There is a quiet impatience in the way many people born in the 1960s and 1970s look at the world of instant hype. It is not grandstanding. It is a preference carved out of repeated disappointment and small wins. They have watched movements crest and collapse, seen fashions and platforms burn bright and then dim, and learned that longevity and repeatability matter more than novelty alone.
How lived history tilts judgement
People who grew up between the swinging seventies and the volatile seventies to eighties crossover did not inherit a steady stream of curated realities. Institutions were tangible. Work meant a weekly routine. When something worked over years it proved its worth practically rather than performatively. That is not nostalgia speaking. It is a decision rule formed by exposure to cycles of failure and the expense of picking the wrong side of a trend.
The economy taught patience
They remember price spikes that reshaped household budgets, recessions that demanded adaptability and workplace norms where career reputations were built slowly. Those experiences create a mental ledger. People consult it when they decide whether to trust a newcomer or a new claim. The ledger favours repeatable outcomes. A brand that survives a decade, a tool that still works after years of updates, a friend who shows up again and again all count for more than a viral moment.
There is also an emotional economy at play. Trust formed over time carries a lower psychological tax. When you have already suffered the embarrassment of a bad recommendation, you grow risk aversion in certain social domains. That aversion looks like conservatism to some people and like wisdom to others.
Experience outperforms novelty in everyday decisions
Decisions about health appointments education purchases pensions cars and local services often land on people in their fifties and sixties. For these cumulative choices a single flashy promise is rarely enough. They want proof that the promise keeps. Reliability is not only a preference it is an efficiency preference. It saves time energy and rework. Trends require constant monitoring and reassessment. Experience delivers fewer surprises.
Technology is a test case
When a new interface or gadget appears the first instinct among experienced users is to map it to prior interactions. If it matches an old reliable mental model they are likely to accept it. If it dislocates expected patterns they resist until the benefits are obvious. This is not technophobia. It is a calibration process. A recent peer reviewed study on older adults and input modes shows how prior usage patterns shape trust in interfaces and how tactile familiarity can outweigh shiny new voice driven promises.
Trust experience plays a pivotal role in human computer interaction particularly for older adults where it serves as a critical psychological threshold for technology adoption and sustained usage.
Hui Huang Researcher Yibin Hospital Affiliated to Children s Hospital of Chongqing Medical University.
That quotation is not a flourish. It explains why someone might dismiss an app that everyone else is celebrating if that app fails the basic tests of predictability and feedback that experienced users have come to expect.
Experience is a social signal not a closed loop
Trust built on experience is social as well as personal. Stories of bad service repeated across a community carry weight. Conversely long positive interactions at a local dentist a mechanic or a community theatre build an unspoken covenant. That covenant is not always rational. It is thick with small signals gestures histories of fairness and, crucially, the absence of betrayal. You can read reviews until midnight but nothing replaces seeing a neighbour you respect still using the same bakery after twenty years.
There is moral economy here
Experience includes an assessment of character. When institutions or businesses behave like weather rather than geology people born in the 60s and 70s notice. They are more likely to reward steadiness and to punish flamboyance that hides vacuity. That is why quiet reputations often outlast loud launches.
Where trends still sneak in
Trust in experience does not mean hostility to novelty. Far from it. When an innovation proves durable it is adopted with enthusiasm. Think of the transition from vinyl to compact discs and then to streaming. The early sceptics did not reject digital music because it was new they tested it against sound quality convenience and long term viability. The real measure was whether the innovation integrated into life in a sustainable way.
Trends that pass their tests become part of experience. The pathway matters. If a trend offers an easy-to-judge metric of stability it will be accepted faster. If it does not then the pendulum of distrust swings longer.
What brands and creators get wrong
Many modern marketers assume attention equals trust. For someone whose yardstick is experience attention alone is an empty calorie. That mismatch creates a credibility gap. Brands that chase virality without investing in service continuity or customer repair find their growth ephemeral. Promises without anchors become liabilities.
There are tactical lessons here. Show a track record. Demonstrate repair and accountability. Keep a visible local presence. The absence of these is telling to someone who learned to rely on patterns rather than pitches.
My observation
I have seen small businesses thrive by leaning into repeatability. One florist in a northern town I know sends the same handwritten note with every bouquet for a decade. That simple ritual outlives every ephemeral trend in bridal colours or celebrity endorsements. It is not because it is clever. It is because it is consistent. The people who patronise that shop are not buying novelty. They are buying an experience that can be counted on.
Generational friction is not collapse
When younger people criticise those born in the 60s and 70s for being stuck in past ways they sometimes miss that these choices are strategic. The older generation has survived more cultural churn. Their scepticism is not a refusal to change but a demand for evidence that change will endure. That demand can be shackling. It can also be a stabilising force in communities and markets where durability matters.
There is a balance. Too little openness and you miss useful innovations. Too much faith in novelty and you risk brittle commitments. People who trust experience more than trends tilt that balance toward stability and away from spectacle.
Why this matters now
In an era where content moves faster than comprehension the valuation of experience becomes a slow antidote. Markets and civic life need anchors. Institutions that ignore the lived expectations of a large cohort do so at their peril. They may capture headlines but lose the slow steady business that funds resilience. That is not romanticising the past. It is recognising the economic and social function of patience.
| Core idea | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Experience as default heuristic | Reduces risk and cognitive load when choosing services and relationships. |
| Long term reputation beats short term buzz | Creates durable customer bases and community trust. |
| Technology acceptance is experience dependent | Interfaces that map to prior models gain trust faster among experienced users. |
| Social reinforcement amplifies experiential trust | Local narratives and repeated interactions solidify reliability perceptions. |
FAQ
Do people born in the 60s and 70s never follow trends
No they do not. They are selective. Trends that prove functional durable or morally aligned with existing commitments get adopted. The difference is the test not the temperament. They demand repeatability and low downside risk. If a trend clears that bar it is absorbed and becomes part of the experience catalogue.
Is trusting experience the same as being conservative
Not strictly. Conservatism presumes an ideological bent. Trusting experience is a method. It is risk management. It can result in conservative choices but it can also produce pragmatic experimentation when the evidence supports it. The motivation is practical more than doctrinal.
How should businesses speak to this audience
Do not only brag about traction. Show repair policies longevity milestones and user stories that demonstrate consistency. Make it easy to test and return. Offer clear continuity plans. Over time these details matter more than glossy launches.
Can social media change these preferences
Social media introduces new information flows but it does not erase the cost of choosing poorly. The platforms can accelerate awareness but they cannot substitute for sustained performance. People who value experience will use social media for signals but will still check for continuity offline or over time.
Is this attitude harmful to innovation
It can slow adoption curves but it also keeps a filter that weeds out many unserious fads. In aggregate the preference for experience pressures innovators to build durable products rather than fleeting spectacles.
There is a subtle dignity to this stance. It is not about stubbornness. It is about an economy of attention and a preference for consequences that can be counted on. That matters more than ever when the world rewards speed over substance.
