One problem there Mike.

The reason why those who claim that 9-11 was the 4T trigger have such a difficult time with generational constellations. Considering that if one uses the birth years given for the Generations currently existing by S&H one finds that the oldest Millies (1982) were 19 years old, but that the vast majority of the generation were under 18, and the greatest portion of it (the 1990s mini-baby boom) were all in the single digits age bracket. Clearly we send 7 year olds off to fight wars.

The rest is much smoke and mirrors used in an attempt to justify your adherence (for the moment) of a table that insists on a rigid 22 year turning cycle, where turnings are determined by societal mood shifts (which occur on the adult level).

Furthermore, I notice that you conveniently forget that Boomers have held the reigns of power since 1992 for the 2001 date and would do so for another decade--not to mention the Idealist generation was all in the middle-age bracket (and that is using 1943 as the first cohort not 1946).

Indeed, as someone who was alive both for 9-11, Katrina, and the 2008 meltdown, I can tell you first hand that 9-11 only really impacted the North East and DC. Southern trailer trash likes to bring it up merely cause they want to kill some Arabs. The former confederacy is still exercising the ghosts of the lost cause.

Katrina on the other hand demonstrated that the state was incapable of dealing with a natural disaster (one that should have been expected and planned for because hurricanes happen every year and they periodically hit New Orleans). Instead, incompetent boomer leadership gave us "heck of a job Brownie". It was then that people started to feel that we were in crisis--though not there yet. 2008 was the straw that broke the 3T for good.

2005 also fits much better to your own 22 year paradigm not to mention that at least some of the older millies were already adults and most of the rest of the generation was at least teenagers.

The rest is much smoke and mirrors used in an attempt to justify your adherence (for the moment) of a table that insists on a rigid 22 year turning cycle, where turnings are determined by societal mood shifts (which occur on the adult level

He's like a kid with a new toy, isn't he?

Edited for punctuation.

It's like this; if you push the civil war 4T end beyond 1865, then you simply shift the anomaly forward, and if that justifies a 2001 4T start date, that makes the anomaly permanent. Turnings have changed, in that view, to about 18 years long on average, and a saeculum to 72 years. That ditches the theory that a seaculum depends on the length of a human life, and so it leaves it without its basic tenet and axiom.

OK, but I see no reason for either change. 1865-1877 is still good as part of a 1T. All the early 1Ts are not without upsetting conflicts, as I have mentioned, and they generally have to do with squelching rebellious opinion. Once that is done, the more pleasant consensual aspects of the 1T can proceed without the accompanying restless upsets; but not until then.

Compared to shifting the anomaly forward, it is more likely that the revolutionary 4T ended earlier than 1794, and that the Transcendental generation was not 30 years long, as Chas suggested before. That is the best way to eliminate the anomaly altogether. I myself can still also accept the anomalous S&H dates for the civil war saeculum as a whole, and also accept the idea of 2 or 3 hybrid generations.

The problem I always had with the anomaly in the T4T, even when I first read it, was that it seemed an odd sort of anomaly that had turnings ranging from 5 to 30 years and yet still fit into the saecular timeframe of 80-someodd years.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

The problem I always had with the anomaly in the T4T, even when I first read it, was that it seemed an odd sort of anomaly that had turnings ranging from 5 to 30 years and yet still fit into the saecular timeframe of 80-someodd years.

Pretty much this.

The Transcendentals are too long a generation even when compared to the previous saeculum's generations.

Awakening:

1701–1723; 22 years

Liberty: 1724–1741; 17 years
Republican: 1742–1766; 24 years
Compromise: 1767 - 1791; 24 years

Then all of a sudden the Transcendental generation is: 1792 - 1821; 29 years?!!!!

This is odd even compared to the previous saeculum.

It also ignores the fact that during the War of 1812, the commonly perceived dividing line between pro & anti-war factions was whether or not they were born before the Declaration of Independence or not.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Kinser79

One problem there Mike.

The reason why those who claim that 9-11 was the 4T trigger have such a difficult time with generational constellations. Considering that if one uses the birth years given for the Generations currently existing by S&H one finds that the oldest Millies (1982) were 19 years old, but that the vast majority of the generation were under 18, and the greatest portion of it (the 1990s mini-baby boom) were all in the single digits age bracket. Clearly we send 7 year olds off to fight wars.

The rest is much smoke and mirrors used in an attempt to justify your adherence (for the moment) of a table that insists on a rigid 22 year turning cycle, where turnings are determined by societal mood shifts (which occur on the adult level).

