There is a silent confidence in many people born in the 1960s and 1970s. It is not swagger. It is not the loud certainty of those who shout their choices into the void. It is the quieter habit of deciding without waiting for consensus. Call it habit call it temperament but it shows up everywhere from the way they buy holidays to how they pick careers. This article looks at why people born in the 1960s and 1970s are comfortable making decisions alone and offers angles you do not see in the usual think pieces.
An early education in imperfect options
Those who grew up in the 1960s and 1970s learned to live with fewer tailored options. Choice was not hyper personalised. You bought what was available or you learned to repair it. That scarcity did not make them timid. If anything it taught them a mental muscle for judging trade offs quickly and then moving on. I have watched it in kitchens and in committee rooms. There is a peculiar calm in a person who has learned to make do and then improve.
Practicality beats consultation
Modern life often frames decision making as a ritual of deliberation. For many born in the 1960s and 1970s deliberation was replaced by routing. You did the homework you could, you asked the people you trusted and then you acted. That calibrating between thrift and ambition made decisiveness less about ego and more about utility. They were not waiting for permission. They were operating on a shorter timeline because the world they inherited required it.
Less broadband dependence more internal bandwidth
We laugh about how younger people consult screens now but there is a deeper shift. People born in the 1960s and 1970s matured in an era before instant online validation. That absence of constant external feedback teaches a certain independence. A generation that did not measure its worth in likes developed thicker internal bandwidth for holding a private opinion and acting on it. This is not a moral superiority claim. It is an observation about discipline in forming judgments alone.
Confidence born from earlier responsibility
Responsibility arrived earlier for many in this cohort. Economic shocks and shifting work patterns meant that youth often included real adult choices. When you have been left in charge of a household budget or a family business at a relatively young age your appetite for external approval shrinks. What grows instead is a tolerance for imperfect outcomes and the belief that a decision made is usually better than a decision deferred.
Generalized trust stems from an optimistic view of the world that we initially learn from our parents.
Eric M Uslaner Professor University of Maryland College Park
That quote from Eric M Uslaner helps explain a paradox. Reduced faith in strangers can coexist with strong personal conviction. People born in the 1960s and 1970s may be wary of broad social trust yet still believe in their capacity to make sound judgments. In that sense solitude is not loneliness. It is the working condition for a particular sort of judgement.
The cultural script of self sufficiency
Cultural narratives matter. The songs films and news cycles of those decades did not teach communal decision cascades. They praised resourcefulness even if the praise was messy or incomplete. This cultural training combined with lived experience to form a default script. When faced with a choice they default to a private reading rather than group debate. It is a habit more than a credo.
Why this feels different to younger generations
Younger people value collaborative sensemaking. That is not wrong. It is different. The contrast between an approach that taxonomises options publicly and one that privately weighs priorities can produce friction and misunderstandings. People born in the 1960s and 1970s may appear brusque to those who expect open processes. But their apparent brusqueness is often a shorthand for efficiency rather than disrespect.
My one sentence overview of the book is that generational thinking is a really big idea throughout the history of sociology and philosophy but it has been horribly corrupted by a whole slew of terrible stereotypes myths and cliches that we get fed from media and social media.
Bobby Duffy Professor of Public Policy Director of the Policy Institute Kings College London
Duffy cautions us against caricature. Use that as a check. Not everyone born in those years fits the mould. Yet patterns emerge in aggregate. These patterns deserve explanation not derision.
Practical confidence versus performative certainty
There is a distinction worth holding. Some decisiveness is performative and loud. Other decisiveness is quiet and provisional. The decisiveness common among people born in the 1960s and 1970s often sits in the latter category. They make a choice then remain open to course correction. That willingness to correct privately without broadcasting every thought is underrated. It looks like stubbornness but often writes a different story.
Where experience matters more than consensus
Decision contexts shape methods. In professional settings where experience maps onto outcomes those born in the 1960s and 1970s will often be trusted to decide. That trust is not always explicit. It arrives as deference when timelines are tight and expertise matters. The lesson here is not to romanticise experience but rather to recognise how different social tools for making decisions sit uneasily together.
Emotional economy and the cost of endless debate
Endless consultation costs emotional resources. It also erodes momentum. Those who learned early that time is a resource act to conserve it. Making a decision alone can be an economy of attention. That economy has winners and losers. It can accelerate action but also speed errors. I prefer to call it a trade off rather than a flaw.
A partisan note
I will admit to bias here. I find the quiet decisiveness of this cohort often preferable to performative consensus theatre. Not always. When stakes are high and knowledge distributed the group approach trumps solitary picks. But too many modern processes fetishise inclusivity at the expense of getting things done. The generation born in the 1960s and 1970s reminds us how to close a loop.
Conclusion. A sketch not an epitaph
People born in the 1960s and 1970s are comfortable making decisions alone for a mix of historical cultural and psychological reasons. Scarcity of options early in life internalised responsibility and less dependence on constant external validation all play a part. This is a description not a prescription. We can admire their decisiveness without ignoring its limits. We can also learn from them while holding space for more communal ways of deciding when those are necessary.
Summary table
| Key idea | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Early scarcity of options | Builds practical judgement and tolerance for trade offs. |
| Lower dependence on instant feedback | Creates internal bandwidth to form and hold private opinions. |
| Early responsibility | Accelerates willingness to act and accept imperfect outcomes. |
| Cultural scripts | Reinforces self sufficiency and resourcefulness as norms. |
| Emotional economy | Prefers decisive action to prolonged debate. |
FAQ
Do all people born in the 1960s and 1970s make decisions alone?
No. Generational tendencies are statistical patterns not iron laws. Many in these cohorts prefer collaborative decisions and many younger people are solitary decision makers. The piece offers tendencies and explanations rather than universal claims. Context personal history socioeconomic position and personality shape how anyone decides.
Is solitary decision making better than collaborative decision making?
Neither method is categorically superior. Solitary decision making can be faster and less draining. Collaborative decision making can be wiser when knowledge is dispersed. The best approach depends on stakes available information time constraints and the need for buy in. What this generation often contributes is an example of decisiveness that can be paired with other methods when necessary.
Does this tendency cause problems at work or in relationships?
Sometimes. If someone habitually decides alone without communicating they risk alienating colleagues or partners. The remedy is simple in theory and hard in practice. Explain reasoning invite feedback at defined points and make space for correction. Those learned habits of solitary decision making can coexist with modest transparency if both parties work at it.
Can younger generations learn anything from this tendency?
Yes. Patience for private judgement and the ability to act without constant external validation are useful skills. Younger people can borrow the discipline without rejecting collaboration. The trick is to mix speed with humility to avoid turning decisiveness into dogmatism.
How should leaders manage mixed decision styles across generations?
Leaders benefit from being explicit about decision protocols. When are decisions consultative and when are they delegated. Clear timelines and defined responsibilities reduce friction. Value both solitary efficiency and collaborative insight by matching method to task rather than to age.
