This one goes out to my good-buddy, Mr. Stonewall "trilateral conspiracy theorist" Patton:

9 + 11 = A 20 dollar bill, of course! :smile:

On 2002-05-21 10:09, Marc Lamb wrote:
This one goes out to my good-buddy, Mr. Stonewall "trilateral conspiracy theorist" Patton:

9 + 11 = A 20 dollar bill, of course! :smile:

That is really bizarre. I'll have to try that for myself.

Apologies if this article has already been linked somewhere in these forums.

(I thought, for once, I'd post something about 3T vs. 4T.)

Here:

link

is an article about young people's attitudes post-9/11 that seems relevant.

<font color=blue>
The September 11 Generation

<hr>
Is it possible to argue that the sixties actually ended in the explosive tragedy of September 11? A new poll of college students suggests that this may well be the case. The data indicate that college students were changed by the events of that day, in ways that may spell doom for the selfish boomer values that have long dominated society. Nearly every student surveyed said that he had been affected by September 11?some had changed their behavior, even praying more or volunteering more. Personal responsibility was rated as one of the most important values.

Most surprisingly, the students, members of one of the groups most self-identified as liberal, gave President George W. Bush high marks?65 percent said they were glad Bush is president; a mere 18 percent still pine for Al Gore.

This could have an interesting impact on American politics for years to come.

The Tarrance Group conducted the poll for the Independent Women?s Forum. The data were compiled from 600 telephone interviews with students between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five. Responses to the survey were gathered between January nineteenth and twenty-fourth....
</font>

I'll admit that some parts of the above, for example, "selfish boomer values that have long dominated society", are surely open to argument. Perhaps if you replace the word "boomer" with "yuppie" (and the original "yuppies" were boomers, of course), you might find this sentence easier to take.

Some organizations tilt left, some tilt right. But poll results by either kind of group can still be interesting...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-05-21 16:15 ]</font>

Barbara and Angeli had some choice info about the Independant Womens Forum. Can't quite remember what, maybe one of them can help out here. What I do remember is that they seem to be in the business of trying to prove that college students reject "Boomer values."

Perhaps our focus on the generational constellation causing history is age biased. Instead of the gray champions reaching leadership as the impetus for 4Ts what about focusing more on the Hero generation reaching an influential age?

Has anyone done an analysis of the age of Hero gens as a marker of 4T's?

It seems to me that the new coming of age gen and its unique endowments is the "solution" for society's turning problems.

Here are the ages of the oldest Heroes and Prophets for the first four Crises:

War of Roses: 26 / --
Span. Armada: 28 / 86
Glorious Rev: 27 / 87
Revolutionary 31 / 72

Using Hero gens is problematic for the next Crisis since according to S&H there were no Heroes for the Civil War. If we make the Gilded an 18 year gen (1822-39) there is then room for four 17 year gens up to the Silent:

Civil War hero gen from 1840-56
Progressives from 1857-73
Missionaries from 1874-90
Lost from 1891-1907
GI from 1908-1924

With these alternate gens we can obtain ages for both gens in the Civil War:

Civil War: 21 / 68 vs. S&H: none / 68

But with a new set of generations between the Transcendentals and the Silent we have two sets of ages for the nest Crisis:

Depression & WWII: 22 / 56 vs. S&H: 28 / 69

Today the oldest Millies are either 20 or 22 depending on whether you favor 1982 or 1980 as the first Millie year. The oldest Boomers are 59. These ages are right in line with those from the last two Crises if you assume the four-phase generational sequence was unbroken by the Civil War. They are not in line with standard S&H generations though.

But, as I have posted before (and Marc has shown extensively) if you go with the standard S&H interpretation, the Crisis *cannot* have started as early as 2001, unless you want to invoke yet *another* anomaly and drop the Millies into the same wastebasket as the Civil War heroes--Craig'84 would like that :wink:

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mike Alexander '59 on 2002-05-22 05:41 ]</font>

Concerning the Civil War Saeculum, I've sometimes looked at the downright colonial proportions of the Transcendental Generation, and have found myself wondering if the source of the 'anomaly' might have been a late 2T, as opposed to an early 4T.

