Very interesting and I think quite correct. Excellent job!

Question: In light of this theory, could you discuss a bit how the fudamentalist movement and the neo-conservative movement fit in to our times?

I still think that nearly all techonology in some way drives the spread of ideas and therefore, ability to form a new values system. So when a civilization falls backwards into a dark ages, the saeculum will die out. Then, as material progress is stagnant, there is still no saeculum. I imagine then, that even without the fall, just stagnation, there is no new need to create a new values system. I think once a saeculum is established, an explosion of change which spreads ideas faster, might speed the saeculum up a bit. Do you think we'll ever reach a point where our technology is so advanced that it no longer affects the saeculum? Sort of a law of diminishing returns?

Very interesting and I think quite correct. Excellent job!

Question: In light of this theory, could you discuss a bit how the fudamentalist movement and the neo-conservative movement fit in to our times?

I still think that nearly all techonology in some way drives the spread of ideas and therefore, ability to form a new values system. So when a civilization falls backwards into a dark ages, the saeculum will die out. Then, as material progress is stagnant, there is still no saeculum. I imagine then, that even without the fall, just stagnation, there is no new need to create a new values system. I think once a saeculum is established, an explosion of change which spreads ideas faster, might speed the saeculum up a bit. Do you think we'll ever reach a point where our technology is so advanced that it no longer affects the saeculum? Sort of a law of diminishing returns?

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Parents will always (in a general sense) seek to bring their children up by picking and choosing from the good and bad of their own childhoods. If they were over-protected, and didn't like it, they will tend to under-protect their own kids. It is a pendulum that swings back and forth.

A pendulum implies a two-stroke cycle. That's easy to see. How does it produce a four-stroke cycle? That's what's fuzzy.

The four seasons are a two-stroke cycle, with a vernal and autumnal equinox turning:

Exactly right, you ol' Devil: 0pi, pi/2, pi, 3pi/2. I still think Sean?s bimodality could be the co-oscillating torus:



One oscillator travels the larger circle of this doughnut, while the other transits its perpendicular cross-section. You could demonstrate it nicely with a Slinky by joining its two end to form a torus. Then flex and twist it anyway you like, but it still retains its 2-stroke "seasonality."

Sean, how badly have I missed your point?

--Croak

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Parents will always (in a general sense) seek to bring their children up by picking and choosing from the good and bad of their own childhoods. If they were over-protected, and didn't like it, they will tend to under-protect their own kids. It is a pendulum that swings back and forth.

A pendulum implies a two-stroke cycle. That's easy to see. How does it produce a four-stroke cycle? That's what's fuzzy.

The four seasons are a two-stroke cycle, with a vernal and autumnal equinox turning:

Exactly right, you ol' Devil: 0pi, pi/2, pi, 3pi/2. I still think Sean?s bimodality could be the co-oscillating torus:



One oscillator travels the larger circle of this doughnut, while the other transits its perpendicular cross-section. You could demonstrate it nicely with a Slinky by joining its two end to form a torus. Then flex and twist it anyway you like, but it still retains its 2-stroke "seasonality."

Sean, how badly have I missed your point?

--Croak

Brian

Since institutions reflect values it seems to be that when the values are first being perceived to be out of sync with the times, the same would be true for insitutions. That is, we do not have to wait for the institutions to independently get of out sync after the new values regime was introduced. All we have to wait for is the time it takes for the Hero generation (the first one born after the new values regime was introduced) to grow up and then we can have a crisis.

So the spacing between the Awakening and the Crisis will be based on the time needed to grow up and begin life as an active adult. That is, we should expect the time between the end of an awakening and begining of a Crisis to be about the length of time from birth to adulthood, say about 20-22 years.

But the spacing between Awakenings (i.e. the length of the saeculum) will be based on the rate of technolgocial change in a step fashion with this spacing about 100-110 years centuries ago and about 70-80 years today.
The spacing between Awakenings and Crises should remain constant at this "grow up" time or about 20-22 years.

Thus, we should see long Highs and short Unravelings in the early saeculum. Since they don't you will probably have to add Ken Horners concept of shortening of the time need to reach effective adulthood or something like that to make the timing work out.

