# Which generation are you? Do you relate most to your own generation or another?



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

For clarification, we will be using the generational boundaries as defined in Strauss and Howe's work

birth years are as follows
GI: 1901-1924
Silent: 1925-1942
Boomer: 1943-1960**
Gen X/13er: 1961-1981**
Millennial: 1982-2004
Gen Z/Homeland: 2005-present

These vary a bit from the conventional boundaries that put both a bit earlier. The logic is that "a boomer is someone with no living memory of WWII", but they argue that, practically speaking, children under 3 when the war ended won't have much memory of it either and will share in the collective mood of those a bit younger than them. 

Similarly, they based a lot of their boundaries based off of interviews of thousands of people of various ages, and the conventionally placed late-wave Silent Gen tended to relate more with Boomers, while late-wave Boomers tended to relate more with Gen X.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I thought boomers were 1946-1962? The baby boom beginning after the end of the war. That makes me a boomer.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

How old are you and what kind of classical does young people like?


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

The “baby boom” was after WWII, yes. The “GI” generation I took to be WWII vets, not WWI. How many WWI vets are even still alive?


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

1946-1964 = boomers
1965-1980 = gen x
1981-1996 = gen y
1997-2022 = gen alpha

According to Wikipedia, the authority in all things


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I'm a Boomer and proud.  
Long live Boho dresses and dangly earrings!


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

starthrower said:


> I thought boomers were 1946-1962? The baby boom beginning after the end of the war. That makes me a boomer.


These are the dates most people use because they offer an easy cut-off (end of WWII), but people born a few years before 1946 have more common experience with boomers than those born in the mid 1960s. I use the definitions put forward by Strauss and Howe because their theories on generational cycles and behaviors are the most comprehensive, make the most intuitive sense and have been shown to have powerful predictive power.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Okay, the next time somebody brushes off my opinion about something by replying, ok boomer, I'll inform them that I'm a gen xer.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Being born in 1963 I always assumed I was one of the later Baby Boomers but I'll settle for Gen X - it's a cooler term. The 60s never really happened for me - far too young to appreciate that decade or even remember much of it. One of my first memories was being taken to primary school prior to enrolment. This was in April 1968 when I was 4. The school shut down the year I left (1972) and was demolished some years later - where it was is where the supermarket now is. My hometown has changed a lot during my lifetime, and not necessarily for the better in some aspects.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

Born in 1965. I have never identified with Gen-X, nor baby boomer. I have always considered myself one of those people who've fallen between the crack between the two generations belonging to neither one.


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

What generation am I? - My Generation, ok Who's Next.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

I am a Millennial. I relate to no one, not even myself.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> These are the dates most people use because they offer an easy cut-off (end of WWII), but people born a few years before 1946 have more common experience with boomers than those born in the mid 1960s. I use the definitions put forward by Strauss and Howe because their theories on generational cycles and behaviors are the most comprehensive, make the most intuitive sense and have been shown to have powerful predictive power.





> A significant degree of consensus exists around the date range of the baby boomer cohort, with the generation considered to cover those born from 1946 to 1964 by various organizations such as the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary,[SUP][27][/SUP] Pew Research Center,[SUP][28][/SUP] U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,[SUP][29][/SUP][SUP][30][/SUP] Federal Reserve Board,[SUP][31][/SUP] Australian Bureau of Statistics,[SUP][32][/SUP] Gallup,[SUP][33][/SUP] YouGov[SUP][34][/SUP] and Australia's Social Research Center.[SUP][35][/SUP] The United States Census Bureau defines baby boomers as "individuals born in the United States between mid-1946 and mid-1964".[SUP][36][/SUP][SUP][37][/SUP] Landon Jones, in his book _Great Expectations: America and the Baby Boom Generation_ (1980), defined the span of the baby-boom generation as extending from 1946 through 1964.[SUP][38][/SUP] Others have delimited the baby boom period differently. Authors William Strauss and Neil Howe, in their 1991 book _Generations_, define the social generation of boomers as that cohort born from 1943 to 1960, who were too young to have any personal memory of World War II, but old enough to remember the postwar American High before John F. Kennedy's assassination.[SUP][39][/SUP]


Whilst one can't escape the facts of one's birth (the year, the numbers being born at the same time, the cultural events unfolding) one is not obliged to conform to an unproven sociological model.