Oh, the IWF are associated and funded by some conservative think tank, I can't remember which one. But, yeah, they aren't Independant and their Forum is rather limited.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._us/body_found

Is it really her? I can smell the 3T.

Mike Alexander posted back on page 245: "Why the Strauss and Howe Model is likely invalid":

"Thus, we see that the model for the saeculum put forth in Generations was essentially abandoned in The Fourth Turning. The argument that there are too many Silents for it to be a Crisis now rests on a model that is demonstrably false for the majority of Crises. That is it is an unreliable indicator."

And again, today:

"But, as I have posted before (and Marc has shown extensively) if you go with the standard S&H interpretation, the Crisis *cannot* have started as early as 2001"


A response...


William Strauss
Date posted: Mon Feb 26 23:58:03 2001
Subject: response
Message:
The notion that generations are significantly shorter, just within the past few decades, reflects what I would describe as a conceit of the present day--that somehow we're more on the cusp of a modern age than prior generations were. The age from birth to full adulthood is not shrinking. Some might even say (in this age of postponed drivers licenses, etc.) that it is extending. The truth is, it's been hovering around 20 to 22 years for some time now.</FONT>


FWIW :smile:

Thanks Mike Alexander for your Hero analysis. BTW, I've also read your new book. I give it my highest recommendation -- it is the best quantitative analysis of generational theory I've yet seen. I'd like to extend your speculation in the last chapter of your book that paradigm shifts cause the various cycles. It may seem similar to your explanation, but I think there is an important difference. Your explanation does not distinguish between rational behavior and biased, heuristically-based behavior. In your explanation individuals could be rational calculators i.e., individuals make decisions rationally when faced with environmental uncertainty. I argue that it is important to specify which particular heuristics are used and why they explain societal cycles.

I believe the key to explaining cycles in human behavior is understanding our cognitive limitations. I think we can agree that one of the most prevalent behaviors of individuals, organizations, and societies is the focus on short-term solutions. This fire -fighting, rather than a rational analysis of all long-term consequences, is an obvious characteristic of all organizations and societies. This behavior works most of time well enough, but occasionally we are faced with feedback that is so problematic that shifts in our problem-solving are required.

We normally make habitual, routine decisions based on short-term feedback. As long as this behavior is reasonably successful, we continue this behavior while ignoring more uncertain long-term consequences. The longer this behavior goes on the more the long-term problems increase in severity. It is not until the short-term feedback becomes unfavorable that substantisl changes occur. Our first reaction is typically lowering our goals or maintaining our expectations in the face of contrary evidence. An example of the first is Carter's malaise and of the second LBJ's hubris in the face of reality. Either way our response eventually leads to a greater disparity between our current actions and neeeded solutions. A response of a "healthy" society will then turn to a search for solutions. At first the search will be conservative and incremental, but as the problems mount more radical searches are undertaken until the short-term feedback again becomes favorable.

Applying this to turnings, we see mostly habitual behavior towards the middle of seasons that are largely successful. Late in the season, however, the feedback is still positive but increasingly disappointing. Society's first response is resignation, disengagement or denial. The catalyzing event, however, sparks the search for solutions. Search, which just prior to the catalyst is very conservative, suddenly becomes much more radical. The country's mood changes radically as well, and a frenzy of activity is undertaken to find an acceptable solution. Actions much too radical to take place previously are now undertaken with intense conflict and alacrity, but eventually something is done that is perceived to be effective as short-term feedback begins turning positive again. This triggers the regeneracy period where search slows down and society hunkers down and feels like it knows the solution and now just needs to get the job done.

Why I think S&H were partially correct about generations causing history is because the solution involves finding the "missing" societal endowment, i.e. the coming of age generation. Society must recover from its collective unconscious the generation that has most recently disappeared and is now appearing in youth again. Incremental solutions don't tap this generation because we still use solutions that rely on youth that are embedded in the previous gen (e.g. trying to fit Millies into the roles played by Xers). It is only when we are more radical in our use of the coming-of-age generation, together of course with their appropriate age distribution, that the acceptable solution kicks in and we can start regeneracy.