Furthermore, I notice that you conveniently forget that Boomers have held the reigns of power since 1992 for the 2001 date and would do so for another decade--not to mention the Idealist generation was all in the middle-age bracket (and that is using 1943 as the first cohort not 1946).

Indeed, as someone who was alive both for 9-11, Katrina, and the 2008 meltdown, I can tell you first hand that 9-11 only really impacted the North East and DC. Southern trailer trash likes to bring it up merely cause they want to kill some Arabs. The former confederacy is still exercising the ghosts of the lost cause.

Katrina on the other hand demonstrated that the state was incapable of dealing with a natural disaster (one that should have been expected and planned for because hurricanes happen every year and they periodically hit New Orleans). Instead, incompetent boomer leadership gave us "heck of a job Brownie". It was then that people started to feel that we were in crisis--though not there yet. 2008 was the straw that broke the 3T for good.

2005 also fits much better to your own 22 year paradigm not to mention that at least some of the older millies were already adults and most of the rest of the generation was at least teenagers.

Also, it is important to note that Silents generally settled down and started families very young and the Boomers wanted to be independent adults ASAP, while Xers and Millennials have gone the opposite direction. I think generation length is, in part, a reflection of when young people become economically independent from their parents.

The oldest Millennials were not yet fully independent adults in 2001.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

The reason why those who claim that 9-11 was the 4T trigger have such a difficult time with generational constellations.

The constellation model doesn't work. You cannot make the proper generations from it. In Generations S&H describe their mechanism in an Appendix. Basically they say imagine an significant Crisis event hits a population. People in each phase of life behave differently according to their phase roles and these differences forge them into distinct generations. Those in the mature adult phase become nomads, those in rising adulthood become heroes and so on.

Let's use the Great Depression & WW II as an example event. Take rising adults (age 22-43) who will be formed into a hero generation. At the time of the crash people born over 1886-1907 occupy this phase of life and play the hero role. At the time of Pearl Harbor people born over 1898-1919 will play the hero role. On VJ day people born over 1902-1923 will play the hero role. Thus people born over 1886-1923 will play the hero role for some or all of their rising adult phase of life. Are all of these cohorts heroes? Of course not, that would be a 38 year generation. Obviously generations cannot be formed by the experience of playing a particular role during a social moment, as S&H imply it does in their Appendix.

Now you could assume that perhaps what S&H meant was that only those who spend the majority of a phase of life in a social moment become the appropriate generation. After all, if you spend a larger portion of that turning in a different phase of life then you should below to another generation. For this example people born over 1897-1913 would spend more than half of their rising adult phase of life during the 1929-1945 period and so would play predominantly a hero role during the crisis and so should be heroes. But S&H don't date the hero generation at this time. Their dates are earlier. With S&H's dates the latter third of the GI generation would go on to spend most of their rising adult phase of life in the High. So why wouldn't they be Artists?

There are two ways to make this mechanism work. One is to assume that the eventful period that forms the generations is very short, say a single year. So if the event is a crisis event it forges youth into artists, rising adults into heroes, mature adults into nomads and elders into prophets. This works to produce the generations S&H give. But nowhere do they say the special times are short. In fact they make a special point about social moments and assert that they are longer periods of a decade or more. So I don't think this is the idea they had in mind.

The other way is to assume that the process of forging a generation does not occur over a large age range like a whole phase of life, but rather occurs over a brief "formative period" in one's life. That is a generation is forged by those in the process of coming of age over an eventful period. So for the 1929-1945 eventful period, people born over 1907-1923 would be 22 (average age of COA) and so be formed into a core hero generation. Of course everyone doesn't come of age exactly at 22. Some are earlier some later. So you would expect some "cusps" at either end. S&H considered eligibility for the draft to be a key separator that serves to divide those born in 1924 from those born in 1925, makeing the latter end cusp really short. WW I does the same for the earlier end and so you have a rather extensive cusp on the earlier side. But these early GI's mostly did not play the core hero role during WW II because most were not eligible for the draft, the oldest being around forty at the start of the war. In my opinion several of the early GI years could be considered as Lost.

This second approach also works and as I showed, works pretty well.

Considering that if one uses the birth years given for the Generations currently existing by S&H one finds that the oldest Millies (1982) were 19 years old, but that the vast majority of the generation were under 18, and the greatest portion of it (the 1990s mini-baby boom) were all in the single digits age bracket. Clearly we send 7 year olds off to fight wars.

