Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Thank you for the summary Mike.

I now realize that Kurt's reasoning for the longer length of generations (and therefore turnings) is similar to mine.

In my hypothesis, the primary (though not exclusive) reason for the shortening was the break-up of the extended family and the new primacy of the nuclear family as a result of the Industrial Revolution. In Kurt's, it's the democratization that came with Industrialization (at least in the core West) that caused it. I wonder if this is all interrelated somehow.

Kurt, what do you think about this?

It does seem interrelated, but which factors are causes and which are merely effects? More importantly, is it really industrialization that caused the shift? Note that life expectancy increases seem to occur before the Industrial Revolution. By the time industry is coming into being in the late 18th century, the average age of leaders has already increased.

I think perhaps the Industrial Revolution is over-emphasized in historical research. International trade, which was quite advanced by the mid-17th century, is the more likely cause here. Trade brought goods from all over the world to Europe. Most importantly for lifespans, trade increase the diversity of the European diet. Now this wouldn't do much for infant mortality (industrialization would provide the increase in calories and medical knowledge needed for that) but it would increase lifespans for people who made it through infancy.

Also, the push for more democratic government comes well before industrialization as well. In England, you see real democratic impulses as early as the Gunpowder Plot -- but definitely no later than the English Civil War. Representative government and family structure changes could just be dependent upon the advent of international trade which in turn raised post-infancy life expectancy. If life expectancies rise and power in your society is passed by inheritance you get an increasing number of restless relatives who have a desire to break away from the main family unit.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

This alternate formulation provides a way to directly assess generation length using average age for roles closely corresponding to the phase of life roles. For example, for the period 1200-1700, AL is approximately 41 and AS is approximately 64. Using a four phase of life model, in which leadership is exercised by members of the third phase of life, AL is equal to 2L and L is about 20-21 years. Similarly, since stewardship is exercised in the fourth phase of life, AS is equal to 3L and L is about 21 years. A consensus value of 21 years can be obtained for L.

Using a three phase of life model, in which leadership is exercised in the second phase of life (Primacy), AL is equal to L and L should be about 41 years. Similarly since stewardship is performed in the third phase of life, AS is equal to 2L and L should be about 32 years. There is a large discrepancy between these tow estimates for L. Furthermore, the values for L are much longer than those called for in the three phase model. Based on this finding, the three phase model as proposed by Love is rejected.

If you just have youth, adulthood and elderhood of roughly equal length then AL would fall in the middle of the adulthood range and AS just shy of the middle of the elderhood block (less than the middle due to deaths). So AL should be 3L/2 from birth giving an L of 27.

Of course, that system is problematic in that increasing life expectancy should push L up into the early 30s, which clearly hasn't occurred.

It seems there is a limit on the range at which L can exist. Reasonably, it couldn't be less than puberty or more than true adulthood (adult stature and metabolism). In other words less than 12 or more than 30 seems unlikely and 15-27 seems more reasonable. In an agricultural society these boundaries would definitely matter since they describe the period when a person's caloric intake is highest.

Did the three-phase saeculum exist and finally break when L was pushed up into metabolic adulthood? Wouldn't that create a four-phase model with a low L that competed with the three-phase version? This seems very close to the 19th century scenario you posited for the emergence of the shortened saeculum (with a 15-year pseudo-Crisis starting in 1800).

In fact, the breaking point seems to be right when the value of L tries to be twice its own lower bound. I.e. an L approaching 30 reverts to an L of 15. Its like the social system switched to the next higher harmonic.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Thank you for the summary Mike.

I now realize that Kurt's reasoning for the longer length of generations (and therefore turnings) is similar to mine.

In my hypothesis, the primary (though not exclusive) reason for the shortening was the break-up of the extended family and the new primacy of the nuclear family as a result of the Industrial Revolution. In Kurt's, it's the democratization that came with Industrialization (at least in the core West) that caused it. I wonder if this is all interrelated somehow.

Kurt, what do you think about this?

