There is a particular stubbornness to those born in the 1960s and 1970s. Not stubborn in a comic way but stubborn in the way a hinge resists rot. They keep company with lived consequences rather than with shiny promises. This piece argues that when many people of these decades say they trust experience more than trends they are not being nostalgic. They are making a pragmatic choice based on a lifetime of test runs that newer fashions have not yet survived.
What I mean when I say trust experience more than trends
Trust here is not simply preferring a familiar brand. It is a risk calculus learned by repeating the same experiment long enough to see the error bars. For those who grew up before the internet rearranged information flows experience is the slow filtration system. Trends rush in like salesmen and leave like fireworks. Experience stays and continues to reveal itself over time.
Personal observation and a warning
I meet people in their sixties and early fifties who scoff at ephemeral diets and ephemeral investment fads. They will self correct in conversation and admit they have been wrong before. But the important thing is they have kept the memory of being wrong. There is a memory bank of missteps and the embarrassment of being burned which makes them cautious. That caution can read as conservatism but it can also be wisdom disguised as reluctance.
The architecture of confidence
Experience lays down patterns. Those patterns become heuristics by which decisions are made quickly without the need for flashy evidence. This is not a refusal to learn. It is a preference for proof that lasts longer than a news cycle. Consider how someone might choose a mechanic or a GP. A recommendation that has endured across a few car repairs or a handful of consultations matters more than a new review star. Experience is a calibration tool for trust.
Economic muscle shapes trust too
One rarely discussed reason older cohorts lean on experience is the economic leverage that experience brings. When the playing pieces of life include accumulated equity and established professional reputations trends matter less. Choices get made from a place of resources not scarcity. That difference changes the way risk feels.
Jessica Lautz Deputy Chief Economist National Association of REALTORS® notes that half of older boomers and two out of five younger boomers are purchasing homes entirely with cash bypassing financing altogether.
That quote matters because it is not about taste. It is about what happens when you can pay in cash. Decisions stop being a forced dance with whatever looks cheapest now and become a conversation about what will still be useful in five or ten years.
Culture and formative crises
People born in the 60s and 70s lived through episodes that inoculate against quick trends. Economic shocks massaged their expectations. Political turbulence made promises sound lightweight. When systems wobble often enough you learn to grade evidence differently. Younger cohorts may assume institutions are simply platforms for innovation. Older cohorts remember how institutions break and reform. That memory is stubborn.
Not a blanket resistance to new things
This is not technophobia. Plenty of people from those decades adopt new gadgets and services readily. The real divide is in where trust is placed. New tech is welcomed if it demonstrably reduces friction or if it connects to an existing trusted practice. Otherwise it becomes one more trend to be observed from a cautious distance.
Social proof that lasts
Social proof is often measured in likes and shares. That kind of proof is instantaneous and thin. The kind older adults seek is thicker and slower. It often looks like: a local recommendation repeated by several friends across years. It looks like a business that survived multiple economic cycles. It looks like a method that did not just succeed once but kept failing forward. Trust becomes cumulative and therefore harder to shake with clever marketing.
A different kind of optimism
Some will say this preference produces risk aversion. I disagree. Often it simply produces a different risk posture. Experience believers bet less on novelty and more on durability. That approach has its own optimism. It expects life to continue and systems to require maintenance not upheaval.
How institutions and brands should listen
If you are building a product or writing a message aimed at people born in the 60s and 70s notice three things. First do not try to outshout their experience with trendiness. Second show evidence of continuity. Third be ready to answer the question what will this be like in three years not what will this be like on launch day. If you can show a sensible plan for durability you will be rewarded with a different kind of loyalty.
Design cues that matter
Clarity of language. Substantive warranties. Visible repairability or support. These are small things but they signal that a brand is not a flash in the pan. They tell an experience oriented buyer you are invested in the long run.
When trust in experience misfires
There are downsides. An overreliance on personal experience can magnify bias. It can entrench methods that once served well but are now outdated. There is a brittle variant of experience worship that refuses to re-evaluate even when evidence changes. A healthy relationship with experience must include the humility to update models when new robust data is present.
Where younger trends offer a corrective
Trends can be quick experiments that expose blind spots. Younger cohorts have a role in pushing boundaries and testing hunches. The ideal relationship between generations is not adversarial. It is interrogative. Trends should be invited to the table but asked to stay the course long enough to prove themselves.
Closing thought
People born in the 1960s and 1970s often prefer the slow proof of experience because it guards against the fragility that comes with glamor. That is not always wise nor always correct. But it is sensible in a world that constantly celebrates the new while forgetting the past that made the new possible. If you want to persuade rather than pander speak of durability show your work and be ready to be judged across time not just across impressions.
| Theme | What it means | How to act |
|---|---|---|
| Experience as calibration | Decisions shaped by cumulative outcomes rather than single signals. | Highlight multi year evidence and lived user stories rather than launch hype. |
| Economic leverage | Resources change risk appetite and the role of trends. | Show financial clarity and long term value rather than cheap novelty. |
| Durable social proof | Trust comes from repeated reliable recommendations not fleeting metrics. | Support community endorsements and real world longevity stories. |
| Healthy skepticism | Can guard against fads but can also block necessary change. | Pair historical respect with openness to rigorous new evidence. |
FAQ
Why do many people from the 60s and 70s prefer experience to trends?
They lived through multiple technological social and economic shifts that taught them to value what endures. That learning is a mental shortcut that reduces exposure to risk. It comes from repeated calibration of cause and effect in the real world. Experience becomes a shorthand for what is likely to survive stressors rather than what looks fashionable now.
Is this preference the same as being conservative about everything?
No. Many people from these decades adopt new tools and ideas quickly when those things solve real problems. The distinction lies in the demand for durable evidence. They are not against change. They are against change masquerading as progress without a track record.
How should businesses present innovations to win their trust?
Focus on clarity and longevity. Provide guarantees and pathways for support. Demonstrate how the product or service performed over time and across different scenarios. Reduce the need for blind faith by offering transparent repair or return policies and public evidence of continued performance.
Can younger people learn to value experience without becoming closed minded?
Yes. The useful practice is to balance rapid experimentation with slow evaluation. Run lots of small tests but keep careful records. If an experiment works repeatedly and across contexts then it graduates into experience. That process prevents both naïve adoption and reflexive rejection.
Does trusting experience make someone less creative?
Not necessarily. Experience can be a fertile soil for creative leaps because it provides a stable platform from which to take measured risks. Creativity fed by experience tends to be applied and cumulative rather than purely speculative.
What role does social media play in this generational trust divide?
Social media amplifies trends which can feel ephemeral. For those who rely on experience the speed of social platforms often signals unreliability. The platforms can educate or mislead depending on how users triangulate information. Those grounded in experience tend to require corroboration outside the feed before shifting trust.
There is no single right answer here. The point is to notice the logic behind the preference and to treat it with respect rather than dismissal. That is how genuine persuasion begins.
