Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Secular Cycles: Is history repeating - Page 2







Post#26 at 09-27-2015 05:11 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,501]
---
09-27-2015, 05:11 PM #26
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,501

Quote Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed View Post
And yet the Glorious Revolution took place 13 years after the start of its 4T. Some people (myself included), start the Civil War 4T around 1850, leaving another long gap.
Well that does more than leaves a gap, it sort of swallows the preceding 3T. Also if you want to include the whole 1850-1860 "spiral of violence" leading up the Civil War 4T then shouldn't you also include the 1765-1773 spiral leading up to the Revolutionary War?







Post#27 at 09-28-2015 02:03 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
09-28-2015, 02:03 PM #27
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
The millies didn't get anything productive from BHO because they didn't vote in midterms and congressional elections for a congress that would back him.

(I don't know how many times I have to say it).

You can't vote for a president and expect change. That's not how the system works. Millies need to become civics, and learn some civics.

If they vote for Sanders, even Sanders himself understands that they will also have to vote for a congress that backs him, or they will get nothing again.
This is true in total, but not by parts. People can vote once and expect change, even though the system will reject those expectations out of hand. Rational expectations are not mandatory.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#28 at 09-28-2015 02:06 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
09-28-2015, 02:06 PM #28
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
I think one issue is that Xers made apolitical cynicism cool and a lot of Millies lapped it up.
A reasonable conclusion.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#29 at 09-28-2015 02:16 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
09-28-2015, 02:16 PM #29
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
In the Revolutionary 4T, internal war broke just two years after the 4T began. In the Civil War 4T war broke out in the following year. Even in the peaceful Depression 4T one of the two party won a landslide election and gained control of the Executive and Legislature for the next 12 years.

Assuming a 4T start in 2008, we have seen divided government at the federal level and essential stasis for 5 of the 7 years in the 4T so far. At the state level the country has moved decisively against the party that won a sweeping victory in 2008. Yet the Republicans, who have gone from strength to strength at the state level, are frequently seen to be a party in trouble, even in danger of collapse. The disorder itself is a sign of a 4T. Perhaps the state collapse and formation of a new state for this 4T will be about the party/electoral system. It is very confusing.
This is all fine and well, but what if the ACW Crisis actually began a decade earlier? If so then, like today, the two sides pushed and pulled until the crisis erupted in full when passions rose high enough for caution to be thrown to the wind. None of what occurred in 1860-1 was any different than earlier attempts, except the degree of excess was high enough for the actions to be carried through. The vitriol was there for a long time.

I've never liked the abbreviated cycle S&H conjured for that saeculum. I seemed contrived to fit elements of their preferred model into the facts on the ground. If you loosen the model a bit, the anomaly isn't needed.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#30 at 09-28-2015 08:17 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,501]
---
09-28-2015, 08:17 PM #30
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,501

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
This is all fine and well, but what if the ACW Crisis actually began a decade earlier?
Jordan already brought up this point, see my response above.







Post#31 at 09-28-2015 08:48 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,501]
---
09-28-2015, 08:48 PM #31
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,501

Here is how generations would be worked out using the concepts I am playing with. There are three kinds of generations, cultural, political and recessive. Cultural gens are essentially prophets. They are formed by awakenings/cultural movements. I take the dates for the period (e.g. The Great Awakening 1730-60) and subtract 14 from the beginning and 24 from the end to get an "Awakening gen" born 1716-1736. Political generations are sort of like Heroes. The are defined by specific historical eras by subtracting 23. So there is a specific Civil War generation born over 1838-1854 created by the 1861-77 Civil War & Reconstruction era by subtracting 23. The different methods reflect the fact that political eras are different from cultural movements. Political eras are defined by policy. By the time new political concepts are able to affect policy the concepts are well known. Any elite starting out n their adult life (i.e. reached age 23) who might be interested in these concepts will be familiar with them and so will have adopted them into their worldview.

Cultural movement are different, they start out small and take time to catch on fire. Thus people who are past age 14 at the very beginning of the movement will likely not have their worldview affected by the (still small) new movement. For example the abolition movement began around 1821, but did not really start to catch on until the 1830's. People born before 1807 (1821-14) will have aged out of their worldview-forming period by the time the abolition movement "went viral". By the mid 1840's, when the movement had moved on to direct action and most people susceptible to its message already knew about it and so it stopped forming new abolitionist paradigms. And so the abolition generation is defined as 1807-1821.

Born Name Type COA Leadership AL Historical Era
1716-1731 Awakening Cultural 1739-1754 1763-1778 47 Patriot Insurgency
1736-1753 Founder Recessive 1759-1776 1784-1801 48 American New Nation
1753-1766 Liberty Political 1776-1789 1802-1815 49 Age of Jefferson
1766-1778 Constitution Recessive 1789-1801 1816-1828 50 Era of Good Feelings
1778-1793 Democratic-Repblican Political 1801-1816 1830-1845 52 Age of Jackson
1793-1807 Compromise Recessive 1816-1830 1846-1860 53 Sectionalism
1807-1821 Abolition Gen Cultural 1830-1844 1861-1875 54 Civil War & Reconst
1821-1838 Gilded Recessive 1844-1861 1879-1896 58 Gilded Age
1838-1854 Civil War Political 1861-1877 1895-1911 57 Progressive Era
1854-1871 New Era Recessive 1877-1894 1913-1930 59 New Era
1871-1894 Social Gospel Cultural 1894-1917 1929-1952 58 New Deal
1894-1910 Lost Recessive 1917-1933 1952-1968 58 American Great Power
1910-1923 Greatest Political 1933-1946 1967-1980 57 Age of Stagflation
1923-1941 Silent Recessive 1946-1964 1982-2004 59 Age of Reagan
1941-1956 Civil Rights Gen Cultural 1964-1979 2005-2020 64 Age of Obama-Clinton
1956-1976 Evangelical Cultural 1979-1999 2021-2041 65?