I don't "relate" to any fixed generation-type; I'm not about to claim allegiance to any label that someone might want to pin on me.

However, I don't doubt that my outlook will have been subconsciously shaped by the experiences and attitudes of my parents - teens of WW2 years - and my grandparents - teens of the Great War. My maternal grandmother in particular was an ever-present in our household, helping to raise us (6 children) while my mother and father went out to work. Her stories about her father - a cabinet maker in rural Dorset - her husband - an officer in the Royal Engineers serving at Dunkirk and elsewhere - and her own experiences in a munitions factory (in WW1) and in service, were almost as important as the stories from my semi-absent mother (born in a pub in Cambridge).


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Forster said:


> Whilst one can't escape the facts of one's birth (the year, the numbers being born at the same time, the cultural events unfolding) one is not obliged to conform to an unproven sociological model.
> 
> I don't "relate" to any fixed generation-type; I'm not about to claim allegiance to any label that someone might want to pin on me.
> 
> *However, I don't doubt that my outlook will have been subconsciously shaped by the experiences and attitudes of my parents - teens of WW2 years - and my grandparents - teens of the Great War. My maternal grandmother in particular was an ever-present in our household, helping to raise us (6 children) while my mother and father went out to work*. Her stories about her father - a cabinet maker in rural Dorset - her husband - an officer in the Royal Engineers serving at Dunkirk and elsewhere - and her own experiences in a munitions factory (in WW1) and in service, were almost as important as the stories from my semi-absent mother (born in a pub in Cambridge).


Side note: most demographers and psychologists significantly overplay the significance of the teen years in terms of life outlook compared to other periods which can be equally important. Ex: When you're a teen, you...can't actually do much about the real world. Age 20-22 is around the time where most people are at a place in life where they have some ability to actually make a difference in reality, and most people's values will change considerably between 20-25, 25-30 and even 30-40. The rate at which one's values change does tend to slow over time (ex: this is why teen trends seem to change at like 10x the rate of the general populous), but there is a large swathe of life after the teens during which most people come out the other end looking completely different. I'm 30 (smack in the middle of the millennials), and I don't feel like my understanding or worldview are remotely close to static at this point.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

I'm a millennial and relate by far the most to Gen X. The main differences being 
1) I love a lot of their values, but they can be a little too "rugged individualist" in terms of underestimating the necessary role of institutions to actually facilitate an individualistic society to begin with. I'm willing to pay a little bit of tax for lean gov't systems that work (not that we have many of those), because the alternative is no structure protecting people's rights.
2) There is nothing more Gen X than...not standing up for Gen X. I am more typically millennial in my assertiveness in standing up for people I think are getting the raw end of the deal. 

Strauss and Howe call millennials either the "Hero Generation" or the "Civic Generation" depending on the text, and imo, the latter fits better, and is something I can at least see signs of in myself in spite of not relating to my peers overall.


----------



## KevinW (Nov 21, 2021)

Ok, I am 16 years old and therefore a Gen Z. I can’t quite relate to my peers of course, as someone who spent time on Talk Classical instead of Spotify, Tiktok or PS5. I can mostly relate to GI—the traditionalists. I agree with them in many aspects, such as their social conservative ideas, musical preference, aesthetics, etc. I can never understand why my peers are making weird and colorful hair, dressing so provocatively, saying dirty words as much as they can, resisting the traditional beauty in music and art, having avant guard, crazy and unrealistic ideas, etc.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

KevinW said:


> Ok, I am 16 years old and therefore a Gen Z. I can't quite relate to my peers of course, as someone who spent time on Talk Classical instead of Spotify, Tiktok or PS5. I can mostly relate to GI-the traditionalists. I agree with them in many aspects, such as their social conservative ideas, musical preference, aesthetics, etc. I can never understand why my peers are making weird and colorful hair, dressing so provocatively, saying dirty words as much as they can, resisting the traditional beauty in music and art, having avant guard, crazy and unrealistic ideas, etc.