The vast majority of the Prophets (like me) we just kids when The Sixties happened. Like by 10 year old self was at Woodstock.

Your complaint is true about all the generations. The latter end all lives the next generation's pattern. My rising adult phase of life was in the 1980's and 1990's mostly during a 3T. Am I an Xer? No they have me a Boomer. Same thing for you. You are still in your rising adult years and its a 4T. Yet you are pegged an Xer.

Furthermore, I notice that you conveniently forget that Boomers have held the reigns of power since 1992

No they didn't. This isn't a monarchy, the president is not the entirely of the ruling class. I think you know this.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

And they were even younger for the Civil War 4T.

Doesn't an early start for the 4T correct this problem? Say, 1850, or 1854?

Remember too our early 4T times are like the 1850s and the 1930s combined. The 1760s and 70s might figure into this parallel as well.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

He's like a kid with a new toy, isn't he?

Edited for punctuation.

Very much so. I'll be trashing his latest excuses directly after tackling other posts. Mike's posts require thought and planning.

Originally Posted by Odin

Also, it is important to note that Silents generally settled down and started families very young and the Boomers wanted to be independent adults ASAP, while Xers and Millennials have gone the opposite direction. I think generation length is, in part, a reflection of when young people become economically independent from their parents.

The oldest Millennials were not yet fully independent adults in 2001.

Perhaps. However, I don't think that one can say for Xers that they went in the opposite direction. Xers are if anything a mixed bag (and what's new about that really?). By an large some Xers (namely those of the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie) chose to go to collage and what-not. For the rest of us we had to either get a job or join the military. In my case the later. One can see that in the earlier cohorts of Millies too, to about 1988 or so. Which of course is one of the reasons I seem to think that that generation only really started being born around 1984 rather than 1982 with an X/Y cusp somewhere in the 1980-1986 area depending on geographical location.

The turning doesn't seem to arrive everywhere at the same time for some reason.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

The constellation model doesn't work. You cannot make the proper generations from it.

Apparently you don't seem to understand. The generational constellation for the event in question already existed--S&H wrote about the Millsaec extensively.

Furthermore generational constellations are not used in determining when a generation starts or when it finishes. Rather it is used to determine when a turning starts or when it finishes.

Let us just assume that a terrorist attack could be a catalyst for a turning. Why 2001 and not 1995 (OKC bombing)? The answer is simple, the generation which would be the hero generation was all busy shitting diapers and coloring in coloring books. Even the youngest Xers were still in school. Furthermore in both cases there were enough of the old Civics around to settle things down anyway. Fast forward 6 years and the same is true--indeed while the GIs were significantly weaker in 2001 there were plenty of older Silents to put the breaks on the 4T cart.

In Generations S&H describe their mechanism in an Appendix. Basically they say imagine an significant Crisis event hits a population. People in each phase of life behave differently according to their phase roles and these differences forge them into distinct generations. Those in the mature adult phase become nomads, those in rising adulthood become heroes and so on.

Agreed. However, for 2001 to be the start of the 4T that would therefore make Xers civics and they clearly are not. Indeed, 9-11 didn't even significantly alter the culture outside of the North East. Everyone was told to remain calm, go shopping and etc. In a 4T the response to such a thing is not "go shopping" the response is "Destroy the persons who did this [insert whatever thing happened]". Furthermore, that isn't just some talk about the coffee shops it comes from leadership.

Also I have severe problems with references to the civic generation as "heroes", not all civic generations are or can become heroes. Prime examples would be Blood Shirt Generation Confederates and Germans who fought in WW2. I generally use the term Civic for them because one thing that just about every generation which was a rising adult during a 4T has is that they are constructing a social order, or they do so as soon as the crisis has passed (in the case of external crisis--Revolutionary War, WW2 for example).

Let's use the Great Depression & WW II as an example event. Take rising adults (age 22-43)

Anyone who would argue that someone in their 40s is a rising adult has a severe problem with their understanding of what a rising adult actually is. I personally follow this table as a RULE OF THUMB as to the stages of life:

Child: 0-20
Young (Rising) Adult: 20-40
Middle age: 40-60
Elder: 60+

Considering that AVERAGE life expectancy is in the 72 years area, and that in the 4T of the Great Power Saeculum the AVERAGE was even lower (though Maximum Lifespan remains unchanged at about 120 years for a human--but it is rare for someone to reach it) when examining it we need to consider carefully your points...and it will expose just exactly how poorly constructed your argument is.

who will be formed into a hero generation. At the time of the crash people born over 1886-1907 occupy this phase of life and play the hero role.