Recessive generations are simply the spaces between the cultural/political generations. In the table I simply added 23 and avg age of leaders (AL) to them to get COA periods and leadership periods for them.

The purpose for the table to to give approximate locations for proposed generations that can be used to develop a general mechanism for how a specific type of generation was created during the COA period and why that particular creation produced the particular outcome during the leadership era. I am interested in some sort of cultural evolution process that can be modeled in such a way that would allow a math model to be created that generated this cyclical history. The early models I played with a decade or so ago were lagged negative feed back models. Problem is I do not see evidence of consistent negative feedback here in the table above. For example the abolitionists, when they came to power sought to free the slaves,an objective entirely consistent with their world view picked up decades earlier. That their effort led to conflict follows from the fact that freeing slaves meant impoverishing their owners (if they were simply freed by edict) or the taxpayers (if tax money were to be used to compensate slave owners).

On the other hand the Great Society extension of the New Deal was done under the Lost who came of age during the conservative New Era. When in power this gen ended up acting in opposition to the policy of their formative years (that is they reacted against the accepted policy that helped defined their paradigm).
Last edited by Mikebert; 09-28-2015 at 09:15 PM.







Post#32 at 09-29-2015 12:25 AM by herbal tee [at joined Dec 2005 #posts 7,115]
---
09-29-2015, 12:25 AM #32
Join Date
Dec 2005
Posts
7,115

musings

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
Here is how generations would be worked out using the concepts I am playing with. There are three kinds of generations, cultural, political and recessive. Cultural gens are essentially prophets. They are formed by awakenings/cultural movements. I take the dates for the period (e.g. The Great Awakening 1730-60) and subtract 14 from the beginning and 24 from the end to get an "Awakening gen" born 1716-1736. Political generations are sort of like Heroes. The are defined by specific historical eras by subtracting 23. So there is a specific Civil War generation born over 1838-1854 created by the 1861-77 Civil War & Reconstruction era by subtracting 23. The different methods reflect the fact that political eras are different from cultural movements. Political eras are defined by policy. By the time new political concepts are able to affect policy the concepts are well known. Any elite starting out n their adult life (i.e. reached age 23) who might be interested in these concepts will be familiar with them and so will have adopted them into their worldview.

Cultural movement are different, they start out small and take time to catch on fire. Thus people who are past age 14 at the very beginning of the movement will likely not have their worldview affected by the (still small) new movement. For example the abolition movement began around 1821, but did not really start to catch on until the 1830's. People born before 1807 (1821-14) will have aged out of their worldview-forming period by the time the abolition movement "went viral". By the mid 1840's, when the movement had moved on to direct action and most people susceptible to its message already knew about it and so it stopped forming new abolitionist paradigms. And so the abolition generation is defined as 1807-1821.

Born Name Type COA Leadership AL Historical Era
1716-1731 Awakening Cultural 1739-1754 1763-1778 47 Patriot Insurgency
1736-1753 Founder Recessive 1759-1776 1784-1801 48 American New Nation
1753-1766 Liberty Political 1776-1789 1802-1815 49 Age of Jefferson
1766-1778 Constitution Recessive 1789-1801 1816-1828 50 Era of Good Feelings
1778-1793 Democratic-Repblican Political 1801-1816 1830-1845 52 Age of Jackson
1793-1807 Compromise Recessive 1816-1830 1846-1860 53 Sectionalism
1807-1821 Abolition Gen Cultural 1830-1844 1861-1875 54 Civil War & Reconst
1821-1838 Gilded Recessive 1844-1861 1879-1896 58 Gilded Age
1838-1854 Civil War Political 1861-1877 1895-1911 57 Progressive Era
1854-1871 New Era Recessive 1877-1894 1913-1930 59 New Era
1871-1894 Social Gospel Cultural 1894-1917 1929-1952 58 New Deal
1894-1910 Lost Recessive 1917-1933 1952-1968 58 American Great Power
1910-1923 Greatest Political 1933-1946 1967-1980 57 Age of Stagflation
1923-1941 Silent Recessive 1946-1964 1982-2004 59 Age of Reagan
1941-1956 Civil Rights Gen Cultural 1964-1979 2005-2020 64 Age of Obama-Clinton
1956-1976 Evangelical Cultural 1979-1999 2021-2041 65?

Recessive generations are simply the spaces between the cultural/political generations. In the table I simply added 23 and avg age of leaders (AL) to them to get COA periods and leadership periods for them.

The purpose for the table to to give approximate locations for proposed generations that can be used to develop a general mechanism for how a specific type of generation was created during the COA period and why that particular creation produced the particular outcome during the leadership era. I am interested in some sort of cultural evolution process that can be modeled in such a way that would allow a math model to be created that generated this cyclical history. The early models I played with a decade or so ago were lagged negative feed back models. Problem is I do not see evidence of consistent negative feedback here in the table above. For example the abolitionists, when they came to power sought to free the slaves,an objective entirely consistent with their world view picked up decades earlier. That their effort led to conflict follows from the fact that freeing slaves meant impoverishing their owners (if they were simply freed by edict) or the taxpayers (if tax money were to be used to compensate slave owners).

