There is a small, quiet stubbornness that lives in people born in the 1960s and 1970s. It is not boisterous. It is practical. It shows up in the way they choose a holiday, or whether they accept a job, or how they decide to tell a friend hard truths. This article explores why many from these birth cohorts are perfectly comfortable making decisions alone and argues that the cause is part cultural, part structural, and part personal stubbornness shaped by a unique moment in modern life.
Not a single reason but a tidy overlap
If you ask someone born in those two decades why they decide without a committee they will shrug, maybe half smile, and say I grew up doing things for myself. That answer is true but shallow. The deeper truth comes from a cluster of experiences: institutions that expected independence, an economy that required improvisation, and social scripts that were more tolerant of solitary choices. These people learned early that waiting for consensus was impractical and sometimes costly.
Schoolrooms and Saturday jobs taught a certain muscle
Children of the 1960s and 1970s were, in many places, given responsibilities earlier than later generations. The expectation to tidy a room, to show up for a paper round, to fix a bike puncture without an online how to video was normal. That habitual doing becomes a decision muscle. When faced with a choice later in life the muscle doesn’t twitch for permission first. It moves.
Institutions that shaped choices
From the welfare state adjustments to the fluctuating job markets of the 1970s and 1980s came habit formation. Jobs were less likely to be curated by advisers and algorithms. Pension promises were clearer in some places and evaporated in others. Adults from that era learned to read contracts, count on their own judgment, and accept that institutions might not be there to catch you if you mis-step. That fosters a default of self-reliance in decision making.
The politics of privacy and the cost of consensus
Deciding alone is sometimes a politics of privacy. The cohorts who came of age in the late 20th century navigated heated public debates about identity, war, work, and gender. They also witnessed the consequences of groupthink in politics and institutions. There is a pragmatic calculation: consensus can mean compromise that dilutes what you actually want. Opting to decide alone is a way to preserve an intact preference.
Professor Leonard Steinhorn describes part of this formation when he reflects on generational roles in social change and decision making in a recent interview on PBS NewsHour.
Beating up on baby boomers, it’s sort of the last acceptable prejudice. Economic change is often beyond the control of a generation because you’re living through it. You’re managing. You’re trying to raise a family. You’re trying to sort of support yourself. You’re trying to put a roof over your head and food on the table and have a meaningful livelihood in that matter.
That historic context matters. Survival required choices. Sometimes the fastest route was solitary judgement.
Technology made them resourceful not dependent
It is tempting to imagine that lack of immediate internet made people less informed. In the case of these cohorts, the opposite is often true. Without search engines to outsource every minor judgement, they learned to triangulate: ask a librarian, consult a manual, ring a friend, or try an imperfect solution and correct. That repeated practice of doing then correcting creates confidence to pick a lane when needed.
The modern tendency to pause until a thousand reviews confirm the right path is an available privilege. People in their late 40s and 50s grew into adult choices when speed and improvisation were frequently better than perfect information.
Emotional wiring and generational narrators
There is also an emotional dimension that rarely gets charted in think pieces. The internal narrator of someone raised with the idea that life is on you, that adults do not need constant validation, is quieter and less anxious about being judged for a single choice. That inner voice stabilises decisions rather than re-litigating them. You can hear it in the small everyday lines: I booked the ticket. I told my mother later. It was done.
Not always better just different
I do not argue that solitary decision making is superior. Often it produces rigorous clarity. Other times it creates brittle choices that ignore community knowledge. My own observation is that when this generation chooses alone they tend to accept risk more readily but seek to protect others afterwards. They are more likely to decide fast and then build safety nets rather than converse endlessly beforehand.
That pattern explains both admirable acts of leadership and the occasional stubborn refusal to adapt. There is a trade off: decisiveness for flexibility. Different problems demand different habits.
Culture, upbringing, and the British context
In the United Kingdom the picture is shaded by class and region. For many working class households of the 60s and 70s independence was not ideological it was necessary. A household rarely consulted extended networks for small economic choices because there was no cushion for delay. For middle class households independence had different cues. The result is a cross class culture of picking your feet up and moving forward on your own—though the reasons behind the habit vary.
These choices also show up in politics where some older voters report making private assessments rather than absorbing party lines. Again this is not uniform. It is a tendency that surfaces often enough to matter.
Where this defaults fails
There are domains where solitary decisions are harmful. Complex systems like health and legal cases benefit from collective wisdom. But the resistance to asking for help can be stubborn in these cohorts. It takes intentional unlearning to accept that choosing together may produce better outcomes than choosing alone.
The advice I would give anyone who grew up in that era and catches themselves deciding in isolation is simple. Pause more often. Ask one person you trust. Test the choice in miniature. The habit of independence is a tool. Wield it with curiosity.
Closing observation that is not fully tidy
Comfort in solitary decision making among those born in the 1960s and 1970s is a mosaic not a monolith. It arises from schooling, labour markets, family structures, and cultural narratives about responsibility. This comfort can be a quiet power or a stubborn quirk. It can free a person to lead or blind them to collective insight. The only thing certain is that the habit is durable and deserves attention rather than caricature.
Summary table
| Factor | How it shapes solitary decision making |
|---|---|
| Early responsibilities | Built practical confidence to act without external approval. |
| Economic context | Forced improvised solutions and acceptance of personal risk. |
| Technological era | Less outsourcing of decisions created stronger heuristics and self reliance. |
| Cultural narratives | Values of privacy and autonomy reduced tendency to seek consensus. |
| Emotional habit | Internal narrator less prone to social validation making final calls easier. |
FAQ
Do all people born in the 1960s and 1970s decide alone?
No. This article describes tendencies not rules. Plenty of people from these decades prefer collaboration and consultative styles. What is discussed here is an observable pattern that appears more often in those born in that period than in some younger cohorts. Individual personality economics and local culture all modulate behaviour.
Is solitary decision making linked to better outcomes?
Not inherently. Solitary decisions are efficient and can be decisive but they do not guarantee superior results. Outcomes depend on the stakes, the decision maker’s knowledge, and whether feedback loops exist to correct mistakes. Many high quality outcomes are the result of a mix of individual judgement and collaborative revision.
How can someone from this generation be more collaborative?
Start small. Invite input for noncritical choices to practise listening. Frame collaboration as an experiment rather than a critique. Learn to separate the urge to decide immediately from the need to decide correctly. This generation often learns fast when given a clear reason to change an old habit.
Are younger generations less comfortable deciding alone?
Tendencies differ. Many younger people have grown up with abundant information and social validation, making the social route to decision making easier and often desirable. That does not equal weakness. It is a different strategy where shared knowledge and networked validation play larger roles by design.
Does this explain political or social divides?
Partly. A comfort with solitary decision making can make dialogue harder when choices affect communities. If one side trusts their private judgement more, compromise requires different conversation techniques. That is one of several factors shaping contemporary civic friction.
Should families change how they teach decision making?
There is no single correct method. Teaching both independence and how to seek counsel creates flexibility. Encourage children to make simple choices alone and to consult others for complex decisions. Versatility beats rigidity in the long run.
In the end, solitary decision making among those born in the 1960s and 1970s is a living habit. It can be a quiet advantage or an avoidable blind spot. Recognising which is which matters more than assigning blame.