Except that they didn't. At the time of the Crash of 1929 someone who was born in 1907 was 22 years old, but did not take on the hero mantle. They may or may not have taken on a civic mantle depending on their placement within the social paradigm, but everyone over the age of 30 was clearly a Nomad, and the vast majority of those born before 1907 would be as well.

Indeed the vast majority of those who worked in CCC camps, and WPA works were aged in their early to late 20s when those programs really started to get off the ground, as such the oldest civics would be born starting around 1914 (though I would argue that enough from the 1907-1913 cohorts existed to create a significant interbellum cusp between the GIs and Losts).

At the time of Pearl Harbor people born over 1898-1919 will play the hero role. On VJ day people born over 1902-1923 will play the hero role. Thus people born over 1886-1923 will play the hero role for some or all of their rising adult phase of life. Are all of these cohorts heroes? Of course not, that would be a 38 year generation. Obviously generations cannot be formed by the experience of playing a particular role during a social moment, as S&H imply it does in their Appendix.

I would argue that in the case of external crises (WW2 and Revolution) it would only be those playing the "hero" role at the end which will have that imprint on their character. Interbellum GIs and Late Losts were clearly different. In the case of internal crises (Glorious Revolution, Civil War, and the current one) no one plays a "hero" role. Likewise, defeated powers in 4Ts in External Crises do not produce "heroes" either (Confederacy and Nazi Germany)--they do however all produce civics.

I don't think that this is really a failing on your part, but rather poor word choice by S&H, much like they call 1Ts "highs" but clearly not every 1T has a "high-like" quality. Just ask any European about the years between 1946 and 1965/66. Unfortunately I can't think of a better word other than merely calling it a 1T which would mean that one needs at least an elementary understanding of the theory to start with. Resolution, or perhaps Denouement, comes closest, but that would mean that one would have to shift the whole paradigm one full turning forward--as a resolution is usually something that comes to an end. Personally I don't have a problem with that as I've long thought that it is awakenings that seem to be the start of the new saeculum rather than the resolution of the crisis.

Chas will like this...

In essence my long held thoughts have been that the crisis (a normal [or old style--o.s.] 4T) would really be a climax (and a new style [n.s.] 3T) with the resolution (o.s. 1T) being a n.s. 4T.

I really do need to sit down and write this idea out in a separate thread to make it coherent, but suffice it to say it should be clear to anyone who took a high school literature course (assuming they still teach the basics of literary analysis in high school).

Now you could assume that perhaps what S&H meant was that only those who spend the majority of a phase of life in a social moment become the appropriate generation. After all, if you spend a larger portion of that turning in a different phase of life then you should below to another generation. For this example people born over 1897-1913 would spend more than half of their rising adult phase of life during the 1929-1945 period and so would play predominantly a hero role during the crisis and so should be heroes. But S&H don't date the hero generation at this time. Their dates are earlier. With S&H's dates the latter third of the GI generation would go on to spend most of their rising adult phase of life in the High. So why wouldn't they be Artists?

Such an assumption would break with S&H's work. S&H are clear that the roles one takes on is the role they assume upon "coming of age". I generally take that to mean to be between 17 and 21. As such someone who came of age in 1928 (and all but the last two months of 1929) would by consequence take the nomad role...meaning 1908 is the last year possible for a Lost to have been born, but as I've argued there is the whole 1907-1914 cusp thing.

There are two ways to make this mechanism work. One is to assume that the eventful period that forms the generations is very short, say a single year. So if the event is a crisis event it forges youth into artists, rising adults into heroes, mature adults into nomads and elders into prophets. This works to produce the generations S&H give. But nowhere do they say the special times are short. In fact they make a special point about social moments and assert that they are longer periods of a decade or more. So I don't think this is the idea they had in mind.

Not so fast there speedy. Since S&H are clear that it is when one comes of age that determines their role, that is to say when their generational archetype is stamped on them, the social moment that occurs is independent of those roles they have already assumed.