On the other hand the Great Society extension of the New Deal was done under the Lost who came of age during the conservative New Era. When in power this gen ended up acting in opposition to the policy of their formative years (that is they reacted against the accepted policy that helped defined their paradigm).
Okay. I'll consider this when I have a chance. One question though. I guess the Evangelical Gen. is actually a recessive one and the word cultural is a typo rather than two back to back and perhaps somewhat opposing cultural gens. butting heads with each other?

However, the idea of butting heads together fits these times a bit!







Post#33 at 09-29-2015 01:11 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
09-29-2015, 01:11 AM #33
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
Well that does more than leaves a gap, it sort of swallows the preceding 3T. Also if you want to include the whole 1850-1860 "spiral of violence" leading up the Civil War 4T then shouldn't you also include the 1765-1773 spiral leading up to the Revolutionary War?
It could be seen that way IMO. The problem is that turnings before the Revolution were seen by the T4T authors as longer. The saeculum leading to the Revolution (French, American, Industrial, Romantic) was the transition to the time when the people were allowed to participate in history, instead of just the elites. So the saeculum speeded up. Astrologically speaking, it speeded up to the movement of newly-discovered planet Uranus and its cycle of 84 years, which is the planet that represents modern times and revolutions of various and sundry kinds. That cycle and the positions of Uranus and Neptune in the zodiac would place the 1765-1773 period in a similar place as the 1850s and the 1930s, and today of course. Meanwhile, since half the USA had not emerged into the modern world of the revolution, the civil war saeculum was slowed down, and then was speeded up again because that half of the country was suppressed in the civil war and the preceding spiral of violence. Thus the anomaly.

Today of course, we have virtually the same half of the country that has not emerged fully into the present time and its needs and ways. It is less geographically concentrated, and in many places it is an urban-rural split. The people are more confused, though, and do not fully and clearly see who is causing the retardation of our country. Things will need to get clearer, with the opposition even more clearly drawn, and the retards will need to be defeated one way or another again.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#34 at 09-29-2015 01:14 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
09-29-2015, 01:14 AM #34
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
This is all fine and well, but what if the ACW Crisis actually began a decade earlier? If so then, like today, the two sides pushed and pulled until the crisis erupted in full when passions rose high enough for caution to be thrown to the wind. None of what occurred in 1860-1 was any different than earlier attempts, except the degree of excess was high enough for the actions to be carried through. The vitriol was there for a long time.

I've never liked the abbreviated cycle S&H conjured for that saeculum. I seemed contrived to fit elements of their preferred model into the facts on the ground. If you loosen the model a bit, the anomaly isn't needed.
Exactly so.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#35 at 09-29-2015 10:19 AM by ChrisP [at Providence RI joined Dec 2009 #posts 90]
---
09-29-2015, 10:19 AM #35
Join Date
Dec 2009
Location
Providence RI
Posts
90

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Astrologically speaking, it speeded up to the movement of newly-discovered planet Uranus and its cycle of 84 years, which is the planet that represents modern times and revolutions of various and sundry kinds. That cycle and the positions of Uranus and Neptune in the zodiac would place the 1765-1773 period in a similar place as the 1850s and the 1930s, and today of course. .
Eric - Why does the discovery of Uranus influence its effects? Why did it not affect prior seculae?







Post#36 at 09-29-2015 11:31 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
09-29-2015, 11:31 AM #36
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by ChrisP View Post
Eric - Why does the discovery of Uranus influence its effects? Why did it not affect prior seculae?
Good question. The answer is that discovery of an outer planet increases access of the people to its significance. The discovery of Uranus coincided with the discovery of its meanings in society, culture and science.

The cycles of the outer planets were very significant before discovery. Trends in culture and rulership followed their cycles. But their meanings were hidden from us as far as what kind of society we had. We were still under the rule of Cronos, or Saturn; the symbol of landed aristocracy and monarchy, and also of traditional science. Uranus brought The Enlightenment in the years leading up to its discovery (when it was sighted but it was unclear that it was a planet), the Revolution, the discovery of the electromagnetic spectrum and electricity, which also led eventually to modern physics, plus industry, romanticism (the freedom of the artist to explore the exotic, be an individual creator, etc.), and most crucial for the saeculum, vastly-increased involvement of the common people in the events and trends of the times, and much faster changes between generations. In the aristocratic, agricultural world, sons did what their fathers did, and careers were not open to talent. All these things changed in the Revolution, and that's what speeded up the saeculum, because progress as we know it had begun.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#37 at 10-02-2015 02:54 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,501]
---
10-02-2015, 02:54 PM #37
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,501

I was playing with the generations I constructed above with the simple rule:

Political gens: Defined as their COA period minus 23. This is when “history creates generations”. Add the age of leadership to the generation dates to get when “generations create history”. This period should then serve as the COA for a new generation. So you have history creates generation A and generations create history, which in turn creates a generation B and so on. In this way we can think of generation A “begats” generation B.

Cultural gens: Created from cultural movement, typically religious. Get the dates of the movement, subtract 14 from the beginning and 24 from the end to define the gen.

Looking at the table I constructed as an approximation for the American generations you can see:

The Awakening gen begat the Founders, who began two gens, the Liberty (elder) and the Constitution (younger).