Based 
Reminds me a bit of when I was younger. I spent my high school career after school hanging out at this tea shop with a bunch of 40 year old businessmen who talked to me about international finance and gave me book recommendations. Been an opera buff since about 15 or so (I am currently 30)


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I am a member of the Silent Generation, influenced by both the experiences of my/our parents through the Great Depression and then the years of WWII, and later by the relative promise of the Eisenhower/JFK/early LBJ years, flawed as they were: Brown v. Board of Education, the hopes for racial equality and talk of lifting millions out of poverty, and a growing interest in environmental issues. But my peers--friends of my age and circumstance--all share a growing dismay at so many failed opportunities, and a gathering sense that the physical and biological laws of nature are catching up with those years of continued neglect of said laws as they apply to the state of our world and our place in it. So put me down as relating most strongly to my fellow/sister members of the unsilent, Silent Generation.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

starthrower said:


> Okay, the next time somebody brushes off my opinion about something by replying, ok boomer, I'll inform them that I'm a gen xer.


I respond, "More like 'okay Gen-xer.'"


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

Boomer, and proud of it. Born in 1948, the year of the ugliest Studebaker automobile! 

At this age I'm old enough to say "no" and get no argument.  


Kh


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Krummhorn said:


> Boomer, and proud of it. Born in 1948, the year of the ugliest Studebaker automobile!
> 
> At this age I'm old enough to say "no" and get no argument.


Yes, but the Studebakers of the 1950s, the Golden Hawk and others, were quite stylish.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I don't relate to generations, I relate to individuals.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

We Gen-Xers have it easy. We don't carry the same baggage, and/or stigma as Boomers or Millennials.


----------



## Chibi Ubu (11 mo ago)

progmatist said:


> We Gen-Xers have it easy. We don't carry the same baggage, and/or stigma as Boomers or Millennials.


tsk tsk, time will tell


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

All the gen z zoomers have moved on to discord platforms and such. Glad to see you guys still holding down the fort on this forum. I'm a millenial.


----------



## Chibi Ubu (11 mo ago)

"Every generation laughs at the old fashions, but follows religiously the new."

---Henry David Thoreau

"But not always"

---Chibi Ubu


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

'Boomer' apparently, though I'm not interested in labels. As someone else has said, I relate to people, not generations. Some of my friends are in their 80s, some in their 20s. And that's how it should be.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

starthrower said:


> Okay, the next time somebody brushes off my opinion about something by replying, ok boomer, I'll inform them that I'm a gen xer.


OK Boomer.

I was born 1954, remember seeing Eisenhower on TV but someone had to explain to me the significance of the Kennedy assassination. I remember the Watts riots, I remember Attica, I remember the Civil Rights marches and the Summer of Love. I remember landing on the moon.

I remember when phones had dials, and TVs had antennas.

I remember people saying seat belts abrogated their personal freedoms.

I've owned 45s and LPs (though not 78s), cassettes, Mini-Discs, SD cards, USB sticks, CD and CD-Rs. I've owned VHS and laserdiscs and DVDs and DVD-Rs and Blu-rays. All of these were wonderful inventions at the time.

I remember we were promised flying cars, holograms and instant meals in a pill by now. There have been disappointments.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Strange Magic said:


> Yes, but the Studebakers of the 1950s, the Golden Hawk and others, were quite stylish.


