There is a quiet stubbornness about those born in the 1960s and 1970s. It is not loud or theatrical. It is a kind of practical solitude that shows up in small daily choices and large life turns alike. They will take a car trip without asking anyone. They will buy an appliance after a single afternoon of research. They will change careers at forty two and not expect a parade. This article is about the temperament behind that comfort with solo decisions and why it is both useful and misunderstood today.
They grew up in a world where choices landed on you without an app
People of this cohort remember a phase in life when information arrived through the radio or a thick newspaper and when advice often meant phoning an older relative or reading a how to book. There was less curated guidance, fewer crowd endorsements, and no comment threads to anxiously interpret. That absence created habits not of ignorance but of self reliance. You learned to trust your reading of a situation because you had to.
Decision muscle built by scarcity
When options are sparse you learn to decide with less deliberation. That sounds primitive, but it is efficient. The decision muscles of someone who navigated job boards, typed letters to officials, negotiated in person and balanced family budgets without personalised algorithms are well developed. They are practiced at estimating outcomes with incomplete data and at tolerating the small noise of being wrong.
Autonomy as lived practice not ideology
For many born in the 1960s and 1970s autonomy is not a political slogan. It is a way of living. They measure themselves against standards that are messy and practical: Did the issue resolve? Does the household function? Are the children fed? If the answers are yes then the decision was good enough. This pragmatic standard reduces the paralysis that can come from endless comparison.
There is a private apprenticeship in independence
Before the internet era offered endless validation loops, people learned independence through trial and error. That apprenticeship taught them patience with their own instincts. It also produced a tolerance for being unliked or misunderstood because many of the fixes they implemented were invisible. There is nothing heroic in that. It is ordinary competence. I find it oddly magnetic.
By the standards of our great grandparents nearly all of us are coddled. Each generation tends to see the one after it as weak whiny and lacking in resilience. Those older generations may have a point even though these generational changes reflect real and positive progress.
— Jonathan Haidt Social psychologist New York University.
Haidt is commenting on autonomy across generations. His observation helps explain why those raised in a less managed childhood environment tend to accept the friction of deciding alone rather than outsource choice to a platform or group.
Practical consequences at work and home
At work they will volunteer to make a decision and get on with implementation. At home they will shift the heating, call the builder, or choose the pension plan without theatre. This can be exhausting for younger colleagues who expect consultations, but it also frees teams from endless polling. The downside is an occasional blinkeredness. A solo decision is only as good as its information. Confidence is not the same as omniscience.
Not uniformly fearless
Make no mistake: this cohort is not uniformly brave. They worry. They recalibrate. But the difference is in the tolerance for ambiguity. Where some seek consensus before acting they will proceed with a private calculation. Their readiness to take responsibility is underrated and sometimes resented. That resentment often morphs into the cultural mythology of stubborn boomers who refuse input. Reality is less caricatured.
Why tech changed the texture of choosing
Technology did not invent decision making but it altered the environment. For those who matured before the social feed became a verdict engine there is a comfort in not checking every like or reply before finalising an opinion. This distance allows older decision makers to maintain a longer timeframe for choices. They are comfortable ignoring instant metrics because their world has taught them that some outcomes only reveal themselves months or years down the road.
The counterintuitive advantage
Oddly, being less connected to perpetual feedback loops permits a kind of experimental patience. They will try a change and let it breathe. Younger people often iterate publicly and quickly but rarely allow a single commitment the time to prove itself. Both approaches have value, but the solo decider is more likely to stick with a non fashionable strategy long enough to see whether it actually works.
Emotional architecture of solitary decision making
Deciding alone is not merely cognitive. It shapes identity. For many in this cohort, private decisions are how they keep a coherent narrative of self. You do things, you fix things, you own the results. That continuity feels stabilising. It also generates a low tolerance for performative deliberation. If you are making a choice for clarity rather than applause you learn to disregard applause as an input.
Not immune to loneliness
There is a price. Choosing alone can, in certain moments, feel isolating. Support networks matter. Solo decision making should not be romanticised into solitary heroism. When it becomes a gate that keeps others out it shifts from strength to liability. I have seen good decisions ruined by the refusal to invite reasonable counsel, and I have seen poor decisions salvaged by a friend willing to point out a blind spot. The point is balance, and balance is messier than any tidy column suggests.
What younger generations can learn
First learn to tolerate being wrong without turning it into a public spectacle. Second practise making a decision with limited data and setting a review date rather than waiting for perfect evidence. Third be sceptical of the cosmetic comfort of crowds. Consensus can feel safe but often costs speed and ownership.
And what older generations might borrow
Curiosity. The reflex to ask others what they think should not be labelled as weakness. Younger peers are not necessarily asking for validation alone. They are experimenting with distributed intelligence. The real skill is blending rapid feedback with the stubbornness to follow through.
Open ended conclusion
People born in the 1960s and 1970s are comfortable making decisions alone because that habit was carved out by their cultural, technological and economic landscape. It is a living practice and not merely a stereotype. I do not claim it is superior. I argue it is durable and often useful. The future will ask all of us to mix solitary resolve with collaborative agility. That mix will determine whether solo decision making remains an asset or becomes anachronism.
Summary table
| Observation | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Information scarcity trained decisiveness. | Leads to efficient choices under uncertainty. |
| Autonomy as habit not slogan. | Produces practical competence and ownership. |
| Less tied to instant feedback loops. | Allows long horizon commitments to breathe. |
| Emotional cost of solitude exists. | Balance with counsel prevents blindspots. |
| Cross generational exchange is beneficial. | Combining speed with distributed insight improves outcomes. |
Frequently asked questions
Do all people born in the 1960s and 1970s make decisions alone?
No. Generational tendencies are trends not laws. Some individuals in these cohorts are highly collaborative and others are private in any generation. What I describe is a common pattern seen often enough to be meaningful. Personal history education local culture and personality shape how someone decides more than birth year alone.
Is solitary decision making better than group decision making?
Neither is categorically better. Solo decisions are faster and build responsibility but risk blind spots. Group decisions invite more viewpoints but can slow action and dilute accountability. The best practice is situational. Match the decision method to the context and stakes and be ready to switch modes.
How can younger people learn to be more decisive?
Practice constrained experiments. Set a decision with a timeline and measurable outcomes. Start small with purchases or minor commitments and increase the stakes as your tolerance for ambiguity grows. Learn to mark a review date rather than regret in perpetuity. That structure turns indecision into disciplined iteration.
Can habitual solo deciders become more collaborative?
Yes. It requires explicit habit changes. Invite dissent early. Use pre mortems. Create channels where feedback is routine not exceptional. A person who decides alone can still solicit perspectives without surrendering ownership. The key is to normalise critique as data rather than threat.
Why does this topic stir strong opinions?
Because how we decide touches identity responsibility and control. In cultures wrestling with rapid change the question of who decides and how becomes symbolic of deeper anxieties about authority freedom and trust. People project more onto decision styles than is warranted. That is why honest mixed conversations are rare and valuable.
Where do we go from here?
We keep the useful parts of solitary decision making the courage to act and the habit of ownership while borrowing the humility and speed of networked feedback. That is the practical compromise we need. It will look different in different households workplaces and nations but the principle is consistent apply and iterate.