The Liberty gen begat the Dem-Rep gen, who begat the Abolition gen, who begat the Civil War gen, who begat the Social Gospel (Progressive) gen, who begat the New Deal gen who begat the Civil Rights gen, who begat the Millennials.

The Constitution gen begat the Compromise gen, who begat the Unnamed gen, who begat the Gilded gen, who begat the Lost, who begat the Silent, who begat Generation X.

In this scheme the dominant gens (Prophets and Heroes) are the descendants of the elder “offspring” of the Founders and the recessive gens (Nomads and Artists) are the descendants of the younger.

In the S&H model they note a tendency for generations to adopt a stance opposite to those of the generation two above them. Thus, Artists are sensitive, so Nomads are tough, and the Artists they “beget” act against their hardness to be more sensitive. Similarly, Prophets are spiritual and inner-directed while Heroes are more results-focused, who end up “begetting” more prophets.

Note that this gen begetting a generation two down from them only began with the offspring of the Founders. The Founders themselves were begat by the generation one up from them, that is their parents. Thus it seems that an old-style, preindustrial, agrarian society that features 200-300 year Turchin-type secular cycles and shows S&H generations of biological length with each generation begetting the next one in the usual (biological) manner.

But in a modern society, the Turchin secular cycle shrinks to a saeculum length, and S&H-type gens move to the new pattern where a generation begets a new one, not biologically, but by influencing their paradigm formation during their COA by the sort of society they create when they are in power. The generation created is typically too young to have been their children.

I would link this transition to research that shows modern teenagers are more influenced by their peers than by their parents/homelife. That is, modern adolescents take their cues on what sort of adults they need to become from the larger culture (which is heavily influenced by societal leaders, i.e. those in power).

Does this make sense to you? Comment.
Last edited by Mikebert; 10-02-2015 at 03:04 PM.







Post#38 at 10-02-2015 03:30 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,501]
---
10-02-2015, 03:30 PM #38
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,501

The dominant gens come in two flavors. The names I used above are their liberal halves of these gens. There are also the conservative halves, who are just as influential (potentially).

One can write the descendents of the Democratic-Republican as:

Abolition and Jacksonian. The first are those "created" by the abolition movement, the second are the political gen created by the Age of Jackson era that was n expression of the Democratic-Republicans in power. These "siblings" form the Whig and Democratic parties.

Union and Confederate the political gens formed by the Abolition and Jacksonian gens in power.

Social Gospel/Progressive and Jim Crow. The generation begat by the Union gen were receptive to the social gospel message (if religious) or the Progressive message (if not) produced by this gen. The generation begat by the Confederate gen responded to the new Jim Crow era they inaugurated.

New Deal/GI gen. The generation begat by the Progessives were receptive to the social welfare consciousness promoted by the New Deal created. The GI gen were receptive to WW II policies which implied America must be a force for good in the world.

Civil Rights/Austeriy. The first are those "created" by the civil rights movement, the second are the political gen created by the 1967-1980 era that was an expression of the New Deal/GI gen in power.

Millennials: This gen has yet to split into two version, taking different "lessons" from the ongoing 4T.







Post#39 at 10-03-2015 08:34 AM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
10-03-2015, 08:34 AM #39
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
I was playing with the generations I constructed above with the simple rule:

Political gens: Defined as their COA period minus 23. This is when “history creates generations”. Add the age of leadership to the generation dates to get when “generations create history”. This period should then serve as the COA for a new generation. So you have history creates generation A and generations create history, which in turn creates a generation B and so on. In this way we can think of generation A “begats” generation B.

Cultural gens: Created from cultural movement, typically religious. Get the dates of the movement, subtract 14 from the beginning and 24 from the end to define the gen.

Looking at the table I constructed as an approximation for the American generations you can see:

The Awakening gen begat the Founders, who began two gens, the Liberty (elder) and the Constitution (younger).

The Liberty gen begat the Dem-Rep gen, who begat the Abolition gen, who begat the Civil War gen, who begat the Social Gospel (Progressive) gen, who begat the New Deal gen who begat the Civil Rights gen, who begat the Millennials.

The Constitution gen begat the Compromise gen, who begat the Unnamed gen, who begat the Gilded gen, who begat the Lost, who begat the Silent, who begat Generation X.

In this scheme the dominant gens (Prophets and Heroes) are the descendants of the elder “offspring” of the Founders and the recessive gens (Nomads and Artists) are the descendants of the younger.

In the S&H model they note a tendency for generations to adopt a stance opposite to those of the generation two above them. Thus, Artists are sensitive, so Nomads are tough, and the Artists they “beget” act against their hardness to be more sensitive. Similarly, Prophets are spiritual and inner-directed while Heroes are more results-focused, who end up “begetting” more prophets.

Note that this gen begetting a generation two down from them only began with the offspring of the Founders. The Founders themselves were begat by the generation one up from them, that is their parents. Thus it seems that an old-style, preindustrial, agrarian society that features 200-300 year Turchin-type secular cycles and shows S&H generations of biological length with each generation begetting the next one in the usual (biological) manner.

But in a modern society, the Turchin secular cycle shrinks to a saeculum length, and S&H-type gens move to the new pattern where a generation begets a new one, not biologically, but by influencing their paradigm formation during their COA by the sort of society they create when they are in power. The generation created is typically too young to have been their children.

I would link this transition to research that shows modern teenagers are more influenced by their peers than by their parents/homelife. That is, modern adolescents take their cues on what sort of adults they need to become from the larger culture (which is heavily influenced by societal leaders, i.e. those in power).

