In the US, there is certain personality type of Baby Boomers that like to brag about their youth and that they were cooler and tougher and smarter than today's young people. They claim they came from the "School of Hard Knocks", their parents let them roam free, and that they didn't need computers to have fun (though their were no computers, they must assume they would have resisted their use). They learned skills with their hands and that made them a better person. They loathe socialism and liberalism but conversely regularly complain about their health issues as a badge of honor and use government health subsidies to help pay for costs.
Are some people entitled to be annoyed by these fellow citizens? What assumptions of the world and the past do they have wrong?
Chat GPT
Yes. People are entitled to be annoyed by that style of Boomer nostalgia. The irritation is understandable, especially when personal experience is presented as proof of moral or generational superiority.
That said, it is useful to distinguish between Boomers as a generation and a particular "back in my day" personality type. Plenty of Boomers do not behave this way, and plenty of people from other generations eventually adopt the same attitude.
The biggest mistaken assumptions
1. "We had fewer conveniences, therefore we were tougher."
This confuses harder circumstances with superior character.
A young person who walked five miles to school because there was no school bus wasn't necessarily more disciplined than someone who takes a bus. The inconvenience simply required more walking.
Likewise:
- no internet ≠ greater intellectual ability
- no smartphones ≠ greater attention span
- repairing things by hand ≠ greater intelligence
- having fewer choices ≠ greater independence
- growing up without computers ≠ being better prepared for life
People generally become competent at the things their environment requires of them.
A 1970s teenager might know how to change a tire, work on a carburetor and navigate with a paper map. A 2020s teenager might know how to troubleshoot a network, manipulate digital information and learn something from a worldwide body of knowledge in seconds. Neither skill set automatically produces a better person.
2. "We were allowed to roam freely, so we had better childhoods."
There is some truth buried in this nostalgia. Children in many places really did have substantially more unsupervised outdoor freedom.
But the conclusion that this necessarily produced better adults doesn't follow.
The comparison often omits:
- traffic deaths and injuries
- child abuse that was less recognized or discussed
- bullying that adults frequently ignored
- smoking and secondhand smoke
- lead exposure
- corporal punishment
- much weaker understanding of mental health
- children who simply weren't safe in their homes or neighborhoods
"Nobody was watching us" can mean freedom, but it can also mean nobody was watching.
And the person remembering his wonderful childhood is necessarily a survivor of that environment. You don't hear from the children whose experiences were considerably worse.
3. "We didn't have computers, and we turned out fine."
This one contains a particularly interesting logical error.
They didn't choose not to use computers. Computers weren't yet ubiquitous.
That's like saying:
"I grew up without antibiotics and I'm perfectly healthy."
The absence of an invention isn't evidence that the invention is unnecessary.
Computers have introduced genuine problems—distraction, social-media addiction, misinformation, surveillance, etc.—but they've also produced extraordinary benefits in medicine, science, communication, education, manufacturing and ordinary life.
And importantly, many of the Boomers who now complain about computers enthusiastically adopted them when computers became useful.
4. "We learned things with our hands, so we were smarter."
Hands-on knowledge is valuable. But there is a tendency to turn one kind of intelligence into a hierarchy of intelligence.
Knowing how to rebuild an engine is impressive.
So is knowing how to:
- write software
- analyze statistical data
- operate sophisticated medical equipment
- understand molecular biology
- design an accessible website
- diagnose a cybersecurity problem
- model climate systems
- operate a modern manufacturing system
The modern economy has become enormously specialized. Someone who has never changed their own oil might nevertheless possess skills that would have been almost unimaginable in 1965.
There's also a survivor-bias problem
One of the biggest distortions in "we were tougher" narratives is that people remember what happened to them, rather than the entire distribution of outcomes.
Suppose someone says:
"We rode in cars without seat belts and we're fine."
That's true.
But it doesn't tell you how many people weren't fine.
The same applies to drinking, smoking, workplace injuries, dangerous toys, motorcycle helmets, childhood supervision, occupational safety and numerous other things.
