Re: Please vote: Correlate political and generational views
I have several reasons but here's one analysis I gave recently:Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis
Dear Sean,
Why do you believe we won't be in a 3T much longer? Do you have a
specific reason?
http://fourthturning.com/forums/view...ght=cci#112842
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.
Re: Please vote: Correlate political and generational views
Dear Sean,
Well, but this isn't completely satisfying.
Are you saying that when the CCI turns negative, then you MUST have a
turning change? That doesn't make sense to me. You would
essentially need a probabilistic argument: That as the CCI decreases,
the probability of a turning change increases. If that's true, then
why are you so certain that a turning change will occur in 2005, as
opposed to 2006, 2007 or 2008?
Also, I'm inherently suspicious of all analytical methods that don't
apply prior to the the last crisis period. If the CCI technique
didn't work prior to World War II, then what reason do you have to
believe that it should work today?
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Re: Please vote: Correlate political and generational views
I'm saying, the higher the number, the more likely the probability. So, if a trigger does not occur in 2005, the chances roll up to that much higher in 2006, and so on. My main point is that we are very ready NOW, but in 2001 it is highly unlikely that we were. I don't think anyone can predict any particular year . . . I'm not a believer in anything that deterministic in social science.Dear Sean,
Well, but this isn't completely satisfying.
Are you saying that when the CCI turns negative, then you MUST have a
turning change? That doesn't make sense to me. You would
essentially need a probabilistic argument: That as the CCI decreases,
the probability of a turning change increases. If that's true, then
why are you so certain that a turning change will occur in 2005, as
opposed to 2006, 2007 or 2008?
Also, I'm inherently suspicious of all analytical methods that don't
apply prior to the the last crisis period. If the CCI technique
didn't work prior to World War II, then what reason do you have to
believe that it should work today?
Sincerely,
John
And I have applied the CCI to the past three turning changes. This is not something to be used exclusively for 3T-4T transitions. Furthermore, I believe the fundamentals the CCI corresponds to have changed since the last such transition. Said change being ontogenic compaction leading to generational compaction -- shorter life phases and shorter generations -- which is why the saeculum is running closer to 80 years now instead of 100 years.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.
Re: Please vote: Correlate political and generational views
Dear Sean,
This probabilistic approach makes sense to me. However, I do believe
that if it works after WW II, then it should work prior to WW II.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Re: Please vote: Correlate political and generational views
Not so ifDear Sean,
This probabilistic approach makes sense to me. However, I do believe
that if it works after WW II, then it should work prior to WW II.
A. One believes in the basics of S&H's mechanics, plus . . .
B. Life phases used to be longer than they are now.
If A and B are correct then the 21, 42, 63 demarcations will not work the same as an indicator as they would in the past half century. Indeed, prior to the beginning of serious ontogenic & psychogenic acceleration, and therefore prior to generational compaction, that began around the early 1800's the above demarcation would be useless.
I've explained my position on this in detail in the "Multi-Modal Saeculum" thread. I think I reviewed my whole position on page 10 of the thread. Reference here: http://fourthturning.com/forums/view...timodal#106837
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.
Please vote: Correlate political and generational views
I started this topic to show that generational beliefs are correlated
to political beliefs. The results of the poll indicate that no
correlation exists.
Now, with the 2004 election long over, here are the results of the poll:
Pick the option closest to your beliefs, as of 1-Nov-2004:
* 1. I support Bush, and I believe we're in a 3T (third turning) 13% [ 5 ]
* 2. I support Bush, and I believe we're in a 4T (fourth turning) 8% [ 3 ]
* 3. I support Kerry, and I believe we're in a 3T (third turning) 36% [ 13 ]
* 4. I support Kerry, and I believe we're in a 4T (fourth turning) 27%[ 10 ]
* 5. I support Nader, and I believe we're in a 3T (third turning) 0% [ 0 ]
* 6. I support Nader, and I believe we're in a 4T (fourth turning) 0% [ 0 ]
* 7. I have no presidential preference, and believe we're in 3T 5% [ 2 ]
* 8. I have no presidential preference, and believe we're in 4T 8% [ 3 ]
Total Votes : 36
Among those who voted, the presidential preferences were:
* Bush 22%
* Kerry 64%
* Nader 0%
* No preference 14%
Among those who voted, generational beliefs were:
* Believe we're in a 3T (third turning) 56%
* Believe we're in a 4T (fourth turning) 44%
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