Does this make sense to you? Comment.
I think this follows my general line of thinking. You tend to be a tight model type, while I'm more in favor of a loose model, but both seem to fit inside this general structure. Good work.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#40 at 10-03-2015 08:41 AM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
10-03-2015, 08:41 AM #40
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
The dominant gens come in two flavors. The names I used above are their liberal halves of these gens. There are also the conservative halves, who are just as influential (potentially).

One can write the descendents of the Democratic-Republican as:

Abolition and Jacksonian. The first are those "created" by the abolition movement, the second are the political gen created by the Age of Jackson era that was n expression of the Democratic-Republicans in power. These "siblings" form the Whig and Democratic parties.

Union and Confederate the political gens formed by the Abolition and Jacksonian gens in power.

Social Gospel/Progressive and Jim Crow. The generation begat by the Union gen were receptive to the social gospel message (if religious) or the Progressive message (if not) produced by this gen. The generation begat by the Confederate gen responded to the new Jim Crow era they inaugurated.

New Deal/GI gen. The generation begat by the Progessives were receptive to the social welfare consciousness promoted by the New Deal created. The GI gen were receptive to WW II policies which implied America must be a force for good in the world.

Civil Rights/Austeriy. The first are those "created" by the civil rights movement, the second are the political gen created by the 1967-1980 era that was an expression of the New Deal/GI gen in power.

Millennials: This gen has yet to split into two version, taking different "lessons" from the ongoing 4T.
I might add that there is always some degree of conflict between the two halves. The extent and virulence of the conflict, to say nothing of the balance between the factions, is the real battle we seem to fight here. The mega-saecular and atonement/advancement models attempt to rationalize this. I'm not sure either is fully valid, but the condition is there, whether it can be modelled or not.

Again, good analysis.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#41 at 10-03-2015 03:11 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,501]
---
10-03-2015, 03:11 PM #41
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,501

As for modeling here is a set of generations obtained by a mechanical procedure:

Generation Born COA Proj. Leadership Actual
Awakening 1716-1731 1730-1755 1763-1778 1765-1776
Liberty 1732-1741 1755-1764 1779-1788 1776-1789
Patriot (Republican) 1742-1753 1765-1776 1789-1801 1789-1801
Revolution (Republican) 1753-1766 1776-1789 1801-1814 1801-1816
Constitution (Compromise) 1766-1778 1789-1801 1814-1830 1816-1829
Jefferson (Compromise) 1778-1793 1801-1816 1830-1845 1829-1841
Compromise (Transcend) 1793-1806 1816-1829 1845-1860 1841-1861
Jackson (Transcend) 1806-1818 1829-1841 1860-1874 1861-1877
Polk (Gilded) 1818-1838 1841-1861 1874-1895 1877-1896
Civil War (none) 1838-1854 1861-1877 1895-1911 1896-1916
Gilded (Progressive) 1854-1873 1877-1896 1911-1933 1916-1932
Progressive (Missionary) 1873-1893 1896-1916 1933-1951 1932-1952
Lost 1893-1909 1916-1932 1951-1966 1952-1964
New Deal (GI) 1909-1929 1932-1952 1966-1988 1964-1988
Silent 1929-1941 1952-1964 1988-2004 1988-2008?
Reagan (boomer) 1941-1965 1964-1988 2004-2030 2008?-
Generation X 1965-1981 1988-2004
Millennial 1981-2007 2004-2030

I start with the Great Awakening which I date 1730-1755. I subtract 14 from the first date and 24 from the second date to get the dates for a cultural generation (one created by a cultural movement as opposed to political eras). I then add the average age of leaders (AL) to get their period when they were in power. These dates are compared to the corresponding political era for which this generation was the leaders. The actual era was used for the COA period for the Patriot gen which is generated by subtracting 23 from the COA dates. The process is then repeated to forecast the leader era for the Patriots and the COA for the generation two down from them, and so on. Between the Awakening and their daughter gen the Patriots is a space, which I fill in with the Liberty gen. This gen is the seed for its own set of daughter and granddaughter gens and so on. And that's it.

In parentheses I give the S&H equivalents. Note that for the modern gens there is a one-to-one correspondence between these gens and the S&H gens. But before 1820 two of these gens correspond to one S&H gen. Note also a Civil War gen is created just the same as all the others; there is no anomaly.

The key thing that makes this model work is the average leader age data compiled by S&H the the remarkably regular recurrence of important political eras as first noticed by Schlesinger in 1924. The bolded dates are either recognized critical realignment elections or obvious important dates in US history, Dec of Ind, Constitution, start of Civil War. There really is a cyclical character to American history, at least to recent times.

The leadership periods correspond to turnings. The different is with S&H the turnings were linked to when generations started to be born, as if these babies were somehow affecting history. In the formalism above the turnings are linked to different generations when in power, at which time they are actually in a position to affect history. And the outcome of their efforts, the actual political eras that result, directly creates a new generation that when it reaches the age at which power is wielded will create their political era and their own daughter gen. The generation created is not being born at that time, but rather is coming of age. This means people are born without belonging to any generation. They and their peers become one or another generation by their collective experiences living in the world ruled by the generation two up from them.

So today's Millennials are in the process of forming their peer identity. Their leading members (born 1981) formed their views during the Bush administration. The next wave is forming their views during the Obama administration. Those still in their teens are starting the process of forming their generational identity and those born since 2000 haven't really started.