Brian

Since institutions reflect values it seems to be that when the values are first being perceived to be out of sync with the times, the same would be true for insitutions. That is, we do not have to wait for the institutions to independently get of out sync after the new values regime was introduced. All we have to wait for is the time it takes for the Hero generation (the first one born after the new values regime was introduced) to grow up and then we can have a crisis.

So the spacing between the Awakening and the Crisis will be based on the time needed to grow up and begin life as an active adult. That is, we should expect the time between the end of an awakening and begining of a Crisis to be about the length of time from birth to adulthood, say about 20-22 years.

But the spacing between Awakenings (i.e. the length of the saeculum) will be based on the rate of technolgocial change in a step fashion with this spacing about 100-110 years centuries ago and about 70-80 years today.
The spacing between Awakenings and Crises should remain constant at this "grow up" time or about 20-22 years.

Thus, we should see long Highs and short Unravelings in the early saeculum. Since they don't you will probably have to add Ken Horners concept of shortening of the time need to reach effective adulthood or something like that to make the timing work out.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Since institutions reflect values it seems to be that when the values are first being perceived to be out of sync with the times, the same would be true for insitutions.

The reason that isn't so, is because of the rhythm. In 1964, our consensus values had last undergone an overhaul way back in the early part of the 20th century, but our new institutions dated only from the late 1940s. So they were less than 20 years out of date, while our values were more like 80 years out of date.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Since institutions reflect values it seems to be that when the values are first being perceived to be out of sync with the times, the same would be true for insitutions.

The reason that isn't so, is because of the rhythm. In 1964, our consensus values had last undergone an overhaul way back in the early part of the 20th century, but our new institutions dated only from the late 1940s. So they were less than 20 years out of date, while our values were more like 80 years out of date.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Since institutions reflect values it seems to be that when the values are first being perceived to be out of sync with the times, the same would be true for insitutions. That is, we do not have to wait for the institutions to independently get of out sync...

If one looks at the Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions at NBER, one can see that from the 1850s to the 1930s the economy spent over fifty percent of the time in either recession or outright depression. Given that the percieved "spark" of the 1929 Crash supposedly illuminated a broken institution, one might ask a salient question: What else is new?

Likewise, since 1933 the U.S. economy has been in recessions less than thirty percent of the time, and of substantially less severity. This indicates to me that this "broken institution" stuff is nonsense (something much deeper is at work, here?), and that each cycle maintains a high degree of independence from the cycle that proceeded it.

Whatever.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Since institutions reflect values it seems to be that when the values are first being perceived to be out of sync with the times, the same would be true for insitutions. That is, we do not have to wait for the institutions to independently get of out sync...

If one looks at the Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions at NBER, one can see that from the 1850s to the 1930s the economy spent over fifty percent of the time in either recession or outright depression. Given that the percieved "spark" of the 1929 Crash supposedly illuminated a broken institution, one might ask a salient question: What else is new?

Likewise, since 1933 the U.S. economy has been in recessions less than thirty percent of the time, and of substantially less severity. This indicates to me that this "broken institution" stuff is nonsense (something much deeper is at work, here?), and that each cycle maintains a high degree of independence from the cycle that proceeded it.

Whatever.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I sometimes wonder why it is that, every time I present the idea of technological progress colliding with human conservatism being the cause of the saeculum, it disappears beneath the surface of the pond with nary a response . . . Mass movements? True, there was slow communication in the Middle Ages, and widespread illiteracy to boot, but it seems to me that the lack of a Medieval saeculum (if there was such a lack) is adequately explained by the glacial pace of technological change, which failed to render values or institutions obsolete.

The bolded section is the reason why I am disinclined towards the technological theory. There is significant reason to think that saecula existed prior to the modern era -- and there is even significant evidence for saecula of "industrial" length occurring well before the 19th century.

The pace of technological change would, in my mind, seem to be more likely to increase the amplitude of the cycle rather than its period. I.e. when a society reaches a social moment, the issues faced are of much greater significance because the change in material circumstances is greater. The transitions from austerity to social moment would be more wrenching but the period should remain the same. So, thus, the reason why S&H thought turnings were a modern development is because the recent pace of change has made them more noticeable.

