Yeah I'm an 88 and I do not remember the 80s. I know 2002 doesn't remember the 1990s

As a 2001 baby, I just have one of these "that's bullshit but I believe it" feelings that everyone younger than me is Gen Alpha.

But thinking about it seriously, there should be separate brackets for different degrees of smart technology exposure during early development (smart technology being smartphones, tablets, devices adopted in the 2010s). They could make good scientific studies to pin accurate years on it:
>"iPad babies" >50% developed abnormally in their first 4 or 6 years of life due to smart technology exposure
>"iPad kids" >50% developed abnormally before puberty, but still developed normally in the first 4 or 6 years
>"true Gen Z" had a more mild pre-2014 internet experience in childhood and tend to have more intact brains
>you might even redraw the Millenial to Gen Z cutoff for pubescent smart technology induction versus young adult smart technology induction

It would be do that rigorously though and it would apply to developed countries only. But it would still be better than the "because pew research said so" bullshit we carry on with.

>>528013094
"hard to do that rigorously" So much for that intact brain.

Drawing the distinction between boomers and silent gen based on television exposure would also have a more real basis but seeing as those people are dying, nobody cares. I don't know why I'm ranting in this shit thread topic anyway.

>>528012015
>>528012110
>>528013094
It's the internet, kids up 'til the 90's didn't grow up with social media so our childhoods were "normal" compared to all previous generations, babies having access to smart phones is brand new for us as a species our biology literally didn't developed for this.

>>528013517
I actually think it's better having culture set by the Internet instead of (((TV)))