It's important to realize that this model produces sub-optimal behavior i.e., the cycles are a result of faulty thinking. This differs from an explanation of paradigm shifts that has a rational basis. One could think of paradigm shifts as a rational response to problems. For example, a scientist might follow a paradigm because it aids scientific progress, but then decide it irrational to continue to hold that paradigm and rationally search and adopt another. I believe this example of rational thinking is NOT an accurate description of how humans behave. Instead it is necessary to explain generational cycle theory with constructs that are precise as to how social systems over and underreact as a result of what we know about the bounds of human thinking.

Thanks! Would you be willing to write a review on Amazon?

I didn't imply that the paradigms were rational. In fact my example of Boomer-associated stock market paradigms that gave rise to the NASDAQ bubble was specifically irrational. There are other irrational paradigms that I didn't mention like the idea that the entire population can save for a normal retirement using 401Ks and do better than social security. Such an outcome is impossible yet even Nobel Prize winning economists have advanced such ideas.

One place where I would quibble with your explanation is the idea of a "trigger". I don't think Crisis turnings or any others actually start with some specific event that changes the way we think. For example I think the idea that 911 or a stock market crash "triggers" some sort of epiphany is misleading. I believe that these events are simply used *after* the fact by observers to denote when things started to change.

In response to Marc, in that post Bill is referring to the idea of ~8-10 year generations like Generation Jones and GenY that was being discussed at that time.

"Bill is referring to the idea of ~8-10 year generations like Generation Jones and GenY that was being discussed at that time."

Again, I'm failing to see your point, Mike. Does this somehow change the fact that William Strauss claimed that "modern" generations with "20-22 years in length"?

On 2002-05-22 16:42, Mike Alexander '59 wrote:
Would you be willing to write a review on Amazon?

Sure, but it may be awhile as I want to read it a second time first. I did however recommend it and your first book on Amazon's site.

The use of 20-22 implies an average generation/turning length of 21 years.

Well, S&H have an awakening ending in 1844 and, two saecula later, another one ending in 1984. This is 140 years for eight turnings implying an average turning length of 17.5 years. So it is apparent that *turnings* at least have not been 21 years long on average.

Now S&H posit that these 8 turnings are somehow asociated with only 7 generations making the generations 20 years long on average--still not 21.

Although this one year difference seems small, over two saecula it adds up to an 8 year difference in dating. S&H would have to extend the Millies out 2010 to get the average up to 21 years. That is, we need a "monster" 29 year Millie gen to make their "20-22" statement correct.

Occam's razor would have us not go to the trouble of hypothesizing that a generation somehow got dropped at the Civil War and that the Millies are going to be 29 years long so that the average length of generations can actually be the 20-22 year length we would like to have.

We should just go with what we actually have, that is, generationas and turnings of 17.5 years average length, making saecula about 70 years long.

A 70 year average saeculum length would "predict" the start of the next crisis after the Civil War in ~1930 and the one after that in ~2000. 1929 is pretty close to 1930 and 2001 is pretty close to 2000.

I predicted in Aug 2000 at this site that the crisis was starting. The purpose of this prediction was to serve as an experiment testing the idea that the Civil War generation did *not* get dropped and that generations are closer to 18 years long today than 20-22 years.

At that time most people did NOT believe that the crisis was starting. Even today, many, like yourself, believe we still be 3T. Thus, it should be clear that should later we decide that the 4T did indeed begin around when I predicted, this prediction will NOT be not a case of 20/20 hindsight.

Making predictions is the only way I know to do experiments in this field. If the experiment comes out with a *postive* result this would PROVE the S&H model and 20-22 year gens FALSE.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mike Alexander '59 on 2002-05-23 08:58 ]</font>

Mike:

After assigning generational archetypes to people whose birthyears fall in that span from Gilded forward, my conclusion is that both you and S&H are right, sort of. There is indeed a Hero Generation in that saeculum (or something closely resembling one). However it does appear to be unusually and anomalously short.

Gilded can possibly start as early as 1820 if we bisect the cusp wherein both Prophets and Nomads are found. 1820 or S&H's 1822 is very close to where >50% given year's cohorts were Nomad. After about 1835, we start picking up some non-Nomadic types who seem more Civic than anything else, not Adaptive.

Moving backwards from the turn of the century, I arrived at an 1884 start for the Lost. Either 1883 or 1884 looks to bisect the cusp and pick up >50% Nomads for the first time.