Saw an electric Avanti in some sci-fi movie recently, and it looked right at home.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

NoCoPilot said:


> OK Boomer.
> 
> I was born 1954, remember seeing Eisenhower on TV but someone had to explain to me the significance of the Kennedy assassination. I remember the Watts riots, I remember Attica, I remember the Civil Rights marches and the Summer of Love. I remember landing on the moon.
> 
> ...


Born 1940, so I remember ration books, Jimmy Dorsey, Doo-***, HUAC, Army/McCarthy, Kefauver Committee, and 1950s Tin Pan Alley.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Strange Magic said:


> I am a member of the Silent Generation, influenced by both the experiences of my/our parents through the Great Depression and then the years of WWII, and later by the relative promise of the Eisenhower/JFK/early LBJ years, flawed as they were: Brown v. Board of Education, the hopes for racial equality and talk of lifting millions out of poverty, and a growing interest in environmental issues. But my peers--friends of my age and circumstance--all share a growing dismay at so many failed opportunities, and a gathering sense that the physical and biological laws of nature are catching up with those years of continued neglect of said laws as they apply to the state of our world and our place in it. So put me down as relating most strongly to my fellow/sister members of the unsilent, Silent Generation.


To put this in contemporary perspective, you and I and many of our generation see what's happened since the Earl Warren court as "progress:" a more inclusive, more equalitarian, more fair and balanced society. We see the "progressivism" of the past seventy years as progress.

Not everybody does. Some conservatives see the early 1950s as the peak years of the republic. They'd like to return to the more strict formalism of the pre-Civil Rights era, when suits and ties and hats were work attire, when we were all "Mad Men" and everybody knew their place. To make America great again they want to roll back all the Earl Warren progressive judicial activism, the namby-pamby legislative coddling, the welfare state and social safety nets and the rampant me-tooism. "Progress" to them is a dirty word.

This tension between elevating the middle class or letting natural leadership rise to the top has been at work since the founding of our republic. I just started reading Walter Isaacson's biography of Benjamin Franklin.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

noCoPilot said:


> I remember we were promised flying cars, holograms and instant meals in a pill by now. There have been disappointments.


I read somewhere, once, what we could have done as a society had we not decided to engage in several decades-long overseas failed nation-building escapades. Our flying cars are laying in the deserts and jungles halfway around the world.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

NoCoPilot said:


> OK Boomer.
> 
> I was born 1954, remember seeing Eisenhower on TV but someone had to explain to me the significance of the Kennedy assassination. I remember the Watts riots, I remember Attica, I remember the Civil Rights marches and the Summer of Love. I remember landing on the moon.
> 
> ...


I also remember when the phone rang, we just answered it. I remember having to get up and walk across the room to change the TV channel. I remember drinking out of the garden hose. Now we refuse to drink anything which doesn't come in a bottle.

Re flying cars: I've long said flying cars are an extremely bad idea. Too many people don't know how to drive on the ground.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

progmatist said:


> Re flying cars: I've long said flying cars are an extremely bad idea. Too many people don't know how to drive on the ground.


That's the beauty of it. George Jetson would get in, put his feet up, and let the car do the navigating.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

NoCoPilot said:


> Not everybody does. Some conservatives see the early 1950s as the peak years of the republic. They'd like to return to the more strict formalism of the pre-Civil Rights era, when suits and ties and hats were work attire, when we were all "Mad Men" and everybody knew their place. To make America great again they want to roll back all the Earl Warren progressive judicial activism, the namby-pamby legislative coddling, the welfare state and social safety nets and the rampant me-tooism. "Progress" to them is a dirty word.
> 
> This tension between elevating the middle class or letting natural leadership rise to the top has been at work since the founding of our republic. I just started reading Walter Isaacson's biography of Benjamin Franklin.


Just to elaborate on this a little bit -- based on the early chapters of the Franklin bio -- our country (USA) was founded on the principle of being a middle class country. "All men are created equal" and "of the people, by the people, and for the people." There were to be no kings, and there were to be no paupers. We were to be a nation that pulled everybody up by our bootstraps.

