There is a growing whisper in therapy rooms and in quiet academic seminars that people born in the 1960s and 1970s carry emotional tools whose presence seems thinner in younger generations. Psychologists say people born in the 1960s and 1970s developed emotional strengths that are rare today is not just a nostalgic line for newsletters. It is an argument about upbringing friction patterns institutional change and how ordinary hardship once hammered certain reflexes into place.
Not nostalgia but a pattern worth noticing
I keep thinking about how my aunt managed two jobs three kids and a mortgage with a sort of elastic calm I have rarely seen in younger friends. That calm is not the same as having fewer anxieties. It is a competence that is blunt and practical and occasionally stubborn. It shows up as a readiness to tolerate boredom to endure awkward social moments and to accept small slow wins rather than expect overnight transformation.
What researchers are actually measuring
When academics talk about resilience or emotional regulation they often mean measurable tendencies to recover from setbacks to seek social support selectively and to keep perspective when plans fail. The midcentury cohorts came of age in an era before ubiquitous screens before a gig economy that redefined job tenure and before parenting trends prioritised constant supervision. Those historical contexts produced particular social habits.
“The arrival of the smartphone has radically changed every aspect of teenagers lives from the nature of their social interactions to their mental health.” Jean M. Twenge Professor of Psychology San Diego State University.
Jean Twenge is not proving some mystical superiority of one generation over the next. She is pointing to a clear environmental change that reverberates through emotional learning. If you are raised in an age when your social world is mediated by physical encounters you practice certain tolerances absent when relationships are mostly curated online.
Hard edges made certain habits
There is something to be said for upbringing that forced domestic responsibility early. For those born in the 60s and 70s the locus of social learning often included unstructured outdoor time part time work and forms of communal obligation that required immediate problem solving. These are not heroic anecdotes. They are small repeated experiences that teach delay of gratification confrontation with minor dangers and conflict resolution without a mediator.
Why this matters now
We live in a world where algorithms optimise for attention and employment markets reward flexibility and visibility. That combination has a curious effect. It demands emotional labour in public while at the same time shrinking the private space to practice discomfort. The result is an uneven distribution of emotional calluses. Some young people develop extraordinary adaptive skills online. Others accumulate fragility because they are rarely asked to tolerate unfiltered social friction.
Not all strengths are evenly distributed
Claiming that a cohort has certain strengths does not mean every individual from that cohort is unbreakable. Far from it. The 1960s and 1970s generations also contain people whose circumstances hardened them into brittle resentments. The claim is probabilistic and contextual: certain conditions made particular emotional patterns more likely.
“We all know perfectly well what resilience means until we try to define it.” George E. Vaillant Professor of Psychiatry Harvard Medical School.
Vaillant reminds us that resilience is slippery. It is multi layered and not reducible to a tidy checklist. But his long term studies point to social bonds and meaning making as durable scaffolds for psychological wellbeing. Those scaffolds were differently configured for people who learned to find purpose in local institutions that sustained slower rhythms.
Practical contrasts that feel real
Watch a mid 50s neighbour handle a sudden plumbing crisis and you see a cascade of calm problem solving combined with a willingness to ask for help and to call a known tradesperson. Now watch a group of younger professionals respond to an email crisis where stakes are similar but the reflex is to escalate by chat screenshot and immediate broadcast to multiple managers. The emotional difference is not moral superiority. It is procedural: one approach tolerates lower grade discomfort before activating networks the other triggers network mobilization sooner.
What this suggests about training emotion
If you wanted to cultivate the sturdier reflexes common among those born in the 1960s and 1970s you would probably do three things. First you would create regular low stakes stressors that are not solvable by an app. Second you would ensure social rituals that require face to face negotiation. Third you would normalise boredom as an occasion for creative labour instead of a threat to be eliminated immediately. These are not prescriptions for therapy. They are descriptions of environments that historically produced certain competencies.
A few uncomfortable confessions
I admire this cohort more than I sometimes admit. But I also bristle at the sentimental urge to place all deficits with younger people. Older cohorts also sustained blind spots especially around gender class and whose burdens were invisible. Emotional strength sometimes coexists with a lack of emotional imagination. Holding both observations is tidy and unsettling at the same time.
Open ended futures
What we choose to carry forward will not be a perfect transplant. It will be a messy blend. We can borrow lessons without importing the worst elements of older social orders. That requires courage and a willingness to tolerate partial answers while new communal muscles are built. I think the most interesting work for mental health in the next decade will not be about diagnosing generational winners. It will be about designing social architectures that cultivate those rarer strengths again.
Summary table
| Observation | What it means |
|---|---|
| Early unstructured responsibility | Practice in tolerating discomfort and quick problem solving. |
| Fewer always on devices | More face to face conflict practice and slower social feedback loops. |
| Local ritual and institutions | Regular opportunities for meaning making and social reciprocity. |
| Economic stability patterns then | Expectations of long term roles that trained delayed gratification. |
FAQ
Are psychologists claiming the 1960s and 1970s generations are better?
No. The claim is nuanced. Researchers point to environmental differences that produced certain emotional habits more commonly in those cohorts. That does not prove moral superiority or universal advantage. It highlights patterns that could be useful to understand and possibly emulate in targeted ways.
Which emotional strengths are we talking about exactly?
Examples include tolerance for boredom practical problem solving a habit of face to face negotiation and tendencies to delay gratification. These are habits rather than immutable traits and they were cultivated by recurring life experiences common in specific historical conditions.
Can younger generations develop these strengths now?
Yes they can. But it requires changing the environments where emotional learning happens. That means creating occasions for unmediated social friction encouraging low stakes responsibilities and reintroducing rituals that require patience and presence. It is slow work and not guaranteed but possible.
Are technology and social media entirely to blame?
No. Technology is a major context shift but not the only force. Economic restructurings parenting styles educational policies and public safety concerns all play roles. Technology interacts with these forces amplifying certain tendencies while muting others.
Should workplaces hire differently because of these insights?
Hiring should focus on demonstrated competencies rather than generational stereotypes. But organisations can design onboarding and training to cultivate practical resilience skills through mentorship rotational tasks and exposure to real world problem solving instead of relying on assumed generational traits.
Is this article arguing for a return to past social norms?
Not at all. The point is to identify useful patterns and extract adaptable lessons without resurrecting old injustices. We can take small structural lessons and fit them into contemporary values. That is the generational work worth doing.
There is no simple verdict. There is, however, value in paying attention. We stand to gain if we observe how ordinary hardships once shaped ordinary people and then choose deliberately what to keep what to discard and what to reinvent.
