Studies about generational differences matter. But not in the way we typically interpret them.

Vantage points, explored.  New York City, NY
Vantage points, explored. M1-5 Lounge, New York City, NY

Whenever I hear a new bit of news from a cross-sectional study about the differences between Baby Boomers and Generation Y, or Generation X and the Millennials, or any cross-generational comparisons, for that matter, I call bullshit.

We often associate a difference between generations to be a generational shift, when it’s merely a reflection of the different goals, incentives and values that each generation faces at the different stages in their life.

Situational differences are commonly misinterpreted as generational shifts.

A real-life example? Lately we’ve heard a lot about the differences in how generations use email, noting that kids don’t use email anymore and have shifted to IM, Facebook, texting and other social networks (not to mention that kids communicate more by texting than by voice phone calls). We’ve seen many of these articles and studies, and one of the latest is a NY Times bit called “E-Mail’s Big Demographic Split“.

The data is overwhelming to support that kids don’t use email as much as 40 year olds. But is it because they are 15, or because they are different? But what did the 40 year olds do when they were 15? What would they have done if they had access to the same technology when they were 15? Will 15 year olds use email more as they move into the workplace and are forced to adapt to corporate policies for communication?

So let’s ask: Is email dead? For kids today, yes. And possibly for all 15 year olds forever. The more nuanced answer: For 15 year olds, yes, but probably not as today’s 15 year olds become 40.

People change over time. Our usage of technology changes over time, in response to our work, life situation, and cultural expectations as much as our access and use of new technologies.

It’s common for us to jump up and down at new technology and cite the coming revolution. As Nicholas Carr said, “Same shit, different medium.” Agreeing with Marshall Poe, Carr lays it true:

Whenever we come upon a wild new frontier, we jump up and down and say we’re going to restart history, and then we proceed to do exactly what we always do: build houses, shops, brothels, bars, gaming emporiums, churches.

But here’s what Poe misses:

The problem with a high vantage point is that you can’t see the details, and if you stand there long enough you begin to believe that the details don’t matter. But the details do matter. The texture of our lives is determined not only by what we do but by how we do it.

Exactly.

Studies about the death of email matter. But not in the way we typically interpret them.

First posted to my letter.ly. Sign up now before the subscription rate increases in 2011.

Hello, I'm Taylor Davidson.
I'm an early-stage VC and a photographer. If you liked this post, please subscribe to this blog. For more like this, check out the archives, and follow me on Twitter @tdavidson.
  • http://www.hellodelight.com/ matthewbward

    Devices are a lens on culture, their adoption shouldn’t be interpreted as changes in culture itself. And I’m too sober to get into the big chicken-egg question of the reciprocal relationship between technology and culture. But I fully agree with you that we often interpret these cross-generational studies incorrectly. In my opinion, these studies could be better used to illustrate changes in values that affect the way generations work together. Think of it as a Meyers Briggs 2.0 or something. nnBut the email to text example you cite is a good one because I do think it represents a cultural shift. While the technology affect/effect can be debated, there does seem to have been a significant cultural shift in how we communicate: from pre-formed formal to seat-of-the-pants informal. Email or text or IM is just the lens.

  • http://www.taylordavidson.com/writing/ Taylor Davidson

    A #lazyweb question: what happened when the telegram first happened? How did culture respond to this new form of communication? Not the same as email, of course, but how did it compare to texts, and how did culture perceive them? Where and when were they appropriate? Telegrams were short, they had to be carefully composed, so I would imagine it would still a fairly formal form of communication, but each form of communication has a significance and relevance unique to its time.nnI think of companies like Rypple (http://rypple.com) as examples of new structures for a form of formal, quick communication. Structured workplace feedback, but using short, web-based messaging, so it’s a communication form the kids are accustomed to. Interesting, or not?

  • http://www.hellodelight.com/ matthewbward

    My guess would be that culture didn’t change much, for a while. It may be true that the telegram represented the first significant shift in audible to visual casual communications. If so, I’d guess the up-take was especially slow. Seems like most times we get something new to displace something old, we spend a long time trying to define the new in terms the old understands.nnRypple is cool and I think it represents a profound “culture creators” versus “culture defenders” thing. One one hand, it seems like a basic adaptability tactic to define the new in terms the dominant culture understands and doesn’t fear. On the other hand, the opposite could be true too.

  • http://www.taylordavidson.com/writing/ Taylor Davidson

    “Seems like most times we get something new to displace something old, we spend a long time trying to define the new in terms the old understands.”nnSpot on. It takes a time for culture to update their heuristics. Even us. nnBtw, did you catch Ev’s interview about curating all this stuff we create on the web?nnOne commentary I agree with: http://rafer.net/post/2529103571/theres-too-much-stuff-it-seems-to-me-that-almost

MORE: Financial Models for Entrepreneurs