The Missionary cusp looks to span about 1860 to 1871 or 1872. 1866 would bisect it and it would also lie two years before somewhat pivotal year 1868 as 1884 lies two years before pivotal year 1886 (Haymarket). An 1866 Missionary advent also gives us an 18 year generation.

Moving back, there are solid Adaptives before 1860. The sample is too small to be precise but I thought that we approach a new cusp about 1854 or possibly a little earlier. Of course people began getting more Civic here.

The sample was to small to get precise boundaries for that Hero generation but I get a progression something like this:

Gilded: 1820-1838 = 18 years.

Hero: 1838-1848 = 10 years.

Progressive: 1848-1866 = 18 years.

Missionary: 1866-1884 = 18 years.

Lost: 1884-1906 = 22 years.


There really does seem to be a concentration of Civic types in the early 1840s. Need more names to be more precise with the years though. I would account for a foreshortened Hero generation by the premature arrival of a Crisis thereby giving the Adaptive generation a premature start.

A potential problem with your Progressives is some of them are old enough to have fought in the War. If you are going to have Heroes you might as well make all the young veterans Heroes and set the divider at say 1852 or 1853 to eliminate the Progressive participation in the War.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: mmailliw on 2002-05-23 12:41 ]</font>

On 2002-05-23 08:53, Mike Alexander '59 wrote:
The use of 20-22 implies an average generation/turning length of 21 years.

Well, S&H have an awakening ending in 1844 and, two saecula later, another one ending in 1984. This is 140 years for eight turnings implying an average turning length of 17.5 years. So it is apparent that *turnings* at least have not been 21 years long on average.

Now S&H posit that these 8 turnings are somehow asociated with only 7 generations making the generations 20 years long on average--still not 21.

Although this one year difference seems small, over two saecula it adds up to an 8 year difference in dating. S&H would have to extend the Millies out 2010 to get the average up to 21 years. That is, we need a "monster" 29 year Millie gen to make their "20-22" statement correct.

Occam's razor would have us not go to the trouble of hypothesizing that a generation somehow got dropped at the Civil War and that the Millies are going to be 29 years long so that the average length of generations can actually be the 20-22 year length we would like to have.

We should just go with what we actually have, that is, generationas and turnings of 17.5 years average length, making saecula about 70 years long.

A 70 year average saeculum length would "predict" the start of the next crisis after the Civil War in ~1930 and the one after that in ~2000. 1929 is pretty close to 1930 and 2001 is pretty close to 2000.

I predicted in Aug 2000 at this site that the crisis was starting. The purpose of this prediction was to serve as an experiment testing the idea that the Civil War generation did *not* get dropped and that generations are closer to 18 years long today than 20-22 years.

At that time most people did NOT believe that the crisis was starting. Even today, many, like yourself, believe we still be 3T. Thus, it should be clear that should later we decide that the 4T did indeed begin around when I predicted, this prediction will NOT be not a case of 20/20 hindsight.

Making predictions is the only way I know to do experiments in this field. If the experiment comes out with a *postive* result this would PROVE the S&H model and 20-22 year gens FALSE.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mike Alexander '59 on 2002-05-23 08:58 ]</font>

2010? :lol: I don't identify generationally with people born in 1989 - and that year is still in the EIGHTIES! How could I POSSIBLY identify with someone born in the decade AFTER the current one?

I'd be more likely to think of 2010 as my children than as my generation!!!

On 2002-05-23 12:28, Mike Alexander '59 wrote:
A potential problem with your Progressives is some of them are old enough to have fought in the War. If you are going to have Heroes you might as well make all the young veterans Heroes and set the divider at say 1852 or 1853 to eliminate the Progressive participation in the War.

Mike, it is also true that many a 15 year old Silent lied about his age and fought in WW II. That 1848 year could certainly move but, as I said, I only had a small sample for the period. Moving backwards, things began to get cuspy about 1854 or slightly earlier. It is bad enough that one generation would be abbreviated. But two?