For example everyone born between 1886-1908 was already a nomad when 1929 and 1941 happened, and those born between 1908 and 1925 would already take on the hero mantle when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

The other way is to assume that the process of forging a generation does not occur over a large age range like a whole phase of life, but rather occurs over a brief "formative period" in one's life. That is a generation is forged by those in the process of coming of age over an eventful period. So for the 1929-1945 eventful period, people born over 1907-1923 would be 22 (average age of COA) and so be formed into a core hero generation. Of course everyone doesn't come of age exactly at 22. Some are earlier some later. So you would expect some "cusps" at either end. S&H considered eligibility for the draft to be a key separator that serves to divide those born in 1924 from those born in 1925, makeing the latter end cusp really short. WW I does the same for the earlier end and so you have a rather extensive cusp on the earlier side. But these early GI's mostly did not play the core hero role during WW II because most were not eligible for the draft, the oldest being around forty at the start of the war. In my opinion several of the early GI years could be considered as Lost.

In your last sentence you'd be right. I actually consider those born before 1907 (but still born in the 20th Century) to in fact be Losts.

That being said, in general your paragraph only demonstrates the same thing S&H already did--and without an incoherent table.

This second approach also works and as I showed, works pretty well.

Really? Have a link to that? I've seen your table, it looks like shit you pulled from your ass. If you are going to claim to have run experiments, I want to see the documentation of said experiments--you know, because of peer review.

The vast majority of the Prophets (like me) we just kids when The Sixties happened. Like by 10 year old self was at Woodstock.

Your complaint is true about all the generations. The latter end all lives the next generation's pattern. My rising adult phase of life was in the 1980's and 1990's mostly during a 3T. Am I an Xer? No they have me a Boomer. Same thing for you. You are still in your rising adult years and its a 4T. Yet you are pegged an Xer.

It was not actually a complaint. It is my understanding that what matters is when one comes of age. You came of age at the tail end of the Awakening, I came of age in dying days of the last Unraveling (which I date to have ended in 2005/06). Further, I would say that I'm quite comfortable being an Xer, even if a tail end Xer (though my BF and Sister are clearly Y-cuspers, they have strong traits in both directions).

No they didn't. This isn't a monarchy, the president is not the entirely of the ruling class. I think you know this.

If you think this is about who the president is then you're a giant fool.

Boomers by 1992 controlled the House, the Senate, most State Legislatures, Governorships, the Presidency, ran most of the Businesses and so forth. They were the largest generation that had power within the Ruling Class. The generation that holds the political and economic power is the one that matters. The generation of this or that president is more or less irrelevant (except perhaps that it influences how he does things).

I'd appreciate it if you didn't make assumptions based on your misreadings of what I write, Mike. I'm not Eric, I actually do write what I mean.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Which of course is one of the reasons I seem to think that that generation only really started being born around 1984 rather than 1982 with an X/Y cusp somewhere in the 1980-1986 area depending on geographical location.

I agree with this.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Furthermore generational constellations are not used in determining when a generation starts or when it finishes. Rather it is used to determine when a turning starts or when it finishes.

The generational constellation is discussed at length in Generations. There is no mention of turnings in that work.

Boomers by 1992 controlled the House, the Senate, most State Legislatures, Governorships, the Presidency, ran most of the Businesses and so forth.

Since when does a 40% share constitute a controlling majority?

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Apparently you don't seem to understand. The generational constellation for the event in question already existed--S&H wrote about the Millsaec extensively.

And how does it get made? S&H were vague on that. Have you read the appendix in Generations where they discuss cohortia?

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Why 2001 and not 1995 (OKC bombing)?

Very simple: the social response was very different.

Indeed, 9-11 didn't even significantly alter the culture outside of the North East.

Is Jacksonville the Northeast? I mean technically, it's a whole hour or two northeast of ya.

But because the military is the biggest employer here, it was kind of a big deal.

Anyway, there still hasn't been any event that moved public opinion or economic markets as sharply as 9-11 did. The 2008 crash had a larger nominal impact, but the real impact was still smaller.

And yes, the word millennial was specifically coined for the high school class of 2000. You don't get to go back in time and rewrite our history to make us nomads, even if it better fits your conception of a late 4T start :P

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Anyway, there still hasn't been any event that moved public opinion or economic markets as sharply as 9-11 did. The 2008 crash had a larger nominal impact, but the real impact was still smaller.

You would be hard pressed to make that case. The economy affects everyone; it certainly did me and anyone else who has or wants any money.

Public opinion? In Nov.2008 the party in power was turned out during the crash. After 2001 the incumbent was re-elected in 2004, in a virtual repeat of the voting patterns of 2000.