A turning change should occur when there are "enough" new people in positions of influence with a different outlook on life. In a society where positions of influence are more widely available, this critical mass should be achieved faster.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I sometimes wonder why it is that, every time I present the idea of technological progress colliding with human conservatism being the cause of the saeculum, it disappears beneath the surface of the pond with nary a response . . . Mass movements? True, there was slow communication in the Middle Ages, and widespread illiteracy to boot, but it seems to me that the lack of a Medieval saeculum (if there was such a lack) is adequately explained by the glacial pace of technological change, which failed to render values or institutions obsolete.

The bolded section is the reason why I am disinclined towards the technological theory. There is significant reason to think that saecula existed prior to the modern era -- and there is even significant evidence for saecula of "industrial" length occurring well before the 19th century.

The pace of technological change would, in my mind, seem to be more likely to increase the amplitude of the cycle rather than its period. I.e. when a society reaches a social moment, the issues faced are of much greater significance because the change in material circumstances is greater. The transitions from austerity to social moment would be more wrenching but the period should remain the same. So, thus, the reason why S&H thought turnings were a modern development is because the recent pace of change has made them more noticeable.

A turning change should occur when there are "enough" new people in positions of influence with a different outlook on life. In a society where positions of influence are more widely available, this critical mass should be achieved faster.

Marc:

You wrote this: Parents will always (in a general sense) seek to bring their children up by picking and choosing from the good and bad of their own childhoods. If they were over-protected, and didn't like it, they will tend to under-protect their own kids. It is a pendulum that swings back and forth.

This clearly implies the swing from over-protected to under protected occurs over one biological generation. Thus a complete cycle takes two generations: from grandparent to grandchild or about 50-60 years

The nuture cycle in the saeculum extends over four generations, over 100 years in the early saeculum, which is what is being discussed here. The S&H nuture cycle is too long to reflect a parent-child dynamic.

Marc:

You wrote this: Parents will always (in a general sense) seek to bring their children up by picking and choosing from the good and bad of their own childhoods. If they were over-protected, and didn't like it, they will tend to under-protect their own kids. It is a pendulum that swings back and forth.

This clearly implies the swing from over-protected to under protected occurs over one biological generation. Thus a complete cycle takes two generations: from grandparent to grandchild or about 50-60 years

The nuture cycle in the saeculum extends over four generations, over 100 years in the early saeculum, which is what is being discussed here. The S&H nuture cycle is too long to reflect a parent-child dynamic.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Since institutions reflect values it seems to be that when the values are first being perceived to be out of sync with the times, the same would be true for insitutions. That is, we do not have to wait for the institutions to independently get of out sync...

If one looks at the Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions at NBER, one can see that from the 1850s to the 1930s the economy spent over fifty percent of the time in either recession or outright depression. Given that the percieved "spark" of the 1929 Crash supposedly illuminated a broken institution, one might ask a salient question: What else is new?

Likewise, since 1933 the U.S. economy has been in recessions less than thirty percent of the time, and of substantially less severity. This indicates to me that this "broken institution" stuff is nonsense (something much deeper is at work, here?), and that each cycle maintains a high degree of independence from the cycle that proceeded it.

Whatever.

Why are you addressing this to me? It's not my model you are criticizing.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Since institutions reflect values it seems to be that when the values are first being perceived to be out of sync with the times, the same would be true for insitutions. That is, we do not have to wait for the institutions to independently get of out sync...

If one looks at the Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions at NBER, one can see that from the 1850s to the 1930s the economy spent over fifty percent of the time in either recession or outright depression. Given that the percieved "spark" of the 1929 Crash supposedly illuminated a broken institution, one might ask a salient question: What else is new?

Likewise, since 1933 the U.S. economy has been in recessions less than thirty percent of the time, and of substantially less severity. This indicates to me that this "broken institution" stuff is nonsense (something much deeper is at work, here?), and that each cycle maintains a high degree of independence from the cycle that proceeded it.

Whatever.

Why are you addressing this to me? It's not my model you are criticizing.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

This last seems like a problem mainly because so many, including S&H, seem to think Grey Champions are important. Really, they're not. The whole turning schema works just fine, regardless of whether it's three-phase or four-phase, so long as you recognize that the most important generation in all turnings is the one entering adulthood. It is the injection of new blood into the culture that causes the change.