For the Idealist gens (but not others) there are cultural generations that are contemporaneous with the political. For example Liberal Boomers like Eric might bridle at being included in the Reagan (political) generation (b 1941-65). But there is a corresponding cultural generation that one could call the Civil Rights generation defined by the period from 1955 (Rosa Parks) to ca 1980 (Women's movement peters out). Subtract 14 and 24 from the ends and you get 1941-1956 as birth years for a Civil Rights generation. In this way, you and Eric and Brian Rush fall into the Civil Rights gen, while 58' Flat and I are too young and fall into the Reagan gen. Conservative born in the early 50's would like be Reagan gen members. You can use the 4th great awakening (1960-80) to define a 4th awakening gen (b 1946-1956).

You can define an Abolitionist cultural gen (b 1807-21) using the same rules on the abolition movement that is contemporaneous with the Jackson political gen, that also forecasts the same Civil War period. Clearly abolition had something to do with the Civil War. The same can be done with the Social Gospel movement to find a generation contemporaneous with the Progressive gen and responsible for the New Deal era. And of course the great granddaddy of American gens was the Awakeners, who were themselves were a cultural gen stemming from the 1st Great Awakening.
Last edited by Mikebert; 10-03-2015 at 04:55 PM.







Post#42 at 10-11-2015 08:30 PM by Einzige [at Illinois joined Apr 2013 #posts 824]
---
10-11-2015, 08:30 PM #42
Join Date
Apr 2013
Location
Illinois
Posts
824

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
This is pure speculation, but who should the Millies rally to support or oppose? They backed BHO solidly, and got nothing for it. Other than an old white guy from the backwoods, no one seems to be interested in fixing the problems, and, frankly, I doubt the Millies believe that Bernie's ideas have solid merit in any case.
They certainly have merit. It's simply a matter of fact that you bluehairs would not permit us to implement them, as they'd threaten your social standing.
Things are gonna slide
Slide in all directions
Won't be nothin'
Nothin' you can measure anymore

The blizzard of the world has crossed the threshold
And it has overturned the order of the soul
When they said REPENT (repent), I wonder what they meant

I've seen the future, brother:
It is murder

- Leonard Cohen, "The Future" (1992)







Post#43 at 10-13-2015 01:24 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
10-13-2015, 01:24 PM #43
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Einzige View Post
They certainly have merit. It's simply a matter of fact that you bluehairs would not permit us to implement them, as they'd threaten your social standing.
Why should I oppose Bernie's ideas? He's foursquare for SS and Medicare ... in fact he wants to see them rise. Both are a plus for me. Noneo f his other ideas hurt me at all, except for higher taxes perhaps. Still, good overall.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#44 at 10-13-2015 05:02 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
10-13-2015, 05:02 PM #44
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
Why should I oppose Bernie's ideas? He's foursquare for SS and Medicare ... in fact he wants to see them rise. Both are a plus for me. Noneo f his other ideas hurt me at all, except for higher taxes perhaps. Still, good overall.
I think he meant more the Dem party establishment, which age-wise is very old.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#45 at 10-14-2015 08:04 AM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
10-14-2015, 08:04 AM #45
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
I think he meant more the Dem party establishment, which age-wise is very old.
The Dems forgot that their reason to exist is the not-rich. Maybe that's changing now, but it's still engrained in the establishment. Last night's Presidential debate seems to indicate that they are coming around, but they aren't there yet.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#46 at 10-30-2015 01:38 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,501]
---
10-30-2015, 01:38 PM #46
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,501

Generation Birth Years COA (Gen create) Leader Age (AL) Leadership Era Pol Moment or Turning
997-1022 1019-1044 49 49 1046-1071 1046-1071
Norman 1024-1049 1046-1071 49 49 1073-1098 1078-1098
1051-1076 1073-1098 49 49 1100-1125 1095-1122
Crusade 1078-1103 1100-1125 49 48 1127-1151 1123-1149
1105-1129 1127-1151 48 48 1153-1177 1149-1175
Plantagenet 1131-1155 1153-1177 48 48 1179-1203 1175-1204
1157-1181 1179-1203 48 47 1205-1228 1204-1231
Franciscan 1183-1206 1205-1228 47 47 1230-1253 1231-1253
1208-1231 1230-1253 47 47 1255-1278 1251-1276
Montfort 1233-1256 1255-1278 47 47 1280-1303 1271-1294
1258-1281 1280-1303 47 47 1305-1328 1305-1328
Famine 1283-1306 1305-1328 47 47 1330-1353 1328-1356
1308-1331 1330-1353 47 47 1355-1378 1356-1381
Plague 1333-1356 1355-1378 47 50 1380-1406 1381-1406
1358-1384 1380-1406 50 53 1408-1437 1406-1435
Lollard 1386-1415 1408-1437 53 54 1439-1469 1435-1459
1417-1447 1439-1469 54 54 1471-1501 1459-1487
Tudor 1437-1465 1459-1487 54 55 1491-1520 1487-1524
1469-1498 1491-1520 55 54 1524-1552 1524-1553
Reformation 1502-1530 1524-1552 53 53 1555-1583 1553-1585
1533-1561 1555-1583 52 52 1585-1613 1585-1605
Armada 1563-1591 1585-1613 52 52 1615-1643 1605-1640
1593-1621 1615-1643 52 41 1645-1661 1640-1653
Puritan 1623-1640 1645-1662 41 43 1664-1683 1653-1675
1642-1661 1664-1683 43 43 1685-1704 1675-1691
Glorious 1653-1669 1675-1691 44 46 1697-1715 1691-1720
1675-1693 1697-1715 46 46 1721-1739 1720-1746
Awakening 1699-1717 1721-1739 47 47 1746-1764 1746-1775
1724-1742 1746-1764 47 47 1771-1789 1775-1789
Revolutionary 1753-1767 1775-1789 49 48 1802-1815 1801-1816
Jefferson 1780-1793 1802-1815 51 50 1831-1843 1829-1841
Abolitionist 1809-1821 1831-1843 53 53 1862-1874 1861-1877
Civil War 1839-1855 1861-1877 55 55 1894-1910 1896-1916
Progressive 1872-1888 1894-1910 59 55 1931-1943 1933-1947
New Deal 1911-1925 1933-1947 56 55 1967-1980 1967-1980
Baby Boom 1945-1958 1967-1980 60 61 2005-2019 2008-XXX
Millennial 1986-XXXX 2008-XXXX