And yes, the word millennial was specifically coined for the high school class of 2000. You don't get to go back in time and rewrite our history to make us nomads, even if it better fits your conception of a late 4T start :P

That's right; he doesn't.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

The generational constellation is discussed at length in Generations. There is no mention of turnings in that work.

I have. Apparently you haven't because I clearly remember them discussing the turnings. I could be wrong of course I've not read the books themselves in years.

Since when does a 40% share constitute a controlling majority?

Considering that one needs 60% vote to get a cloture motion passed in the Senate one doesn't need to be a majority to have control of the Senate. Otherwise Obama could have gotten a lot more done in his first two years in office. Seems like someone doesn't understand how the Senate works.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

And how does it get made? S&H were vague on that. Have you read the appendix in Generations where they discuss cohortia?

I have, again it has been years. S&H were largely vague about a great deal.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You would be hard pressed to make that case. The economy affects everyone; it certainly did me and anyone else who has or wants any money.

It also effects people differently. So when the USD index crashed from 120 to 80 in two years immediately following 9-11, homeowners (a majority of the population) were largely insulated from this disruption. Costs going up? Don't worry - you can have some equity out of your house to help pay for it!

Public opinion? In Nov.2008 the party in power was turned out during the crash. After 2001 the incumbent was re-elected in 2004, in a virtual repeat of the voting patterns of 2000.

2008 was merely the moment when homeowners finally became aware of the economic crisis - that doesn't mean it is when it started. Public opinion in 2002-2003 was... crazy. There's no other point in milsec history when "civic authority revives and people yearn to be part of something larger than themselves" - at least not one demonstrated by 90% approval of the president's actions.

In retrospect, that presidency might now seem insane - but caught up in the intensity of an early 4t, the people were simply cheering for more.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Very simple: the social response was very different.

But why was the social response different? Because there were still old civics around to calm the waters (older Silents helped too), and Boomer power had yet to be fully entrenched.

Is Jacksonville the Northeast? I mean technically, it's a whole hour or two northeast of ya.

But because the military is the biggest employer here, it was kind of a big deal.

Having been in the Military it 9-11 has impacted that community greatly, there is no doubt, but we are speaking of 1% of the population being the military and their families. Hardly a significant minority of the population. Socially, 9-11 had the most impact in Washington and NYC and to a lesser extend in the Boston-NYC-Philly-DC Megalopolis.

Anyway, there still hasn't been any event that moved public opinion or economic markets as sharply as 9-11 did. The 2008 crash had a larger nominal impact, but the real impact was still smaller.

You mean there hasn't been an event recently where the buffoon in chief tells people to buy plastic and duct tape? It was a joke (and not a funny one either) to most people even in 2001, never mind 2015. Rather Katrina made it evident that the Federal Government cannot handle a natural disaster, one that should be expected on a semi-regular basis of once in a lifetime (roughly speaking every half-century).

And yes, the word millennial was specifically coined for the high school class of 2000. You don't get to go back in time and rewrite our history to make us nomads, even if it better fits your conception of a late 4T start :P

I take it that you're an 82 cohort. So is my BF, I also have many friends who are. Their behavior is far more in line with my late wave Xer behavior than it is core Millie behavior. S&H did not provide for cusps at all in their books. In fact if you read them, one would expect a turning to operate as a complete 90 degree turn of a wheel when a "social moment" happens. However, history shows us that it is much more gradual and subtle than that.

As I have posted elsewhere the cohort years between 1981-1985/86 form a cusp with X. Much like there is a Interbellum cusp between the Lost and GIs, just like there is one for Silents and Boomers, just like there is one for Boomers and X.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

2008 was merely the moment when homeowners finally became aware of the economic crisis - that doesn't mean it is when it started. Public opinion in 2002-2003 was... crazy. There's no other point in milsec history when "civic authority revives and people yearn to be part of something larger than themselves" - at least not one demonstrated by 90% approval of the president's actions.

In retrospect, that presidency might now seem insane - but caught up in the intensity of an early 4t, the people were simply cheering for more.

Sept.2008 is the exact month when the crisis became a change in mood, and also when it became a general economic crash, not just an increasing level of home mortgage foreclosures and one failed bank.

I went through the original list posted by William Strauss of what would indicate we're in a 4T; I don't know if it's in this thread or another. I didn't think 2001 measured up.