No. Actually the gray champion concept is important for a mechanism of the sort that S&H propose. That's why its there.

To show this it is instructive to actually go through the steps of creation of the saeculum from a presaecular population. Start with a population in which there are no different generations, all of them are the same. Then impose some sort of social moment-inducing event on them. Work through how this population evolves using a minimal set of causative relations and see if generations like those S&H describe appear and if they replicate themselves in the proper sequence.

S&H did do this and their saeculum mechanism does create the requisite generations in the proper order and in a repetitive fashion. The sticking point is the saeculum consistent with this mechanism is about 90 years long, but that is a separate issue.

If you can't actually work it out in this way, you probably don't have enough causative relations in your assumptions and you need to add some more.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

This last seems like a problem mainly because so many, including S&H, seem to think Grey Champions are important. Really, they're not. The whole turning schema works just fine, regardless of whether it's three-phase or four-phase, so long as you recognize that the most important generation in all turnings is the one entering adulthood. It is the injection of new blood into the culture that causes the change.

No. Actually the gray champion concept is important for a mechanism of the sort that S&H propose. That's why its there.

To show this it is instructive to actually go through the steps of creation of the saeculum from a presaecular population. Start with a population in which there are no different generations, all of them are the same. Then impose some sort of social moment-inducing event on them. Work through how this population evolves using a minimal set of causative relations and see if generations like those S&H describe appear and if they replicate themselves in the proper sequence.

S&H did do this and their saeculum mechanism does create the requisite generations in the proper order and in a repetitive fashion. The sticking point is the saeculum consistent with this mechanism is about 90 years long, but that is a separate issue.

If you can't actually work it out in this way, you probably don't have enough causative relations in your assumptions and you need to add some more.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The reason that isn't so, is because of the rhythm. In 1964, our consensus values had last undergone an overhaul way back in the early part of the 20th century, but our new institutions dated only from the late 1940s. So they were less than 20 years out of date, while our values were more like 80 years out of date.

How can the institutions be more up-to-date than the values they reflect?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The reason that isn't so, is because of the rhythm. In 1964, our consensus values had last undergone an overhaul way back in the early part of the 20th century, but our new institutions dated only from the late 1940s. So they were less than 20 years out of date, while our values were more like 80 years out of date.

How can the institutions be more up-to-date than the values they reflect?

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Given that generations exist, one can see turnings being produced as a new (different) generation begins to replace the old generation in power. But where do the generations come from, and why would there be four kinds? And why should they repeat in some special order? "Parental nurture" is a fuzzy concept. It doesn't explain why there should be four generations or why nurture should change in any regular way.

First there is simply the recognized tendency for parents to try to correct "errors" committed by their parents. This creates a swing between protective and neglecting parenting styles. This would produce a two-part cycle in a primitive society with short lifespans. (Note: this model requires no "shock" to start the cycle, the cycle would be as old as human sentience, or at least as old as the use of language.)

With the invention of agriculture (or possibly earlier at the herder level), lifespans increased enough that significant numbers of one "austerity" generation would be around when a new "austerity" generation came into its own. Thus there would end up being alternating types of each generation type resulting in four generation types rather than two. Also the generations would slightly pre-date the turnings since as a new generation began to influence events, the mode of parenting would gradually adjust in response. By the time the impact of a new generation has noticable effects, the new parenting paradigm is in place, turning out the next generational archetype. However, the parenting modes won't change until the up-and-coming generation has significant influence (the time that takes to occur is variable -- and I believe related to the availabilty of positions of power).

Technology might end up increasing lifespans enough to cause a six part cycle. This would require life spans to be long enough for substantial numbers of two austerity generations back to influence the incoming one (and the same phenomenon for social generations). In my opinion, there are simply not enough members of the Lost Generation to significantly impact Generation X, the oldest Lost were about 90 when the unraveling began and the average age at death at that point was in the high 70s -- i.e. most of the Lost Generation was already dead when the unraveling began and many more of those were no longer in full possession of their faculties, let alone occupying positions of influence. The average age at death seems as yet, too low to allow a 6-part cycle to emerge.