The above table shows a millennium of turnings constructed using a simple rule. Given a period of history, the generation created from it is obtained by subtracting 22. The value 22 is the age by which people in their fifties have developed half of their political beliefs system that informs their voting patterns as determine from a model by Ghitza and Gelman. This generation comes to power when they reach the age of societal leadership AL which is given by adding AL to the generation dates. For the period 1790 to the present, AL is the average of the mean ages of Congressmen, Senators, Governors and Supreme Court Justices, obtained from Neil Howe’s Life Course site. Before 1649, the end of the English Revolution, AL is the lifespan of the English nobility, obtained from Cummins. Between 1650 and 1790 the following relation was used:

AL = Lifespan – lifespan in 1800 + AL in 1800.

The concept is that a generation “begets” another by creating the political/economic/cultural environment when in leadership that forms a new generation out of those coming of age at age 22. The way they do this is through the influence of the times on paradigm formation using the same sort of mechanism implied in Ghitza and Gelman’s generational voting behavior model. Thus, we can say the Millennials were “begotten” by the Boomers, who in turn are the progeny of the GI’s. If you look at the 20th century part of the table above you will see that the generations/turnings are spaced about a generation apart. But if you look at the 16th century part of the table you will see that the generations/turnings are adjacent. This naturally falls out of the model. THe mechanism was intuited by Kurt Horner, but he got the timing right. The source of the shift to shorter turning length, what S&H call the Civil War anomaly occurred as a result of the English Revolution in 1642-49. Before 1649, societal leadership was wielded by a natural(ly born) aristocracy, as represented by the King. As Horner intuited, power was wielded throughout life and reached its maximum just before death. Hence max power is exhibited at the average age at which leaders exited their leadership role, that is, at death and so if represented by the lifespans of societal elites. After the revolution, Parliament had the upper hand, and so the average age of MPs applied. I could not find actucal data for British MPs, but S&H compiled data for the US and I could use that to estimate what the corresponding British values might be for the period before 1790.

So at the Revolution leader age fell from 52 to 40. A value of 52 for AL implies 30 year generations/turnings (= 52-22). But the 16th century saeculum was enormously long. The Wars of the Roses ended in 1485 while the Armada war ended in 1603. These events defined to 4T, spaced. 118 years apart, which is consistent with 30-year turnings.

The value of AL in 1789 was about 47, which implies 25 year generations/turnings. The 18th century saeculum was much shorted than the 16th century one. The Glorious Revolution sparked revolts and unrest in America that ended in 1691. The Constitution was ratified in 1789, ending the Revolutionary Crisis. These events define a 98-year turning.

The value of AL in during the New Deal era was about 56, implying a two-generation spacing of 34 years. Two pf these imply a 68 year saeculum. We can data the saeculum from the end of Reconstruction to 1947, when the incoming Republicans put an end to the New Deal. This spacing is 70 years, which is close to the expected 68 years.

Looking at the present AL has risen to 61 years, implying a 39 year two-generation spacing and a 78 year saeculum. A provisional dating for the most recently completed saeculum might be the crash of 1929 and 2008, which are spaced 79 years apart.
Last edited by Mikebert; 11-01-2015 at 05:40 PM.







Post#47 at 11-08-2015 06:28 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,501]
---
11-08-2015, 06:28 PM #47
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,501

I’ve been playing with my model. Here I take three different versions of the present crisis and use the model to project backwards what previous 4Ts are consistent with these assumed dates, using the table of average age of leader (AL) values I obtained from Howe’s website and other sources.

4T social moment 2008 start 2005 start 2001 start
Glorious Revolution 1685-1696 1682-1696 1680-1692
Revolution & Constitution 1782-1795 1777-1795 1774-1792
Civil War & Reconstruction 1866-1882 1863-1882 1860-1880
Depression & WW II 1935-1949 1933-1949 1930-1946
Todays’s 4T 2008-2024 2005-2024 2001-2020

What the model does is eliminate generational length as an adjustable parameter. Instead generational length is defined by AL, which is the average of the mean age of Senators, Representatives, Governors and Supreme Court Justices, all of which can be obtained from Neil Howe’s database. AL values increase with increasing lifespan. When lifespans were short generational length was AL – 22. When lifespans rapidly increased in the 19th century, generation length abruptly shortened to ½ (AL – 22). What S&H call the Civil War Anomaly (which posters here long ago interpreted as a drop in generational/turning length in the early 19th century) is an effect of rising lifespan, not “rising pace of life”.