After all, the "civic authority" didn't last very long. Certainly not by 2003, when Bush's incursion into Iraq immediately wrecked any such consensus or yearning.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

But why was the social response different? Because there were still old civics around to calm the waters (older Silents helped too), and Boomer power had yet to be fully entrenched.

Civic Bush actually blames the silents

Having been in the Military it 9-11 has impacted that community greatly, there is no doubt, but we are speaking of 1% of the population being the military and their families. Hardly a significant minority of the population. Socially, 9-11 had the most impact in Washington and NYC and to a lesser extend in the Boston-NYC-Philly-DC Megalopolis.

Well Jacksonville is a bit of an odd-ball - it's too big to be a traditional military town, but it's still very much a military town. And you mentioned something like, "Hillbillies really looking forward to killing Muslims" I'd just remind you that Daytona is pretty much outside of the deep south. Not that the south doesn't also exist there in pockets, but just that it's a lot more intense as you go northwest.

So now, if we're including New England all the way to D.C., and all the Hillbillies... we're pretty much left with the west coast and south Florida.

You mean there hasn't been an event recently where the buffoon in chief tells people to buy plastic and duct tape? It was a joke (and not a funny one either) to most people even in 2001, never mind 2015. Rather Katrina made it evident that the Federal Government cannot handle a natural disaster, one that should be expected on a semi-regular basis of once in a lifetime (roughly speaking every half-century).

Of course - if you're asking someone near the nomad/civic line this kind of thinking is patently absurd. But we don't set the rules, we just struggle in the trenches, cynically, hysterically laughing, while boomers and older go and strip every last roll of duct tape from the shelves.

I take it that you're an 82 cohort. So is my BF, I also have many friends who are. Their behavior is far more in line with my late wave Xer behavior than it is core Millie behavior. S&H did not provide for cusps at all in their books. In fact if you read them, one would expect a turning to operate as a complete 90 degree turn of a wheel when a "social moment" happens. However, history shows us that it is much more gradual and subtle than that.

As I have posted elsewhere the cohort years between 1981-1985/86 form a cusp with X. Much like there is a Interbellum cusp between the Lost and GIs, just like there is one for Silents and Boomers, just like there is one for Boomers and X.

Oh well then I don't even disagree that much here, just on the dates themselves. I've known quite a few late 70s nomads who exhibit stronger-than-expected civic tendencies, so I personally think of the cusp as running from about 77 to 84. So yeah, by that sense I'm in agreement that very few nomads were born after 84 (but I won't say none, because I'm sure someone can find an example... lol)

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Civic Bush actually blames the silents

Not really relevant. Poppy Bush was irrelevant going back to 92.

Well Jacksonville is a bit of an odd-ball - it's too big to be a traditional military town, but it's still very much a military town. And you mentioned something like, "Hillbillies really looking forward to killing Muslims" I'd just remind you that Daytona is pretty much outside of the deep south. Not that the south doesn't also exist there in pockets, but just that it's a lot more intense as you go northwest.

So now, if we're including New England all the way to D.C., and all the Hillbillies... we're pretty much left with the west coast and south Florida.

You're also forgetting the Midwest, which was shocked, but not too concerned about it really. (I should know, I have a tendency to flip from FL to Chi-town on a semi-regular basis--also the BF is a Hoosier). So that leaves us with New England-New York/Phily-DC, and their trailer park with most of Florida (which in terms of population is a huge state) and the Midwest and West not giving a damn.

Of course - if you're asking someone near the nomad/civic line this kind of thinking is patently absurd. But we don't set the rules, we just struggle in the trenches, cynically, hysterically laughing, while boomers and older go and strip every last roll of duct tape from the shelves.

Congratulations, you've discovered Silents and Boomers are easily mislead and prone to panicky behavior.

Even so, I also know a large number of Silents and Boomers who at the time thought it was absurd. Granted all of these people were Military themselves, or friends/family/lovers of military. My Ex-BF at the time, who was much older than me (he was a 49 or 50 cohort, I'm sure you don't want the details of our relationship) even asked me if it was reasonable to buy said plastic and duct tape. I told him that it was absurd and why it was absurd. Thankfully he thought that I might, just might know a thing or two about weapons (you know being in the Navy at the time).