Perhaps Tom has it right. The Crisis actually began when the violence broke out in Kansas in 1856. Or an argument might even be made that this happened in 1854 with passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act which killed the Whig Party, created the Republican Party and completed the sectional realignment. If we use an 1856 catalyst, then I imagine that the Progressive advent was likely 1852-1854. If we use 1854, then I imagine that it was 1850-1852.

Something is anomalous here though so S&H did not get it all wrong. I just wish I could figure out how we would get not one, but two shortened turnings. Surely there is some interaction with the economic cycles and the shift from the agrarian to industrial economy.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Stonewall Patton on 2002-05-23 13:30 ]</font>

Stonewall, WWII wasn't the Crisis event. It was the Depression that directly corresponds to the Civil War. There were no Silents who lost their job in the Crash or its aftermath.
Typically Artists start getting born 2-5 years before the Crisis. 12 years is a bit much.

If you shorten up your Lost Generation. you won't have two anomalously short gens. Here's a set with no anomalously-short gens:

1821-38, 1839-55, 1856-72, 1873-89, 1890-1906, 1907-24

This makes all the Muckrakers prophets and all the cutting edge Lost writers still Lost. It keeps all the classic GI presidents as GIs, and puts more of the Depression and WW II Crisis leadership in the Prophet category.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mike Alexander '59 on 2002-05-23 14:40 ]</font>

On 2002-05-23 14:38, Mike Alexander '59 wrote:

Typically Artists start getting born 2-5 years before the Crisis. 12 years is a bit much.

Exactly. And look how far out of whack S&H's 1843 start is. If the Catalyst is 1854 or 1856, then the first Progressive year might properly be somewhere between 1849 and 1854.

If you shorten up your Lost Generation. you won't have two anomalously short gens. Here's a set with no anomalously-short gens:

1821-38, 1839-55, 1856-72, 1873-89, 1890-1906, 1907-24

I agree. But it is just that you still have a whole lot of Nomad-looking people in the 1880s. I think the Lost advent was 1884 (and possibly 1883). Something is seriously out of whack with some of the earlier generations.

I dissent from Mike A's analysis of the turnings.

The Civil War corresponds to World War Two; which correspond to the Revolutionary War and King William's War. These are all about 80+ years apart.

A Depression does not correspond to a war during a Crisis. The war is the final phase. Economic crises and conflicts preceed the great wars in every case (not sure about K.William's War).

The anomaly (such as it is) comes about because saecula used to be longer when they were in Europe, which was a stratified class society in which most people did not participate. It took a while for that tradition to be effectively expunged from America. Essentially the Civil War was the end of a feudal aristocratic society in the south, which slowed history and the turnings down in America. Even today, the South and its traditional attitudes hold us back. But at least, with the ending of slavery, America was free to enter a more modern saecula that was up to speed.

The upshot of that was NOT that the Civil War Crisis came late; it was that the previous high and awakening lasted too long (as defined by S&H).

In order for the anomaly to be removed, then, the turnings and generations in that saeculum would need to be moved back. I suspect that can't be entirely done successfully, but what I have surmised is something like this:
(note I like to use overlapping dates for beginning and ending cusps)

Revolution Crisis: 1765-1789
pre-Civil War High: 1789-1815
pre-Civil War Awakening: 1815-1834
pre-Civil War Unravelling: 1834-1850
Civil War Crisis: 1850-1865
Great Power High (the gilded age): 1865-1886
(remaining saecula as S&H dated them)

(Note that, if anything, the recent Crisis and High periods were anomalously short; all the others before (and since) those, were 20 years or longer. Therefore the current unravelling will be longer to make up for the anomaly from 1929-1964)

The Current Millennial Unravelling therefore, will be: 1984-2008
Millennial Crisis: 2008-2028
(war crisis 2025-2028)

Compromise 1763-1787
Transcendentals 1787-1813
Gilded 1813-1831
Blue and Gray 1831-1848
Progressive 1848-1862
Missionary 1862-1882
(succeeding gens dated as S&H dated them)
Note that the GI civic generation is dated 1901-1924, and I think correctly; so some generations can be that long.

Boom 1943-1961
Generation X/13ers 1961-1982/4 (not sure)
Millennials 1982 (or 1984) -2005
Generation Z (new Silents) 2005-2025
Generation A (new prophets) 2025-2043

So we'll see whose prediction is correct.

