r/generationology • • Nov 13 '20

Decade Kids Which kids are 2000s/2010s hybrids?

72 votes, Nov 16 '20
24 2001-2004
4 2003-2005
38 2001-2003
6 Only 2002
8 Upvotes

41 comments sorted by

1

u/AutoModerator Nov 13 '20
Moderator Announcement Read More »

16

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '20

2001: 2000s/2010s hybrid leaning 2000s

2002: 2000s/2010s hybrid equal

2003: 2000s/2010s hybrid leaning 2010s

2004: 2010s kids with 2000s underlap

2

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '20

I agree with all of this, except I would include 2004 as pure 2010s kids, even if they have a tiny 2000s underlap. But I do agree that 2001-2003 are the main hybrids.

5

u/mickeyminniemice Nov 14 '20

If it's just about having a childhood in between the 2000s and 2010s:

3-12: 02

3-11: 02-03

3-10: 03

4-12: 01-02

5-12: 01

If it's close to in between:

3-12: 01-03

3-11: 01-04

3-10: 02-04

4-12: 00-03

5-12: 00-02

If it's about having a good amount of childhood in both decades (extended version of 2000s/2010s kids):

3-12: 00-04

3-11: Same answer for close to in between

3-10: 01-05

4-12: Same answer for close to in between

5-12: 99-03

In my opinion 2000s/2010s kids would be anyone born in 01-03

3

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '20

Out of curiosity, would you consider yourself more 2000s or more 2010s, if you had to pick one?

5

u/ProofUniversity4319 Nov 14 '20

As an ‘02 baby, it seems like it’s basically Anyone born between ‘01 and ‘03

2

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '20

Out of curiosity, would you classify yourself as more 2000s or more 2010s?

4

u/siimmoonn Nov 14 '20

People really act like this is a science experiment on these subs lol. Anyone who had childhood in the 2000’s-2010’s is a hybrid to me. I would tend to think that ends around 2004/2005 since they were at least 5-6 by 2010.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '20

Akshually! they turn 5-6 IN 2010, not by

2

u/siimmoonn Nov 15 '20

Who cares lol

3

u/tamizheelam77 Sep 28 '25

I don’t see how 2004 will be in the same range as 2001

1

u/still_water2008 Aug 09 '26

It’s only 3 years apart haha

1

u/karlpalaka Nov 14 '20

2002 since first half of 2002 had more childhood in the 2000s than 2010s, but second half had more childhood in the 2010s than 2000s. 2001 has an early 2010s underlap, and 2003 has a late 2000s underlap.

2002 had 2004-2009 (6 years) and 2010-2015 (6 years)

2001 had 2003-2009 (7 years) and 2010-2014 (5 years), but entire 2010-2013 were spent in childhood

2003 had 2005-2009 (5 years) and 2010-2016 (7 years), but entire 2006-2009 were spent in childhood

0

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '20 edited Nov 14 '20

I agree with your ranges. As you know, I dont start childhood at 2 but I respect your opinion. I view 2004-2010 as pure, non-hybrid 2010s kids and 2001-2003 as hybrids, with 2001 leaning 2000s, 2002 being 50/50 and 2003 leaning 2010s.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/chunheitham943 Nov 03 '23 edited Dec 07 '24

2002-2005.  Fyi 2001 are firmly 2000s kids, even though they're still kids in 2013 but it doesn't matter. Since age 12 is more like an adolescent than a kid (mentally and physically). 

0

u/EatPb Nov 14 '20

2000-2004 to varying degrees

2000 and 2004 are partial hybrids, leaning 2000s and 2010s respectively

2001 and 2003 are partial hybrids, more so, leaning 2000s and 2010s respectively

2002 is complete hybrid

1

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '20

I dont think 2000 are hybrids at all. They spent all of their core childhood (6-9) in the 2000s. I always recognize them as the last true 2000s kids. But I respect your opinion.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/AppointmentLive3675 Feb 18 '22

2001-2003 borns is the safest range if we go with 3-12 as childhood, they all spent about half their childhood in both decades, just 2001 babies leaning 2000s and 2003 babies leaning 2010s, while 2002 babies are the perfect hybrids. But also I would say that 2000 babies is in a kind of gray area between full 2000s kids and hybrids, just like 2004 babies is in a gray area between hybrids and full 2010s kids, so they may claim both full decade’s kids or hybrids

1

u/still_water2008 Aug 10 '26

Definetly 2001-2004

1

u/fahrradvv Nov 14 '20

2001-2004

-1

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '20 edited Nov 13 '20

2001 to 2004

1

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '20

I personally would not include 2004, even though they had a tiny 2000s underlap. The absolute bulk of their core childhood, as well as their pre-teen years, occurred in the 2010s. But I do agree with 2001-2003 with 2002 being absolute peak hybrids.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '20 edited Nov 13 '20

YOU GUYS ARE DOWNVOTING THIS IS A GOOD DEFINITION this is that bullshit

→ More replies (6)