal)" or any other variation thereof is better.

By: Doni

Doni — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 03:42:00 +0000

I scored 13, supposedly Gen Y.

I was born in 1964. Many would say I'm Baby Boomer, but I don't identify much with Baby Boomers (my three older siblings among them). I always related far better to Generation X, though I pick up some Millennial stuff here and there as well.

Not sure I would consider the test accurate, really. Judging from many of the comments, just by the nature of our living in 2011, we all have a potential to fall into the "Gen Y" category of this test. But it makes for interesting conversation.

By: Doni

Doni — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 03:38:00 +0000

I'm in my late 40s and I love the Backstreet Boys! Alas, everyone I know who is 40 or more just rolls their eyes at me and groans.

And I was in my late teens/early 20s during the 80s, so love the 80s too.Also have a pretty big Ty Beanie Baby collection, but I think that crosses generations more easily. I lot of people my age have a few of those.

And I agree. There's nothing worth watching on TV anymore. I'd rather watch a DVD, or something online.

By: Doni

Doni — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 03:23:00 +0000

Also 47 … also got a Droid and do just about everything with it. Never built my own computers though…. I'm only one FB, but I do love Twitter (two accounts). Have MySpace and Tumblr but rarely on it. … Same issue here with my parents (both deceased), although I have a grandmother who, if she were still alive, would probably be all over Facebook and text messages herself (she was born in 1893 but seriously into MTV just before she died in 1985). …

By: Doni

Doni — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 03:10:00 +0000

I was born in 1964, right at that same shady area between Baby Boomer and Gen X. I think the deciding factor fell to ME rather than some arbitrary cut off year. I relate more to the movies, music and culture of Gen X, and almost all my friends are currently between 35-45 years old, and they influence me as well. Meanwhile, I'm the youngest kid of four, and my siblings are all Baby Boomers through and though — and I don't easily relate to them or their culture. So, really, I think of myself as Gen X even if a lot of people see 1964 as Baby Boomer. I also like a lot of late 90s' pop, and I'm a major Twitter nut — so that skews it further. …. I think, when it comes down to it all. We are what WE are. We can put a label on it, or choose to not label at all. But if we let someone who doesn't know us try to pigeonhole us into some category, we're in big trouble already.

By: Doni

Doni — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 02:55:00 +0000

I was also born in 1964, and I scored a 13, which also labels me "Gen Y" — which speaking of labels, everyone tells me I'm supposed to be a Baby Boomer because I was born in 1964, but I personally related most strongly to people who are currently in their mid 30s through early 40s (most of my personal friends are in that bracket) so by association, I would label myself — if I have to label myself anything — as Generation X. I just got born a couple of years too early. But I'm not sure about this Gen Y thing. Another quiz labels me pretty much the same way, said I was clearly a "Millennial" (so I guess I'm just young at heart).

By: LoraFish1

LoraFish1 — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 03:03:00 +0000

I love your quiz! I used it as part of a training for six week series called Clearing the Hurdles for job seekers in Columbus, Ohio. Our group did pretty well, but one person got scored a "1". Everyone had a goal to work on by the end of the workshop. It's really a great way to get you thinking about what you could be doing in a lighthearted way. We got laughs…and results!