Since 2008, I have favored a 2008 start for the present 4T. Before that, I favored the 2001 start.* Yet this analysis suggests that 2001 start gives the best fit of the past 4T’s. The later start states imply later generational dates and so later turning dates. A number of posters here support the 2001 date. Could one of you give a narrative for this turning, which if this analysis is valid, is more than half over?

Thanks

*I actually predicted the early 4T start back in 2000. If you go to the old site to The Future section and look up the Kondratieff cycle thread you will find an August 2000 post of mine in which I outline this correlation between the K-cycle and the saeculum. At the very end I conclude that the crisis should be starting soon.







Post#48 at 11-08-2015 09:28 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
11-08-2015, 09:28 PM #48
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

The civil war saeculum, somewhat without the anomaly, looks like this to me:

1T 1794 - 1815
2T 1815 - 1834
3T 1834 - 1850
4T 1850 - 1865

It's still shorter than the other saecula, since I didn't change the start and end dates. But it smooths out the turnings and corresponds better to the history.

For the generations, I prefer saying that the Gilded Generation is a nomad-hero hybrid, and the Progressive a hero-artist hybrid. That means, no new generation or new dates are needed.

So the anomaly is not eliminated, but not exaggerated by saying there was virtually no crisis, and no hero generation at all. The anomaly is explained by the fact that the South and its medieval society was holding back progress in the previous 100 or 200 years, and the civil war burst open that dam.

The next saeculum, then, is as S&H say:
1T 1865-1886
2T 1886-1908
3T 1908-1929
4T 1929-1946

It is reasonable to say the Revolution Crisis ended earlier, from one point of view. But, the 4T according to S&H dates was also of normal length. That seems more likely. The previous 4T had seen the founding of new institutions and constitutional changes at or near the end of it. The events of the late 1790s parallel those of the late 1860s and the late 1940s in many ways. All three readjustment post-war periods saw fears and repression of "seditious" points of view. All three were periods when society was unsettled due to the recent war, but adjustments and reconstructions were being made. Once this unsettled early 1T era is over, then consensus builds and lots of capitalist and government-supported building of infrastructure and industrial power takes place.

The end of the war of 1812 signalled the rise of spiritual and protest movements. In America these lasted until 1834, as they did in Europe over the same period. In 1834-35, the South began to fight back and the abolitionists no longer had an easy time even in the North. After 1834 polarization increased. People also turned their attention more to the industrial boom starting, especially in the 1840s. This is similar to what happened when Taft took over in 1908; the momentum of the progressive movements declined. This was especially true of course in the roaring 1920s boom time.

The Crisis of 1850 and the publication of Uncle Tom's Cabin were the catalysts for the now-inevitable civil war. Compromise postponed the fight, but failed to stop it and the crises that led to it in the 1850s. Measures to end the depression that started in 1929 ameliorated peoples' suffering, but didn't stop the depression, nor the war that it had unleashed by causing Hitler to rise to power and the events leading up to the war in the 1930s.

One point of view; not definitive I guess
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#49 at 11-09-2015 12:21 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,501]
---
11-09-2015, 12:21 PM #49
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,501

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
One point of view; not definitive I guess
Exactly. Your CW dates of 1850-65 are the earliest I've seen. Next is Kinser's 1854-69. Then there is Dave McG's 1857-71 and Dave Krien's 1857-77. Finally S&H have 1860-65. One could posit 1861-77, that is the official beginning of the CW to the official end of Reconstruction. There are, to my knowledge 5 potential start dates and four different end dates, which tighter give 20 combinations. Some of these are largely independent sharing only the war itself in common.

How does one choose? Various narratives have their strengths. So I focus on which one fit in with a generational mechanism. So in the post above I pick three common start dates for the current 4T and use the generational mechanism to see what previous 4T dates are consistent with each. To my chagrin, I found that the start date I prefer, 2008, does not fit in with consensus notions of when the previous 4Ts were. Nobody claims that the Revolutionary and CW 4T's began AFTER the wars.

On the other hand the 2001 fits very nicely. Hence I am thinking I should give the 2001 narratives more consideration. Perhaps my politics has biased me towards the 2008 date.







Post#50 at 11-09-2015 12:44 PM by JordanGoodspeed [at joined Mar 2013 #posts 3,587]
---
11-09-2015, 12:44 PM #50
Join Date
Mar 2013
Posts
3,587

Mike,

I know I make fun of a lot of what you do, here, but this is intriguing. I have favored a later start date, myself, but I'm willing to take a stab at a narrative. Basically, what this would mean was that 2000 was the economic drop-off, and 9-11 the catalyst for the political shift. Serial reinflation of asset bubbles (causing crashes causing the reinflation of asset bubbles) and blowback from intervention (spawning more intervention spawning more blowback etc.) are the characteristics of the 4T, which explains why the 2010s seem so like the 2000s, only more so. This suggests that the 4T resolution should come when we break out of these loops and enter a new era of America history, and until then we're stuck listening to this every morning.

I don't know, maybe a believer could do a better job. Seems a little thin to me, and one can argue that the same parallel exists to the 90s (a jobless recovery leading to a loose monetary policy that spurs the creation of a new bubble, conflict in Iraq, Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama-Probably Clinton, Al-Qaeda, etc). I know it doesn't quite convince me, but that might be unwillingness to agree with JohnMc82 talking.
-----------------------------------------