The nation has strayed from this ideal a few times in our history. During the Gilded Age (1890s) railroad magnates and industrialists controlled everything, and the workers suffered. The period between the World Wars began with the Roaring Twenties but ended in the Great Depression. And today, economic disparity is higher than it has ever been before, due to regressive taxation and union-busting.

There was a story on the local news last night about "Dune Park," a local park (named after Frank Herbert) created on the site of an old paper-making plant that spewed so much arsenic that all the soil had to be replaced when it was finally closed down. Back then -- "Mad Men" days -- industrial plants were free to spew whatever they wanted into the public air and public water and public ground, because profits and jobs took precedence over public health. Health regs are the kind of progress the public appreciates, but industrialists hate.

To relate this to the original poster's question, I have seen in my lifetime the country go from one extreme -- the post-war economic boom (1950-1980) that raised millions out of poverty -- to the other, where a handful of entrepreneurs have so much money it would make a Rockefeller or Carnegie blush. And do they use their obscene wealth to create museums and universities and public arts foundations? No, by-and-large they're too busy shooting themselves into low-earth orbit for twelve minutes of weightlessness.

I am ashamed of my generation.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

NoCoPilot said:


> That's the beauty of it. George Jetson would get in, put his feet up, and let the car do the navigating.


As I stated in another thread: they day autocorrect on my phone never autocorrects me incorrectly is the day I'll trust a self-driving car.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> most demographers and psychologists significantly overplay the significance of the teen years in terms of life outlook compared to other periods which can be equally important.


Says who?

If your analysis were true, then there would be no validity to the whole typing of generation thing anyway, if, like you, everyone changes signficantly, leaving their birth gen behind. It would be impossible to identify any commonalities (unless of course, a feature of a millennial is that they constantly change their outlook!)

It might be possible to detect some commonalties across communities that have a similar collective experience. For a crude example, the millions of children evacuated during WW2 (in the UK) or the millions in Europe (and elsewhere) who experienced the turbulence of the loss of their homes, thus causing a considerable disruption in their relationships with their parents, may have grown up with a common determination to ensure that their children never had to endure such trauma.

Yet even within that broad demographic, there will be many who formative experiences and subsequent outlook were quite different, and since geography plays such a significant part in the way communities develop too, it seems absurd to try to type everyone (and, in the case of Boomers, blame everyone) just because they happened to be born in 1950, or 1980, or 2000.

For those of us who had any sense that society was, slowly but surely "getting better", the war in Ukraine has come as an ugly and frightening reminder that, maybe, we're destined to all be in the same boat for some time yet, regardless of our generation's alleged outlook.

At any rate, I don't _feel _I have much in common with those who are 20 years older than me, though maybe I just don't know enough 83 year olds to make any kind of balanced judgement.



NoCoPilot said:


> To relate this to the original poster's question, I have seen in my lifetime the country go from one extreme -- the post-war economic boom (1950-1980) that raised millions out of poverty -- to the other, where a handful of entrepreneurs have so much money it would make a Rockefeller or Carnegie blush. And do they use their obscene wealth to create museums and universities and public arts foundations? No, by-and-large they're too busy shooting themselves into low-earth orbit for twelve minutes of weightlessness.


Anecdotal responses to what we fish out of the media could be misleading. "News" is less often that a rich person has behaved generously than selfishly, and even those who, we are told, do act philanthropically, are tarnished by the cynicism of our times. I'm thinking of Bill Gates, for example.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

For me and my friends of my age and generation the assassinations of JFK, Robert Kennedy, and MLK, and the subsequent (and often concurrent) setting forth a retooled conservatism, and the continuing transition of one of our two principal parties from being the author of equality of opportunity to being a major obstacle, was disheartening to say the least. What, today, would Lincoln, Sumner, Stevens, Seward, T. Roosevelt, Willkie, Dewey, Eisenhower, Scranton and so many others think of the current situation? I think we of the Silent Generation had high hopes for a shared future but have seen those hopes crushed. What might have been.....