The fact that someone personally survived something doesn't demonstrate that the behavior was safe or beneficial.
The "school of hard knocks" can become a mythology
There is a particularly seductive narrative:
"Nobody gave me anything. I struggled. Therefore my success proves that I was tougher and more deserving."
But historical circumstances matter enormously.
Many working- and middle-class Americans who came of age during the postwar period benefited from circumstances that are easy to overlook:
- rapidly rising household incomes
- relatively strong unions
- inexpensive higher education
- expanding homeownership
- cheap land and housing in many areas
- abundant manufacturing employment
- relatively low international competition
- expanding government programs
- strong economic growth
- a much smaller technological barrier to entering many occupations
That doesn't mean their accomplishments weren't real. It means individual accomplishment shouldn't be confused with having accomplished everything without societal assistance.
And this gets particularly interesting when someone simultaneously says:
"I did everything myself. Government should stay out of my life."
while receiving Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, ACA subsidies, VA benefits, farm subsidies, unemployment insurance, a government pension, a mortgage subsidy, or other public benefits.
There isn't necessarily a contradiction in receiving those benefits while favoring limited government. But there is a contradiction in claiming government assistance is inherently illegitimate while one's own assistance is somehow different.
A good rule is:
If government assistance is socialism when somebody else receives it, it doesn't magically become something else when you receive it.
And the health complaints are an interesting contradiction
There's a psychological phenomenon behind some of this.
A person can simultaneously believe:
"People today are weak."
and
"Look at everything I've endured."
Those statements can coexist because the person's suffering is interpreted as evidence of toughness, whereas somebody else's suffering is interpreted as evidence of weakness.
That's a double standard.
There's also a cultural component. Some older men in particular were taught that complaining about ordinary emotional difficulties was weakness. Consequently, physical suffering can become a socially acceptable way of demonstrating toughness:
"My back is shot. My knees are ruined. I've had three surgeries. But I still go to work."
The illness itself becomes part of the identity.
That doesn't mean their health problems aren't real. It means that suffering and toughness aren't the same thing.
The biggest historical misconception: "Things used to be better."
Usually what they're remembering is:
"Things were better for people like me when I was young."
Those aren't equivalent statements.
The 1950s–1970s had some genuinely wonderful things. But the period also had:
- much higher workplace death and injury rates
- substantially higher smoking rates
- fewer effective treatments for many diseases
- racial segregation and discrimination
- widespread gender discrimination
- fewer educational opportunities for women and minorities
- much less environmental regulation
- leaded gasoline
- polluted rivers and air
- fewer consumer protections
- less workplace safety
- much less information available to ordinary people
Nostalgia performs a selective edit: it remembers the advantages of the past and compares them with the disadvantages of the present.
That's an unfair comparison.
But there's an even deeper issue
The real problem isn't being proud of your generation.
It's turning biography into political philosophy.
Someone can quite reasonably say:
"I grew up poor, worked with my hands, played outside until dark, and I'm proud of how that shaped me."
That's perfectly legitimate.
The problematic leap is:
"Therefore today's young people are spoiled, technology has made them inferior, government assistance makes them lazy, and society should operate the way it did when I was young."
Your childhood is one data point, not a comprehensive social experiment.
And there's a wonderful irony here: the same person may be complaining about young people being dependent on technology while posting that complaint on Facebook from an iPhone, driving an automobile whose engine is controlled by dozens of computers, using GPS satellites operated through enormous government-supported infrastructure, and receiving Medicare.
That's not hypocrisy merely because they use technology or government programs. It's hypocrisy when they regard their own use as reasonable while treating essentially equivalent behavior by younger people as evidence of moral failure.
So yes, being annoyed by this personality type is entirely reasonable.
I'd just resist the temptation to replace their generational stereotype with one of your own. The strongest rebuttal isn't "Boomers were actually worse." It's:
"You experienced a particular historical moment, survived it, and remember the parts that made you feel competent. That's a legitimate personal story. It isn't evidence that your generation was inherently tougher, smarter, or morally superior."