Of course, I am skeptical of any saecula concept with an odd number of turnings (as this would mean back-to-back generations of the same general type).

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Given that generations exist, one can see turnings being produced as a new (different) generation begins to replace the old generation in power. But where do the generations come from, and why would there be four kinds? And why should they repeat in some special order? "Parental nurture" is a fuzzy concept. It doesn't explain why there should be four generations or why nurture should change in any regular way.

First there is simply the recognized tendency for parents to try to correct "errors" committed by their parents. This creates a swing between protective and neglecting parenting styles. This would produce a two-part cycle in a primitive society with short lifespans. (Note: this model requires no "shock" to start the cycle, the cycle would be as old as human sentience, or at least as old as the use of language.)

With the invention of agriculture (or possibly earlier at the herder level), lifespans increased enough that significant numbers of one "austerity" generation would be around when a new "austerity" generation came into its own. Thus there would end up being alternating types of each generation type resulting in four generation types rather than two. Also the generations would slightly pre-date the turnings since as a new generation began to influence events, the mode of parenting would gradually adjust in response. By the time the impact of a new generation has noticable effects, the new parenting paradigm is in place, turning out the next generational archetype. However, the parenting modes won't change until the up-and-coming generation has significant influence (the time that takes to occur is variable -- and I believe related to the availabilty of positions of power).

Technology might end up increasing lifespans enough to cause a six part cycle. This would require life spans to be long enough for substantial numbers of two austerity generations back to influence the incoming one (and the same phenomenon for social generations). In my opinion, there are simply not enough members of the Lost Generation to significantly impact Generation X, the oldest Lost were about 90 when the unraveling began and the average age at death at that point was in the high 70s -- i.e. most of the Lost Generation was already dead when the unraveling began and many more of those were no longer in full possession of their faculties, let alone occupying positions of influence. The average age at death seems as yet, too low to allow a 6-part cycle to emerge.

Of course, I am skeptical of any saecula concept with an odd number of turnings (as this would mean back-to-back generations of the same general type).

I think you're all missing two major points here, as to why the saeculums didn't work earlier on:

lack of communication

The reason the saeculums are consistent across a conutry or a continent or a section of the world is constant communication. Prior to Gutenburg's printing press and the advent of literacy throughout much of Europe, communication was sporadic at best. Kings dealing with restive peasants in one city didn't have to deal with restive peasants in another city as well. Cities were fairly insular, with the exception of maybe the Mediterranean ports. And even then, the rule was different politics in different places. News was always rumors and word of mouth, and it sometimes took years to hear about far away places. The larger saeculums that did exist were slower to move on to the next phase.

So you had many little saeculums in many little places. An isolated town had its own saeculum, and something small like a charismatic nobleman could change the face of the whole thing.

With the advent of printing and widescale literacy (meaning at least a few in each town), news became rapidfire, comprehensive, and indisputable, unlike word-of-mouth rumors. Suddenly entire countries were kept apprised of the latest war news on a weekly basis. With enough communication and knowledge, the saeculums were kept lined up.

Nowadays, the differences in the western world are extremely small, due to instantaneous communication.

advent of elderhood

Exactly what percentage of the population lived past 45 in the 1300s and before? An extremely small percent. (This goes along with the "famine" problem mentioned earlier.)

This sort of goes along with the "3 generations alive" concept, although I think you still have Prophets in charge of the Crisis, Nomads in charge of the High, etc. It's just that these leaders are the few elders that survived, with very few peers. In the Crisis, for example, the Nomads are still definitely middle management, not leaders. Just back then, you had a few elder leaders, and now you have millions of elders leading by consensus.

Anyway, what I think happened is that the advent of elderhood created a societal force for the movement into the four-stroke cycle. Without elderhood, you were dependent on the actions of a single leader or a small council to act their role so forcefully that they would be perceived by society as we now perceive the mass of elderhood, shaping the current seasons. If the leader didn't fit the role or wasn't forceful enough, the seasonal change was delayed or screwed up. A Prophet king who isn't charismatic won't turn Nomads to building weapons and sullen youth into Heroes. Maybe the prince will do it when he is king.