Oh well then I don't even disagree that much here, just on the dates themselves. I've known quite a few late 70s nomads who exhibit stronger-than-expected civic tendencies, so I personally think of the cusp as running from about 77 to 84. So yeah, by that sense I'm in agreement that very few nomads were born after 84 (but I won't say none, because I'm sure someone can find an example... lol)

In my experience while some Late-70s Xers have stronger-than-expected civic tendencies, I don't think one can really call them civics. It seriously isn't really noticeable until you get to the 84 cohorts, and by 86 the reverse is true with stronger-than-expected nomad tendencies. There is also some bleed through based on siblings too. I've noticed that my B-I-L who has two older half-brothers and an older half-sister (74, 76, and 79 respectively--he's an 85--he is the product of his mom's marriage #2, I think) is almost totally civic but he has a strong nomad streak as well (probably looking up to his older brothers who were core Xers).

In my case I have stronger than average civic tendencies but I'm also clearly a nomad in dominant orientation. My civic tendencies tend to express themselves primarily in the realm of politics as opposed to other forms.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

You're also forgetting the Midwest, which was shocked, but not too concerned about it really. (I should know, I have a tendency to flip from FL to Chi-town on a semi-regular basis--also the BF is a Hoosier). So that leaves us with New England-New York/Phily-DC, and their trailer park with most of Florida (which in terms of population is a huge state) and the Midwest and West not giving a damn.

Ehhhh... Chicago is *in* the Midwest, but it is not *of* the Midwest. I mean... have you made the trip by car? Chicago is where the Midwest flees to, to escape the Midwest!

Congratulations, you've discovered Silents and Boomers are easily mislead and prone to panicky behavior.

And welcome to a fourth turning! Unchecked by a significant civic influence, and looking down on nomads, silents and boomers were free to freak out without ever having to entertain an opposing view.

Even so, I also know a large number of Silents and Boomers who at the time thought it was absurd. Granted all of these people were Military themselves, or friends/family/lovers of military. My Ex-BF at the time, who was much older than me (he was a 49 or 50 cohort, I'm sure you don't want the details of our relationship) even asked me if it was reasonable to buy said plastic and duct tape. I told him that it was absurd and why it was absurd. Thankfully he thought that I might, just might know a thing or two about weapons (you know being in the Navy at the time).

I agree - but 4Ts aren't quite so romantic as history surveys tend to make them. They're actually caused by dumb, panicky herd behavior that has little connection to reality. We should consider ourselves a little lucky that so few have been crushed by the stampede, especially as society seems to already be calmed down to such a large extent by an increasing share of nomad and civic influence.

In my experience while some Late-70s Xers have stronger-than-expected civic tendencies, I don't think one can really call them civics. It seriously isn't really noticeable until you get to the 84 cohorts, and by 86 the reverse is true with stronger-than-expected nomad tendencies. There is also some bleed through based on siblings too. I've noticed that my B-I-L who has two older half-brothers and an older half-sister (74, 76, and 79 respectively--he's an 85--he is the product of his mom's marriage #2, I think) is almost totally civic but he has a strong nomad streak as well (probably looking up to his older brothers who were core Xers).

In my case I have stronger than average civic tendencies but I'm also clearly a nomad in dominant orientation. My civic tendencies tend to express themselves primarily in the realm of politics as opposed to other forms.

But it's also the realm of politics where the civic archetype has its strongest expression.

What I find persistent among Millennials is an appreciation of Xer cultural norms and artistic expressions, but that isn't something that is limited to the cusp or even the first wave. In fact, it's rather similar to the Boomer tendency to adopt Silent cultural norms. It doesn't really start cracking up until you hit the Joneser cusp, and we probably won't find many Millennials who completely reject Xer culture until we're looking at the civic/artist cusp. The Artists and Nomads are just as dominant, culturally... as Prophets and Civics are, politically.

Weird stuff does happen with siblings though, I just haven't seen enough cases to spot a trend. One of my favorite anomalies was two brothers: an 80 and 84. The 80 acts and dresses like a typical civic (literally, before it was cool) and the 84 is the nomad (long after it was cool).

I sat on that post for half an hour and about two minutes after I hit submit I figured out what I was really trying to say.

In 2001-2006, the people who were most worried about terrorism were probably the least worried about money. The people who were worried about money were younger, and they were probably much less worried about terrorism.

But pretty much everyone had something to worry about, and that's quite unlike the mood through the 80s and 90s.

John,

Since you're apparently back to posting as opposed to merely lurking (Welcome back), you might appreciate this. Since it is relevant to the discussion here, you might want to take a stab at what Mikebert was looking for, as you believe in it more than I do.