I knew and predicted here that there would be a war starting in late summer 2001 that people would naturally call "the start of the Crisis." But, as I said before, I think the war on terrorism is no more "the Crisis" or T4T than World War I was for the USA, and we are in fact at an analogous point on the cycle.

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-05-23 15:43 ]</font>

I don't think you can look at somebody and say he is "Nomad-looking" or a born prophet.

The reason I say this is I have a list of "prophets" I use for saeculum detection. These prophets are Saints, mystics, theologians, founders of religious groups etc. Thye occur in all generations, but are more prevalent in the prophet gens. I can think of no other class of historical person that would preferentially fall into any of the other generational acrchetypes.

I think S&H formed their Lost gen by setting 1882 (FDR's birth year) as a definite prophet year since he was a GC. Then they used Fitzgerald's characterization of a pre-war and post war generation to set 1900 as the end of the Lost. 1883-1900 is only 18 years long so they left it at that. But most of the people discussed by S&H as characteristic Lost figures were 1890's cohorts. Starting that gen in 1890 keeps all of them.

What makes the 1880's cohorts particularly Nomad like to you?

On 2002-05-23 15:46, Mike Alexander '59 wrote:

What makes the 1880's cohorts particularly Nomad like to you?

Let me backtrack and see if I can find what I was doing:


03-Feb-1874 Gertrude Stein
09-Feb-1874 Amy Lowell
24-Mar-1874 Harry Houdini
26-Mar-1874 Robert Frost
29-May-1874 G.K. Chesterton
10-Aug-1874 Herbert Hoover
20-Oct-1874 Charles Ives
30-Nov-1874 Winston Churchill

14-Jan-1875 Albert Schweitzer
22-Jan-1875 D.W. Griffith
07-Mar-1875 Maurice Ravel
06-Jun-1875 Thomas Mann
26-Jul-1875 Carl Jung
01-Sep-1875 Edgar Rice Burroughs

12-Jan-1876 Jack London
05-Jan-1876 Konrad Adenauer
07-Aug-1876 Mata Hari

02-Jul-1877 Hermann Hesse

06-Jan-1878 Carl Sandburg
27-May-1878 Isadora Duncan
03-Jul-1878 George M. Cohan
20-Sep-1878 Upton Sinclair

14-Mar-1879 Albert Einstein
15-Aug-1879 Ethel Barrymore
04-Nov-1879 Will Rogers
21-Dec-1879 Joseph Stalin
27-Dec-1879 Sydney Greenstreet

06-Jan-1880 Tom Mix
26-Jan-1880 Douglas MacArthur
29-Jan-1880 W.C. Fields
27-Jun-1880 Helen Keller
24-Dec-1880 Johnny Gruelle

25-Mar-1881 Bela Bartok
12-Aug-1881 Cecil B. DeMille
25-Oct-1881 Pablo Picasso

18-Jan-1882 A.A. Milne
25-Jan-1882 Virginia Woolf
30-Jan-1882 Franklin D. Roosevelt
02-Feb-1882 James Joyce
15-Feb-1882 John Barrymore
18-Apr-1882 Leopold Stokowski
17-Jun-1882 Igor Stravinsky
20-Oct-1882 Bela Lugosi
22-Oct-1882 N.C. Wyeth
11-Dec-1882 Fiorello La Guardia

06-Jan-1883 Kahlil Gibran
23-May-1883 Douglas Fairbanks, Sr.
03-Jul-1883 Franz Kafka
04-Jul-1883 Rube Goldberg
29-Jul-1883 Benito Mussolini

13-Jan-1884 Sophie Tucker
17-Jan-1884 Mack Sennett
08-May-1884 Harry S. Truman
07-Aug-1884 Billie Burke
04-Oct-1884 Damon Runyon
11-Oct-1884 Eleanor Roosevelt

27-Jan-1885 Jerome Kern
29-Jan-1885 Huddie "Leadbelly" Ledbetter
07-Feb-1885 Sinclair Lewis
13-Feb-1885 Bess Truman
07-May-1885 Gabby Hayes
14-May-1885 Otto Klemperer
07-Oct-1885 Niels Bohr
30-Oct-1885 Ezra Pound
11-Nov-1885 George Patton

