There is a stubborn clarity in the way people born in the 60s and 70s move through life. They test, accumulate, discard, and then return to what worked before. This is not nostalgia alone. It is a functioning logic formed by decades of living through fast stylistic cycles and slow structural shifts. In this piece I want to explain why these cohorts often lean on experience rather than chasing whatever the moment declares fashionable. I will be opinionated. I will make claims that some will find blunt. But I also want to offer a useful way to understand a cultural stubbornness that matters in politics markets workplaces and family conversations.
How lived cycles teach different priorities
People who came of age in the 60s and 70s watched institutions and markets betray promises more than once. They saw optimism buckle into scepticism. This generation experienced sudden technological leaps and slower social rearrangements at the same time. The effect is simple to describe and complex to feel. It is easier to trust what weathered several kinds of storms than a thing that sparkles on a billboard.
A lifetime of stakes not just choices
When you have raised children navigated changing jobs rebuilt finances and paid mortgages you lose appetite for the disposable. Choices gain weight because they carry consequences. Fashion and viral recommendations feel lightweight to somebody who remembers when decisions were less reversible. That sense of consequence is part temperament and part memory. It is the reason many in these cohorts will spend more time on a purchase than a headline would expect and will prefer a local supplier they can call over an algorithm that promises convenience.
Trust built from patterns beats novelty for a reason
Patterns are the shorthand that experience produces. A brand that repairs itself after a mistake earns a deposit of trust. A neighbour who shows up in a crisis cements social capital. Both of these are plain and not glamorous. Younger audiences are often told to chase experiences. But when you have already lived through the honeymoon and the aftermath you begin to value repairability permanence and a clear track record.
Trust is not an emotion alone
We mistake trust as a feeling when it is often an accounting system. People in their 60s and 70s use different ledgers. They store memory entries that younger consumers often discount as slow data. That ledger includes whether a brand honoured a warranty how a workplace treated long term employees and whether public institutions kept their promises in small ways long before they became a political issue. The ledger matters. It changes how the next offer is received.
Where trends and experience collide
Not every sudden trend is frivolous. Some are useful. But trends ask for rapid belief at scale and reward spectacle. Experience asks for due diligence. The tension shows up in obvious places, from diet fads to digital platforms. A viral wellness product will attract attention. Someone born in the 60s or 70s will look for evidence of longevity for that product not just a glossy marketing finish. That instinct annoys disruptors who measure velocity instead of viability.
By investing in upskilling programmes businesses and policy makers can harness this growing demographic’s experience reliability and adaptability.
This quoted line does not close the argument. It underlines a reality. Institutions that ignore the input of people shaped by longer arcs are missing practical intelligence. They are missing a steady filter for what turns out to be durable.
Not every experiment needs to be embraced
I do not deny curiosity among older cohorts. Many of them adopt new tools and ideas. But curiosity is not the same as deference. There is a shape to their openness. It looks more like selective adoption than enthusiasm for novelty. The result is a distinct market effect. When older cohorts buy they often hold the product longer recommend it more cautiously and punish failure by silence not spectacle. A brand may lose them forever simply by failing to match a promise with a fix.
The cultural scripts that formed this outlook
There is a shorthand people use to explain generational differences. Mine is less tidy. People born in the 60s and 70s grew up in a world where long term institutions mattered but also where those same institutions proved fragile. They remember both the solidity and the cracks. Public trust flipped between faith and suspicion and that conditioned behaviour. You learned to test closer to home and to value the few dependable sources you could verify yourself.
Experience as a political and social stance
Choosing experience over trend can be political. It can also be survivalist. Valuing competence and track record becomes a way to avoid the noise. That stance influences voting habits workplace expectations and family dynamics. When someone insists on verified facts it is not always cynicism. It can be a practice forged in seasons when untested promises cost more than pride.
Practical consequences for brands and families
Companies that rely on flash will find these cohorts underwhelmed. Firms that emphasise durability clear return policies and a human point of contact are rewarded disproportionately. In households you will see this preference in how technology is introduced how healthcare options are discussed and how money is invested. Some younger people find this prudence maddening. I find it instructive.
There is also an odd generosity to the approach. Experience favours mentorship. People who trust experience share lessons in ways that trends do not. They are less likely to weaponise novelty and more likely to trade in tested fixes. That matters in civic life because institutions are more resilient when knowledge passes across generations rather than being broadcast as ephemeral priorities.
Closing reflections and an open end
I write this as a partial defence of stubbornness. I do not mean to romanticise inaction or to suggest that all past practices deserve preservation. Many old ways deserved obsolescence. What I am suggesting is this. There is wisdom in tempering the speed of adoption with the weight of consequence. For many people born in the 60s and 70s that tempering is not fear. It is an economy of attention cultivated across decades. It still has value.
The question I leave you with is simple and unresolved. How will cultures that reward speed and cultures that reward durability coexist without one wiping out the other? The tension is not yet solved and perhaps never will be. For now we have to live with both kinds of intelligence at the table.
Summary table
| Key idea | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Experience as a ledger | It accumulates trust through repeated proof rather than momentary promise. |
| Consequences shape choices | Decisions that carry long term costs discourage trend chasing. |
| Repairability over spectacle | Durable fixes retain loyalty more than flashy launches. |
| Selective adoption | Curiosity exists but is filtered through past failures and successes. |
| Intergenerational value transfer | Experience supports mentorship practical knowledge and institutional memory. |
FAQ
Why do people born in the 60s and 70s distrust rapid trends?
The distrust often comes from lived exposure to broken promises and volatile cycles. When you have seen policies programs and products fail despite big launches you begin to look for track records. That habit is not only practical but also emotional. It reduces regret and preserves resources. It is a learned risk management style shaped by decades of events not a reflexive rejection of the new.
Does this mean they never adopt new technology?
No. Many adopt and adapt. The pattern is selective. They prefer tools that demonstrate usefulness stability and clear support. Adoption tends to come after evidence rather than ahead of it. That makes their uptake slower but often steadier and less prone to churn.
How should brands approach this audience?
Be straightforward and accountable. Provide proof points. Offer accessible support and repair options. Demonstrate a willingness to fix mistakes quickly. Avoid exaggerated claims about radical reinvention. This audience values consistency and reliability more than marketing theatre.
Is this preference politically relevant?
Yes. Voting behaviour policy trust and civic engagement are influenced by how much people rely on tested outcomes. Those who trust experience often prioritise institutions that show competence and a record of delivery. That does not map cleanly onto party lines but it does shape political rhetoric and campaign strategies.
Can younger people learn from this approach?
Certainly. The lesson is not to slow progress but to pair speed with accountability. Younger people may gain by asking how a new thing performs after eighteen months not just at launch. That kind of follow through would make many trends more useful and less wasteful.
What is the single most misunderstood point about this preference?
People often assume it equals conservatism or stubbornness. In reality it is a pragmatic filter. Those who trust experience often still want change. They simply ask for evidence that change improves life sustainably rather than briefly.
