As a long-time net user AND baby boomer, I found much of what Tapscott says completely wrong, be it his unscientific conclusions regarding the so-called "N-Gen" (his own invention, which I find so distasteful and misleading that I'll not use it from now on), his predictions for the future, or his dim view of the technological abilities and intelligence of the boomers.
For example:
1. He assumes that boomers will always remain behind the young when it comes to using the net. There is endless talk of the growing percentage of youthful net users, while ignoring (and thereby discounting) any corresponding growth in boomers using it. He mentions more than once that because youth "assimilated" the net whereas boomers had to learn to use it, youth has an advantage in that respect. (I suppose that some kid raised in a car and thereby "assimilating" how to drive would have a great advantage over all of us dummies who had to learn by taking driver's ed, too.) Now, I don't know how technologically adept or otherwise he might be, and some allowance must be made for the time the book was written (1998), but nowadays I've got news for him: It ain't that hard!!!
2. He stereotypes boomers as being one-dimensional and ignorant; only youth is imaginative, unselfish, open-minded and resourceful. He predicts either a terrible clash between the generations or (in the unlikely event that the boomers wake up in time to cede control to youth) something of a utopia run by the young. It's funny, but a lot of people from that generation that I've encountered hardly fit that profile (and yes, I'm talking about people online)...and I never thought I was all that closed-minded (though I'm sure his advocates would disagree after reading this). Besides, isn't youth traditionally more imaginative, etc., etc.? What proof does he have that this generation won't turn out as all the others have? It's called "growing up." (And I don't mean that it's a 100% good thing!) And he contends that in that generational clash the young will have the advantage, having mastered the greatest tool for mass communication ever: the internet. Evidently the boomers will still be sending telegrams and will thereby be left behind.
3. He mentions that the young have some nebulous advantage in that they espouse so many different points of view, while boomers (there's that stereotyping again) see everything in black and white (I'm not kidding, that's exactly what he says at one point). Not surprisingly, he offers absolutely no proof for either of those assertions. As someone who's spent most of his life finding shades of gray in everything, I think he's confusing the word "different" with "differing," blissfully ignorant of the possibility that all of those contending viewpoints might result in nothing but cacophony.
4. His insights on the young seem to mostly stem from those kids he's spoken with on less than a handful of websites. Evidently he thinks that these websites provide a completely scientific sampling of that generation. Believe me, there ain't no such animal! I'm happy for those sites in that they were frequented by a very nice segment of the younger generation (though even here, some things--like the continuous protestations of teenage males that they would never, ever even think about visiting a porn site--seem somewhat disingenuous, to say the least), but I've been to many sites and participated with many from that generation who, I assure you, were hardly the little angels he's making everyone out to be (and I'm certainly not saying they're all bad, either...but these are rather sweeping generalizations, proof that HE thinks in black and white, anyway).
5. His usual, completely unscientific, means of arriving at a proof of one of his theories is to first introduce it, then to provide some truly scientific though barely related evidence (a chart that shows internet growth or something), and finally to submit a few quotes from his kids to bolster his standpoint. None of this, of course, proves anything, and I'm quite certain that anyone with a professional background in statistical analysis could easily rip his logic to shreds.
6. He sees the net as the road to the truth, and the new generation as particularly discerning of it. Yet everyday I find another hoax in my email, many of them passed on to me by gullible youngsters.
All of which amounts to his own utopian view of youth, a somewhat curmudgeonly distaste for the opinions and abilities of the boomers, and a blatant force-fitting of his transparent opinions (and, in the end, that's all they are) upon the actual, both slimly provided and barely relevant, facts.
It doesn't surprise me at all that younger people have given the book so many positive opinions on here; they're being told what they want to hear. What does surprise me is how few people have seen how poorly constructed his arguments are (regardless of how true or false his conclusions may be). What does that say about the ability of this new generation to discern the truth with a critical eye?
If the proof is in the pudding, keep in mind the year this was published: 1998. That was almost a decade ago (as I write this), long enough for a good part of that generation to come of age, long enough to begin to see some of his sweeping changes, long enough for many of his predictions to have come true. Where are they? People are talking about the book on here as if it were just published and he's showing us the world as it will be 10 years from now. He IS!...only that "10 years from now" is NOW!