18-Mar-1886 Edward Everett Horton
26-May-1886 Al Jolson
06-Dec-1886 Joyce Kilmer
08-Dec-1886 Diego Rivera
18-Dec-1886 Ty Cobb

28-Jan-1887 Arthur Rubenstein
26-Feb-1887 William Frawley
22-Mar-1887 Chico Marx
24-Mar-1887 Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle
06-Oct-1887 Le Corbusier
31-Oct-1887 Chiang Kai-Shek
06-Nov-1887 Walter Perry Johnson
15-Nov-1887 Georgia O'Keeffe
23-Nov-1887 Boris Karloff
06-Dec-1887 Lynn Fontanne
25-Dec-1887 Conrad Hilton

04-Mar-1888 Knute Rockne
10-May-1888 Max Steiner
11-May-1888 Irving Berlin
28-May-1888 Jim Thorpe
06-Sep-1888 Joseph P. Kennedy
12-Sep-1888 Maurice Chevalier
26-Sep-1888 T.S. Eliot
16-Oct-1888 Eugene O'Neill
23-Nov-1888 Harpo Marx
24-Nov-1888 Dale Carnegie

22-Feb-1889 Lady Baden-Powell
16-Apr-1889 Charlie Chaplin
20-Apr-1889 Adolf Hitler
05-Jul-1889 Jean Cocteau
17-Jul-1889 Erle Stanley Gardner
15-Sep-1889 Robert Benchley
10-Nov-1889 Claude Rains
14-Nov-1889 Jawaharlal Nehru

10-Feb-1890 Boris Pasternak
19-May-1890 Ho Chi Minh
02-Jun-1890 Hedda Hopper
16-Jun-1890 Stan Laurel
22-Jul-1890 Rose Kennedy
20-Aug-1890 H.P. Lovecraft
24-Aug-1890 Duke Kahanamoku
15-Sep-1890 Agatha Christie
20-Sep-1890 Ferdinand "Jelly Roll" Morton
02-Oct-1890 Groucho Marx
09-Oct-1890 Aimee Semple McPherson
14-Oct-1890 Dwight Eisenhower
22-Nov-1890 Charles de Gaulle

09-Feb-1891 Ronald Colman
27-Feb-1891 David Sarnoff
30-Jul-1891 Casey Stengel
29-Oct-1891 Fanny Brice
26-Dec-1891 Henry Miller

03-Jan-1892 J.R.R. Tolkien
14-Jan-1892 Hal Roach
18-Jan-1892 Oliver Hardy
13-Feb-1892 Grant Wood
02-May-1892 Baron Von Richthofen
09-Jun-1892 Cole Porter
26-Jun-1892 Pearl S. Buck
17-Aug-1892 Mae West
25-Oct-1892 Leo G. Carroll
04-Dec-1892 Francisco Franco
15-Dec-1892 J. Paul Getty

10-Feb-1893 Jimmy Durante
21-Feb-1893 Andres Segovia
08-Apr-1893 Mary Pickford
20-Apr-1893 Harold Lloyd
20-Apr-1893 Joan Mir?
23-Jul-1893 Karl Menninger
22-Aug-1893 Dorothy Parker
17-Oct-1893 Spring Byington
23-Oct-1893 Gummo Marx
30-Oct-1893 Charles Atlas
12-Dec-1893 Edward G. Robinson
25-Dec-1893 Robert Ripley
26-Dec-1893 Mao Tse-tung


There are a lot of foreigners mixed in here so I will just try to deal with Americans. If we go to 1884, we have Harry Truman who seemed pretty Lost. Maybe Damon Runyon too although I cannot recall him clearly. Certainly, Patton in 1885. Al Jolson and Ty Cobb in 1886. William Frawley, Chico Marx, and Fatty Arbuckle in 1887. Knute Rockne, Irving Berlin, Jim Thorpe, Joseph P. Kennedy, Eugene O'Neill, and Harpo Marx in 1888. Claude Rains in 1889.

I find it hard not to start the Lost generation about 1884 which incidentally falls a fairly standard two years before the 1886 Haymarket catalyst. But an 1884 start necessarily compacts some earlier generations.