----------



## Beethoven123 (Nov 25, 2021)

I'm Gen Z (born 2008) but I don't think I fit in any generation particularly (and proud of it too). Generation Z seems very accepting of people, which I like, but seems to go over the top in that there seems to be a stereotype that if you're not LGBTQ+, you're dull and it's even worse if you're a straight white male; something I find quite strange. That being said, as I go back through every bracket, I don't find anything I identify with particularly. Millennials have a very different outlook on the World: 9/11, the Middle Eastern conflicts etc. so there's a disconnect in political events naturally. Similarly with pre-millennial generations.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier (12 mo ago)

Born in the late 90s but I instinctively clicked Gen Z because that's what I've always considered myself. So sorry about that. I do think the cutoff of 2004 is a bit too late



Beethoven123 said:


> I'm Gen Z (born 2008) but I don't think I fit in any generation particularly (and proud of it too). Generation Z seems very accepting of people, which I like, but seems to go over the top in that there seems to be a stereotype that if you're not LGBTQ+, you're dull and it's even worse if you're a straight white male; something I find quite strange. That being said, as I go back through every bracket, I don't find anything I identify with particularly. Millennials have a very different outlook on the World: 9/11, the Middle Eastern conflicts etc. so there's a disconnect in political events naturally. Similarly with pre-millennial generations.


Welcome. I relate with much of the things you said, & while I think people have good intentions vis-a-vis the LGBT, acceptance, etc. I really don't agree with the approach they're taking. Being hostile to anyone who has any doubts about the issue of the week is not the way to get people to agree with you.

I don't have a particularly rosy outlook on teenagers these days. Very unpleasant to be around, and social media is just making their egos even worse.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

4chamberedklavier said:


> .....and social media is just making their egos even worse.


Social media, or more accurately antisocial media is the root cause of our polarization across the board. The more outrage companies can generate, the more money they make.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

progmatist said:


> Social media, or more accurately antisocial media is the root cause of our polarization across the board. The more outrage companies can generate, the more money they make.


Social media is unfiltered. Back when media (newspaper & airwaves) was a scarce resource, it was regulated and had to be vetted to make sure it was factual.

Nowadays, any slack-jawed ape can post any ridiculous theory online and if it gets enough likes, it becomes a meme, and if it gets shared enough it becomes "common wisdom." The tether to facts has been cut.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

NoCoPilot said:


> Social media is unfiltered. Back when media (newspaper & airwaves) was a scarce resource, it was regulated and had to be vetted to make sure it was factual.
> 
> Nowadays, any slack-jawed ape can post any ridiculous theory online and if it gets enough likes, it becomes a meme, and if it gets shared enough it becomes "common wisdom." The tether to facts has been cut.


And those who do "research" start with the assumption if it's on the internet, it must be true.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

progmatist said:


> And those who do "research" start with the assumption if it's on the internet, it must be true.


Or at least have a whiff of truthiness.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

progmatist said:


> And those who do "research" start with the assumption if it's on the internet, it must be true.


Well I use the internet for research and I don't start with such an assumption. Let's not tar everyone with the same brush. If there's an assumption to be made it's that those who assume the internet to be full of truth are probably the same that were strangers to the concept of rigour in research before the internet was a thing. Library? Reliability of sources? Critical thinking skills?

It's just that the internet is everywhere, and it pushes stuff at you.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

Forster said:


> Well I use the internet for research and I don't start with such an assumption. Let's not tar everyone with the same brush. If there's an assumption to be made it's that those who assume the internet to be full of truth are probably the same that were strangers to the concept of rigour in research before the internet was a thing. Library? Reliability of sources? Critical thinking skills?
> 
> It's just that the internet is everywhere, and it pushes stuff at you.


I put "research" in air quotes, to denote a certain type of "research." What most would call going down a rabbit hole.


----------

