Add Silicon Canals to your Google News feed. 
My grandparents never talked about resilience. They wouldn’t have known the word in any psychological sense. But they lived it in ways that I think most of us today would struggle to replicate.
They grew up during the war. They raised families on very little. And when things went wrong, which they frequently did, they just got on with it. Not because they were superhuman. Because they genuinely did not expect anyone to show up and fix things for them.
That expectation, or rather the absence of it, turns out to be more important than most of us realise. Because according to psychologists, the generation born in the 1950s may have been the last to be raised with a particular assumption that quietly shaped everything: the assumption that life owed them nothing.
And that assumption, uncomfortable as it sounds, may have been the very thing that made them so persistent.
The vaccine metaphor that explains everything
Psychologist Donald Meichenbaum developed a concept called stress inoculation training, and the theory maps almost perfectly onto what happened to children raised in the 1950s.
The idea borrows from immunology. Just as a vaccine introduces a small, manageable dose of a pathogen to build immunity, exposure to small, manageable stressors can build psychological resilience. But the dose matters. Too much stress overwhelms the system. Too little, and nothing gets built.
What made the 1950s environment effective for so many children wasn’t the severity of the hardship. It was the scale of it, combined with the fact that nobody rushed in to smooth things over. You scraped your knee and discovered that pain passes. You got lost walking home and figured out how to find your way. You failed at something and the world kept turning.
These weren’t traumatic events. They were small, repeated, solvable problems. And solving them, without adult intervention, built something that no amount of comfort or reassurance can replicate: the lived experience of your own capability.
I think about this a lot in relation to my own upbringing. I grew up working-class outside Manchester. My dad worked in a factory and was involved in the union. My mum worked in retail. Neither of them sat me down and taught me resilience as a concept. But the environment they raised me in taught it anyway, because when something went wrong, the default response was to deal with it, not to look around for someone to blame.
What happens when you expect nothing
Here’s the part that really interests me.
Psychologist Julian Rotter introduced the concept of locus of control in the 1950s, describing it as the extent to which people believe their own actions shape what happens to them, versus attributing outcomes to luck, fate, or other people’s decisions.
People with a strong internal locus of control tend to be more persistent, more motivated, and better equipped to handle setbacks. And research has shown a measurable generational shift toward externality. The average college student in the 2000s scored at the 80th percentile on the original 1960 distribution, meaning that what was once considered a notably external orientation is now closer to the norm.
That shift didn’t happen overnight. It happened gradually, as each generation encountered fewer situations in which the direct link between effort and outcome was clear and unmediated.
Children in the 1950s experienced that link constantly. If you didn’t do the work, you saw the consequences. If you did, you saw the reward. There was no app to optimise the process, no parent emailing the teacher, no safety net that arrived before you even hit the ground. The result was a generation that internalised, often without realising it, the belief that what they did actually mattered.
When you grow up expecting nothing from the world, you tend to build things rather than wait for them. And that’s a very different psychological foundation from one built on the assumption that life should be fair, comfortable, and accommodating.
Resilience isn’t built by suffering
I want to be careful here because there’s a lazy version of this argument that basically says “people had it tough and that’s why they’re better.” That’s not what the research shows.
Emmy Werner’s landmark Kauai Longitudinal Study, which followed nearly 700 children born in 1955 from birth to middle age, is instructive on this point. A third of the high-risk children in that study, those born into poverty, family dysfunction, or parental illness, grew into competent, caring, and confident adults. What set them apart wasn’t the hardship itself. It was the presence of specific protective factors: a strong bond with at least one stable adult, opportunities for agency, and a temperament that allowed them to engage rather than withdraw.
Hardship alone doesn’t build resilience. Plenty of hardship just breaks people. What seems to matter is hardship within a context where the individual has some capacity to act, to solve, to cope. And crucially, where the surrounding culture doesn’t communicate that the problem is too big for them.
That’s the distinction the 1950s got right, perhaps more by accident than by design. Children were given enough rope to figure things out. Not always safely. Not always kindly. But with enough frequency that the experience of agency became their default setting.
The entitlement problem
I’ve mentioned this before but I think the opposite of resilience isn’t fragility. It’s entitlement. And I don’t mean that in the dismissive way it’s usually thrown around.
I mean something more specific. When you grow up believing that discomfort is a sign something has gone wrong, rather than a normal part of being alive, you develop what researchers in locus of control would recognise as a fundamentally external orientation. Problems become things that happen to you. Setbacks become evidence that the system failed. And persistence, which requires the belief that your continued effort will eventually change your situation, gets quietly eroded.
The 1950s generation didn’t have that problem, largely because the culture they grew up in never gave them the option of expecting rescue. Which, paradoxically, freed them to act.
I saw a version of this play out in my own life when I left corporate in my mid-thirties to start my own consultancy. Nobody was coming to help. There was no HR department, no safety net, no structure to fall back on. And as terrifying as that was, it taught me more about persistence than anything I’d learned in a decade of comfortable employment. The experience forced me to internalise something I’d only understood intellectually: that whether things worked out was largely down to what I did about it.
What we can take from this
We can’t recreate the 1950s, and we shouldn’t want to. Plenty about that era was restrictive, unjust, and damaging in ways that get conveniently overlooked by nostalgia.
But the psychological principle underneath the nostalgia is worth paying attention to. Persistence is built through repeated experience of manageable difficulty followed by agency. It’s eroded by comfort, rescue, and the belief that struggle is someone else’s fault.
The research on locus of control is clear: the more internal your orientation, the more likely you are to persist, cope, and achieve. And that orientation doesn’t arrive by accident. It’s shaped by experience, particularly the early experience of solving problems without someone stepping in to solve them for you.
I started learning piano in my forties, partly because I enjoy music but mostly because being genuinely bad at something is a useful reminder of what growth actually feels like. It’s uncomfortable. It’s slow. Nobody is going to do it for me. And that, in a small way, is exactly the point.
The generation born in the 1950s didn’t need reminding. For them, that was just life.
As always, I hope you found some value in this post.
Until next time.
From the editors
Undercurrent — our weekly newsletter. The sharpest writing from Silicon Canals, curated reads from across the web, and an editorial connecting what others cover in isolation. Every Sunday.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.