Nowadays, there's no denying the cycle. Tens of millions of Prophets want to change the world. When they pass on, tens of millions of Nomads will want to fix and build and explore. Then tens of millions of Heroes will wonder why tens of millions of young Prophets want to change everything again. No dependence on slow communication, no dependence on a single leader. If the President or the Prime Minister dies, another steps in to take his place, and he or she can at most delay the inevitable a few years or speed it up a few years, no more.

I think you're all missing two major points here, as to why the saeculums didn't work earlier on:

lack of communication

The reason the saeculums are consistent across a conutry or a continent or a section of the world is constant communication. Prior to Gutenburg's printing press and the advent of literacy throughout much of Europe, communication was sporadic at best. Kings dealing with restive peasants in one city didn't have to deal with restive peasants in another city as well. Cities were fairly insular, with the exception of maybe the Mediterranean ports. And even then, the rule was different politics in different places. News was always rumors and word of mouth, and it sometimes took years to hear about far away places. The larger saeculums that did exist were slower to move on to the next phase.

So you had many little saeculums in many little places. An isolated town had its own saeculum, and something small like a charismatic nobleman could change the face of the whole thing.

With the advent of printing and widescale literacy (meaning at least a few in each town), news became rapidfire, comprehensive, and indisputable, unlike word-of-mouth rumors. Suddenly entire countries were kept apprised of the latest war news on a weekly basis. With enough communication and knowledge, the saeculums were kept lined up.

Nowadays, the differences in the western world are extremely small, due to instantaneous communication.

advent of elderhood

Exactly what percentage of the population lived past 45 in the 1300s and before? An extremely small percent. (This goes along with the "famine" problem mentioned earlier.)

This sort of goes along with the "3 generations alive" concept, although I think you still have Prophets in charge of the Crisis, Nomads in charge of the High, etc. It's just that these leaders are the few elders that survived, with very few peers. In the Crisis, for example, the Nomads are still definitely middle management, not leaders. Just back then, you had a few elder leaders, and now you have millions of elders leading by consensus.

Anyway, what I think happened is that the advent of elderhood created a societal force for the movement into the four-stroke cycle. Without elderhood, you were dependent on the actions of a single leader or a small council to act their role so forcefully that they would be perceived by society as we now perceive the mass of elderhood, shaping the current seasons. If the leader didn't fit the role or wasn't forceful enough, the seasonal change was delayed or screwed up. A Prophet king who isn't charismatic won't turn Nomads to building weapons and sullen youth into Heroes. Maybe the prince will do it when he is king.

Nowadays, there's no denying the cycle. Tens of millions of Prophets want to change the world. When they pass on, tens of millions of Nomads will want to fix and build and explore. Then tens of millions of Heroes will wonder why tens of millions of young Prophets want to change everything again. No dependence on slow communication, no dependence on a single leader. If the President or the Prime Minister dies, another steps in to take his place, and he or she can at most delay the inevitable a few years or speed it up a few years, no more.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

First there is simply the recognized tendency for parents to try to correct "errors" committed by their parents. This creates a swing between protective and neglecting parenting styles. This would produce a two-part cycle in a primitive society with short lifespans.

I can see the two stoke cycle from nurture variation

....lifespans increased enough that significant numbers of one "austerity" generation would be around when a new "austerity" generation came into its own. Thus there would end up being alternating types of each generation type resulting in four generation types rather than two.

I don't see how four types of generations simply as a consequence of longer lifespan. Why can't the two-part cycle simply continue?

Also the generations would slightly pre-date the turnings since as a new generation began to influence events, the mode of parenting would gradually adjust in response. By the time the impact of a new generation has noticable effects, the new parenting paradigm is in place, turning out the next generational archetype. However, the parenting modes won't change until the up-and-coming generation has significant influence (the time that takes to occur is variable -- and I believe related to the availabilty of positions of power).

Here's where it's getting fuzzy. I can see a swing between over and under protection of kids. What else are you assigning to parenting?

Of course, I am skeptical of any saecula concept with an odd number of turnings (as this would mean back-to-back generations of the same general type).

Why? Three turnings with three generation types or five turnings with five generational types wouldn't have any overlapping.