The System is a Beast

When generations collide over breakfast

While at Oxford I stumbled across a treasure trove of historical information called the Paston Letters, which I’ve referenced here before. The family was a merchant family that preserved its personal correspondence between members over several generations. Interspersed with orders for cloth or marzipan and sugar, are true nuggets of wisdom and insight that you don’t really find in many other places. The truest of them are the most trite: there is friction between generations.

While this is no revelation, it is interesting to me to pay attention to how it plays out in my own life. In fact, the stark difference between the way that GenZ see and function in the world now opposed to how those who came before did so boggles the mind and I find myself asking frequently, “How on earth could anyone come to that conclusion?”

As a caveat, there is a danger when you write about large groups of people. You will most definitely commit the sin of painting with too broad a brush and open yourself up to the rhetorically incorrect rebuttal of: “Well, I’m a member of that group and I don’t behave that way,” and while specifically that may be true, it doesn’t mean that the charge writ large isn’t also true.

My growing conclusion is that there's a stark disconnect between GenZ and older generations—a chasm rooted in the way they navigate the world. It starts with the Boomers, who trusted institutions because they were infinitely less complex and delivered results in every way possible to benefit them. Those institutions are still doing so, something else I write about frequently, and often to the detriment of younger generations.

They were raised—by Boomers to place unwavering trust in the system but told that doing so was evidence of creative thinking. They’ve inherited an unexamined faith in the beneficence of the system. This causes them to default to policies over people, to faceless machinery over individual judgment. And here's the irony: they genuinely believe they're the champions of individuality because they largely support identity-based agendas. But when reality demands flexibility or exceptions to the rules, they flounder. Not because their ability to think critically has been suppressed—it simply was never developed, or at least honed, in the first place.

Unlike their parents, however, they lack the critical thinking skills to question or effectively navigate these structures. Thought they are the best educated generation in the history of humanity, they've become the generation least equipped for critical thought, astonishingly oblivious to the dangers of mindlessly following the edicts of an impersonal machine.

Their politics illustrate this adherence to the religion of the machine, too. In several much-discussed studies, GenZ were shown fake interviews with political candidates with identical policy positions. They overwhelmingly chose the candidate that stood out the least, whether by dress and appearance, or tone of voice and attitude, or age and maturity. The one exception that overrode every other was identification with an alternative lifestyle.

Those who market to GenZ will testify to the mantra that Same but Different is what moves product. Apple is a tech giant but it’s just different enough to be identified as acceptable. It doesn’t stand out as markedly different (like it did to GenX - remember the 1984 campaign and Think Different campaigns?), but as homogenous and adaptive to identity-based themes. Nike is the same way, the product itself is no longer distinguishable from competitors, but the endorsements and social justice campaigns it pursues is. For GenX, Starbucks was new and counter-cultural with radical new flavors and business practices. For GenZ, it’s a commodity that puts Pride flags on its cups to be acceptable.

And if you buck the trend, there is hell to pay. This is the generation after all that perfected the boycott and tuned it into the ominous sounding “Cancel Culture.” The same group invented the concept of the Karen, a consumer who wants things done right and usually has to ask for an adult to make that happen. The same group that simply stops communicating when they realize that you don’t cleave to their rigid sense of identity-based conclusions.

I think stupid examples are the best, because they often reveal what sophisticated thought experiments can’t.

My family and I discovered a new breakfast spot that seemed poised to become our regular haunt. The food was solid, and we were eager to support a local business. The entire front-of-house staff was under the age 27, no energy and on their phones whenever a lull developed, if only for 5 seconds. The owners hustled behind the grill, striving to keep up with orders—a promising sign of a thriving new establishment.

But then, the absurdity of their system revealed itself.

At some time in the phases of opening the establishment, someone had decreed that each server could handle a maximum of three tables at a time—no exceptions. Tables were to be seated in strict rotation, regardless of whether other servers were available. So when the next server in line was maxed out, new customers were either turned away or told to wait an arbitrary thirty minutes, even as other servers stood around with empty tables and idle hands. It was ludicrous and would have been hilarious but my 2 year old was ready for waffles.

When we arrived and were subjected to this nonsensical rule—presented as if it were some sacred, unchallengeable doctrine—I was stunned. My jaw literally dropped. I calmly proposed a simple, logical solution: seat us with a server who actually had capacity. The response? Resistance bordering on hostility. I had dared to question the system, to inject common sense into a process that was clearly failing both customers and the business.

And there's the crux of the problem.

GenZ proclaim themselves advocates for the individual, but only in the abstract. They champion identity politics and social causes, yet when faced with real-world situations requiring personal judgment and flexibility, they cling desperately to rules and policies. There's an inability—or unwillingness—to think critically, to adapt, to see beyond the rigid confines of prescribed procedures.

And I notice that the concept of fairness reductio ad abdurdam is in play: “If I do this for you, I’ll have to do it for everyone and then things will fall apart.” That’s not even true, but tell me how being more efficient all the time would be so bad, kid?

It's not that their critical thinking has been stifled; it was never nurtured to begin with. An education system that prioritized standardized testing over analytical thought, combined with parenting that emphasized compliance over curiosity, has produced a generation ill-prepared to question or challenge the status quo.

This rigid adherence to systems over people isn't just frustrating; it's detrimental. It stifles innovation, hampers customer service, and creates unnecessary friction in everyday interactions. The breakfast spot squandered a golden opportunity to build customer loyalty and improve their operations, all because their staff couldn't—or wouldn't—deviate from a system so obviously flawed and stupid that my kids grasped the problem before I did.

So, where do we go from here?

First, it's imperative to recognize that systems are tools designed to serve us, not the other way around. Blindly following rules without considering their purpose or effectiveness is a surefire path to mediocrity at best, and outright failure at worst. GenZ should be taught this at every opportunity.

Second, we must urgently foster critical thinking skills. This means encouraging questioning, promoting problem-solving, and valuing individual judgment over blind compliance. My experiences have redoubled my resolve to teach my kids to see the system and then use its strengths and exploit its weaknesses to their benefit and advancement.

Third, there needs to be an open dialogue between generations. Those of us who have navigated life's complexities without relying on rigid systems have a responsibility to share our insights. We must challenge GenZ to step beyond their comfort zones, to think independently, and to understand that true respect for the individual goes beyond supporting abstract identities—it requires engaging with real people in real situations, embracing nuance and exercising flexibility.

Ultimately, it's about reclaiming the human element that's been lost in the shuffle. Recognizing that while systems and policies have their place, they should never override common sense, empathy, and individual judgment. Until we bridge this gap, frustration will persist, and the potential for meaningful progress will remain unrealized.

It's high time we stopped accepting the status quo and started demanding more—from ourselves, from each other, and from the systems that are supposed to serve us. Only then can we hope to move forward, fostering a culture that truly values individuality not just in theory, but in everyday practice.