There is a quiet stubbornness in the faces of men and women who were born between the early 1960s and late 1970s. It is not arrogance. It is not dismissal. It is an unshowy confidence that often looks, to younger eyes, like indifference. Psychology helps explain that difference and it is not the simple generational caricature you have seen in listicles. This piece is part opinion part observation and a little bit of a dare: stop calling them cold and start listening.
How a childhood without constant feedback rewired a generation
People born in the 1960s and 1970s came of age before smartphones and always-on social networks. They learned social cues in classrooms playgrounds and through neighbourhood rituals where feedback was slower and more local. That delay in the reward system trained patience. It also meant that approval came from tangible achievements and relationships rather than immediate likes or emoji.
Call it experiential calibration. When the world does not hand you a constant stream of evaluative signals you build internal barometers. Those barometers are messy. They are eclectic. They will fail you sometimes but they also make you less susceptible to the next trending standard of worth.
Why slower feedback breeds a different validation economy
Psychologists describe the ways we learn to value ourselves in terms of reinforcement histories. If approval is contingent and frequent you come to anticipate it and organise behaviour around signals. For the 1960s and 1970s cohorts approval was less commodified. A promotion a successful project or praise from a partner arrived after sustained effort not after a polished image. The architecture of motivation shifts when the reward schedule changes. The result is a population more likely to trust their private metrics.
That is not to imply superiority. It is to point out a structural difference. To those who lived through earlier decades the absence of instant validation is not a void to be filled but part of the terrain you navigate.
Culture wars matter less than structural pressures
I refuse to reduce this to a cultural bragging contest. Sure the 1960s and 1970s produced iconoclasts and cynics and a British culture that prized a kind of laconic reserve. But there is a deeper structural explanation: economic instability hybridity of work and the breakup of single career pathways pushed many of these people to develop an internal compass. When job ladders eroded the only reliable measure left was self assessment impartial and sometimes stubborn.
Douglas Coupland novelist and cultural commentator said The whole point of Gen X was and continues to be a negation of being forced into Baby Boomerdom against ones will. Douglas Coupland Generation X author and artist University of British Columbia.
Coupland is talking about a resistance to being folded into someone else s narrative. That resistance is part cultural and part cognitive. It shows up as a preference for autonomy over applause.
The role of adversity and stoicism
Adversity builds a kind of internal ledger. Those who weathered recessions shifting family structures and the early shock of technological change accumulated a store of private evidence that they were capable. You do not need external validation to confirm what you have already proved to yourself. Stoicism here is not a performance. It is a strategy developed over decades of patchy feedback.
Social networks rewrote the validation script for younger cohorts
We must not sentimentalise the past. Later generations benefit from new kinds of community and visibility. But visibility rewires incentive systems. Rapid feedback loops encourage behaviour shaped by presentational success. Younger adults who grew up online often learned that worth can be measured in impressions. This incentivises attention seeking in ways that earlier generations did not experience.
The psychological cost is not uniform. Some people thrive in that economy. Others trade long term depth for short term affirmation.
Personality selection and life stage effects
Not every person born in the 1960s and 1970s is validation proof. Personality traits matter. But selection effects are real. Those who survived the volatile job market and shifting social mores and persisted into stable midlife often did so by trusting internal cues. Life stage also plays a part. Older adults tend to value different things partly because priorities change. The cohorts discussed here intersect age related changes with historical exposures creating a unique mixture.
Why clinical psychology agrees but also warns
Clinical psychologists and sociologists are careful about sweeping generational claims. Yet many point out that reliance on internal validation can be adaptive but also risky. Overreliance on inner metrics without external calibration can isolate individuals or blind them to growth areas. The trick is balance.
Brené Brown research professor and vulnerability scholar at the University of Houston notes No amount of gold stars stickers or straight As is going to buy you worthiness. Brené Brown The Gifts of Imperfection University of Houston.
Brown s reminder lands provocative here. The 1960s and 1970s cohorts may require less external feedback but they do not live in a vacuum that guarantees worthiness. That line between healthy internal validation and stubborn refusal of feedback is where friction appears.
My own observation and a small confession
I have watched friends from these decades shrug off viral outrage and ignore online applause with the same bewildered calm. Sometimes it reads like wisdom. Sometimes like willful ignorance. I admire the ability to hold a private standard but I am also wary of the closed loop. When your inner meter becomes the only meter you can miss real signals that matter.
Still I prefer their occasional bluntness to the performative panics of perpetual approval seeking. There is more room for real conversation when validation is optional not mandatory.
What younger people can learn and what they should resist
Take the useful bits. Slower feedback teaches patience and the power of accumulation. Hold on to curiosity and do not mistake silence for indifference. Resist the urge to romanticise struggle or to weaponise independence as refusal to change. The past offers templates not rules.
Open ended conclusion
There is no single psychological conclusion that wraps this up neatly. Human beings are adaptive and context dependent. The legacy of a pre digital childhood life shaped by patchy reinforcement schedules and harder edges of adulthood gave many people born in the 1960s and 1970s a thicker skin for external approval. That thickness is not impenetrable nor is it a virtue on its own. It is one strategy among many and like any strategy it has trade offs.
Maybe that is the real point. We do not need to decide which generation is morally superior. We should pay attention to the incentives we create and ask what kinds of inner worlds they produce. Sometimes the quiet stubbornness of people born between 1960 and 1979 is the sanest response to a world that often rewards the loudest not the truest.
Summary table
| Key idea | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Delayed feedback in childhood | Fosters internal validation mechanisms and patience. |
| Economic and social instability | Encourages reliance on private metrics when external systems fail. |
| Rise of social media | Introduces rapid feedback systems that rewire younger cohorts expectations. |
| Balance is essential | Internal validation helps resilience but risks isolation without external calibration. |
FAQ
Do these generational differences mean older people are less emotional?
Not at all. Emotional life remains rich and complex across ages. The key difference is often how emotion is signalled. Some prefer private reflection while others display feelings publicly. Neither is inherently better. The important question is whether one s style helps or hinders meaningful connection.
Can someone change how much external validation they need?
Yes people can shift their validation habits. Practices like reflective journalling long projects and selective reduction of attention seeking behaviours help. Change tends to be slow and requires a willingness to test internal beliefs against external evidence without catastrophising small failures.
Is internal validation always healthy?
Internal validation is adaptive when grounded in reality and open to feedback. Problems arise when it becomes a shield against learning or a way to dismiss legitimate concerns. The healthiest position is curious confidence accompanied by selective openness.
Should employers treat these cohorts differently?
Effective management attends to individual differences not only age. However understanding that some employees may value autonomy over applause can inform better task design feedback rhythms and recognition systems. That nuance beats crude generational stereotyping.
Where do we go from here as a society?
We ought to design social systems that cultivate both internal resilience and healthy external calibration. That means slowing some feedback loops creating spaces for deep work and encouraging practices that reward long term effort not only viral success. Small structural nudges can change what counts as meaningful validation.
There is more to say and I am deliberately leaving some threads loose. That is the point. If you were born in the 1960s or 1970s and you disagree I want to hear it. If you are younger and curious ask a direct question. Generational wisdom only becomes wisdom when it is argued over not sanctified.
