There is a stubborn, often quietly stubborn logic to people born in the 1960s and 1970s. They watch trends arrive like seasonal weather and then decide whether to carry an umbrella or not. Sometimes they will, sometimes they will not, but the decision usually comes from a personal ledger of past successes and failures rather than a social media swell. That ledger is more than nostalgia. It is a habit of judgement learned in decades when promises could be tested over months and years not minutes and likes.
How lived time shapes judgement
People who grew up in the heat of late 20th century change remember product launches that flopped spectacularly, political fixes that were temporary, and fashions that returned only to be mocked. These experiences add up. There is a different tempo of evidence when your early adulthood included cassette players, video rental queues, and newspapers that mattered. Decisions made in that tempo tend to privilege patterns over novelties. That does not make this generation conservative in a blanket sense. It makes them suspicious of hype, and rightly so.
Not cynicism but calibrated trust
The mistrust of trends is not an absence of curiosity. Many from these cohorts are avid adopters of new technology and ideas. But curiosity is biddable; it is tempered by a short mental checklist: who made it, how long did similar things last, and what are the hidden costs. It is an experiential filter. Where younger people might evaluate a new brand by its aesthetics or endorsements, those born in the 60s and 70s are more likely to weigh it against a lifetime of prototypes that failed the first season.
Experience as a living archive
Experience here is not mere age. It is an archive that people consult when confronted with shiny alternatives. That archive contains small humiliations and small triumphs that teach discernment. It registers which promises were vapour and which had staying power. There is an emotional clarity in that: a preference for tested usefulness over novelty for novelty’s sake. This attitude shows up everywhere from the way they buy household goods to whom they trust for political commentary.
Why authority feels earned
Trust in experience often equates to trust in people who have demonstrated reliability over time. The signals that suggest reliability are mundane. A tradesperson who turns up when they say they will. A doctor who remembers the first time they treated you. A local shopkeeper who keeps the same standards through decades. Those are the proofs that carry weight. They do not read as flashy, but they gain trust because they survived small tests of truth repeatedly.
Socioemotional shifts that matter
Psychologists have a name for the way priorities shift with age and perspective. These shifts explain why older adults may prefer meaningful interactions over novelty seeking. This is not a dismissal of the new. It is an allocation of attention. People born in the 60s and 70s often focus resources where return on investment is proven in human terms: relationships work, practical solutions, and reputations that persist. That focus makes them less vulnerable to rapid trend cycles.
It is a huge loss for society not to offer such counsel and experience to others especially young people. These skills such as critical thinking problem solving and social interaction influence social connections and sense of purpose. They are key to success in school and work and they enable people to contribute meaningfully to society. Laura L. Carstensen PhD Professor Stanford University Center on Longevity.
Personal patterns that create collective effects
When large swathes of a generation favour experience over trends the market adapts. Brands notice. Political strategists notice. That is why legacy advertising that speaks to craftsmanship and utility does not disappear. It shifts. The cultural consequence is that experience becomes not only a private heuristic but a public language. Markets and institutions begin to craft offerings that signal durability. That signalled durability then feeds back into the generation’s preference. Self reinforcing loops exist here and they are subtle.
Where trends still win
The hold of trends is not absolute. When novelty offers clear and immediate advantage or when it aligns with values people care about deeply, the barrier can fall fast. Think of practical digital services that remove friction or movements that align with moral convictions. Even those raised to trust experience adopt trends fast when the benefit is lived and measurable on day one. The key difference is what they demand before adoption proof that the new object or idea will perform under everyday pressures not just in the best case scenario.
What marketers and communicators get wrong
Too many campaigns confuse visibility for trust. They amplify presence without demonstrating the slow accrual of reliability. For people born in the 60s and 70s the tipping point is not the number of followers but the consistency of behaviour. A clever stunt may gain attention; consistent aftercare wins loyalty. Empathy plays here too. Communication that assumes contempt or gullibility will fail. Offer evidence not just claims. Show the messy long haul work behind the shine.
When experience becomes a blind spot
There is a downside. Prizing experience too highly can calcify habits and exclude fresh perspectives. I have met people who dismiss genuinely useful innovations because a prior similar product underdelivered. That reluctance sometimes stalls adaptation that would improve life. The balance is precarious and personal. The generational tendency toward tested solutions can be both stabilising and conservative to a fault.
Small experiments worth trying
Rather than leap or barricade, try incremental evidence gathering. Test a new gadget for a clearly defined task. Ask for trial periods and maintenance histories. Demand clear service commitments the sort of things this generation instinctively values. These choices retain discernment while avoiding total rejection of novelty. It is how lived experience can be extended into a living openness rather than a closed archive.
Conclusion
People born in the 60s and 70s trust experience more than trends because their world was built on slower evidence rhythms. That temporal grammar trained them to value reliability. This preference is not merely reactionary. It is a practical, proven approach to uncertainty. But it is not perfect. The same habits that preserve wisdom can sometimes resist progress. The conversation between experience and trend will continue and both sides will change each other in the process. That is not the end of the story. It is the point at which the next test begins.
| Key idea | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Experience as an archive | Decisions are filtered through accumulated real world outcomes. |
| Calibrated trust | Preference for consistent proof over flashy claims. |
| Socioemotional priorities | Attention shifts toward meaning and utility with time. |
| Market feedback loop | Generational preferences shape and are shaped by institutions. |
| Practical compromise | Incremental testing protects discernment while allowing adoption. |
FAQ
Why do people from the 60s and 70s often distrust social media trends?
They came of age in eras where reputation and proof required time and repeated observation. Social media accelerates visibility but not necessarily reliability. The result is an instinct to wait for confirmation beyond likes and endorsements. There is also an element of learned caution from witnessing many once hyped ideas fail once the marketing stops and the product or movement must stand up to everyday use.
Is this distrust linked to being less tech savvy?
Not in most cases. Many people born in those decades are highly competent with technology. The difference is methodological not technical. They apply a testing mindset. The question they ask is pragmatic will this make my life measurably better. If the answer is yes and supported by evidence they adopt quickly. If the answer is ambiguous they resist until more information accumulates.
How should brands approach this generation?
Be transparent about longevity and support. Provide service records warranties and honest performance metrics. Use real testimonials with context not ephemeral influencer blurbs. Show a readiness to repair and stand behind claims. That approach respects the way this generation makes decisions and will yield more durable loyalty than transient hype.
Can younger people learn from this approach?
Yes. A more deliberate approach to adoption reduces wasted time and money. Young people already have advantages in experimentation but borrowing a careful verification habit can prevent costly mistakes. Testing novelties in low risk ways and watching for long term signals are transferable skills that improve decision making for any age.
Does valuing experience make someone conservative politically or socially?
Not necessarily. Valuing experience is a heuristic about risk and evidence not an ideology. Many who prefer experienced voices are progressive in other ways. The preference simply changes how they evaluate claims: they ask who has lived through similar promises and what were the consequences. That can lead to conservative or progressive outcomes depending on the context and the evidence at hand.
How do you strike a healthy balance between experience and openness to trends?
Keep an evidence budget. Allow small scale trials for new things while protecting core routines that matter. Demand accountability from innovators and reward those who demonstrate durability. This approach maintains the benefits of both caution and adaptability without surrendering either.