It does seem interrelated, but which factors are causes and which are merely effects? More importantly, is it really industrialization that caused the shift? Note that life expectancy increases seem to occur before the Industrial Revolution. By the time industry is coming into being in the late 18th century, the average age of leaders has already increased.

I think perhaps the Industrial Revolution is over-emphasized in historical research. International trade, which was quite advanced by the mid-17th century, is the more likely cause here. Trade brought goods from all over the world to Europe. Most importantly for lifespans, trade increase the diversity of the European diet. Now this wouldn't do much for infant mortality (industrialization would provide the increase in calories and medical knowledge needed for that) but it would increase lifespans for people who made it through infancy.

Also, the push for more democratic government comes well before industrialization as well. In England, you see real democratic impulses as early as the Gunpowder Plot -- but definitely no later than the English Civil War. Representative government and family structure changes could just be dependent upon the advent of international trade which in turn raised post-infancy life expectancy. If life expectancies rise and power in your society is passed by inheritance you get an increasing number of restless relatives who have a desire to break away from the main family unit.

Yes, but the phase shift in the saeculum (i.e., to shorter generations) seems to have occurred in the 1820-1860 period in the core West. This coincides with the railroad explosion portion of the IR.

I am intrigued by your international trade idea and will seriously consider it. But one thought: Weren't the labor dislocations of the IR (e.g., unemployed farmers migrating to cities) a more likely cause for the break up of the extended family?

In my hypothesis, it's not just lower infant mortality and longer adult life expectancy, but at least as importantly the earlier break young men were making from their fathers' authority (as a result of the aforementioned dislocations) that caused generational compaction.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

This alternate formulation provides a way to directly assess generation length using average age for roles closely corresponding to the phase of life roles. For example, for the period 1200-1700, AL is approximately 41 and AS is approximately 64. Using a four phase of life model, in which leadership is exercised by members of the third phase of life, AL is equal to 2L and L is about 20-21 years. Similarly, since stewardship is exercised in the fourth phase of life, AS is equal to 3L and L is about 21 years. A consensus value of 21 years can be obtained for L.

Using a three phase of life model, in which leadership is exercised in the second phase of life (Primacy), AL is equal to L and L should be about 41 years. Similarly since stewardship is performed in the third phase of life, AS is equal to 2L and L should be about 32 years. There is a large discrepancy between these tow estimates for L. Furthermore, the values for L are much longer than those called for in the three phase model. Based on this finding, the three phase model as proposed by Love is rejected.

If you just have youth, adulthood and elderhood of roughly equal length then AL would fall in the middle of the adulthood range and AS just shy of the middle of the elderhood block (less than the middle due to deaths). So AL should be 3L/2 from birth giving an L of 27.

Of course, that system is problematic in that increasing life expectancy should push L up into the early 30s, which clearly hasn't occurred.

It seems there is a limit on the range at which L can exist. Reasonably, it couldn't be less than puberty or more than true adulthood (adult stature and metabolism). In other words less than 12 or more than 30 seems unlikely and 15-27 seems more reasonable. In an agricultural society these boundaries would definitely matter since they describe the period when a person's caloric intake is highest.

Did the three-phase saeculum exist and finally break when L was pushed up into metabolic adulthood? Wouldn't that create a four-phase model with a low L that competed with the three-phase version? This seems very close to the 19th century scenario you posited for the emergence of the shortened saeculum (with a 15-year pseudo-Crisis starting in 1800).

In fact, the breaking point seems to be right when the value of L tries to be twice its own lower bound. I.e. an L approaching 30 reverts to an L of 15. Its like the social system switched to the next higher harmonic.

Kurt,

I'm not going to pretend that I understood all of that, but from what I did understand, I think you got the gist of my hypothesis: There was a modal shift. I really like the "higher harmonic" phrase.

Mike,

I'm still trying to wrap my brain around your post. I am not ignoring you.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

If you just have youth, adulthood and elderhood of roughly equal length then AL would fall in the middle of the adulthood range and AS just shy of the middle of the elderhood block (less than the middle due to deaths). So AL should be 3L/2 from birth giving an L of 27.

The role of leadership is practiced by people averaging 41 years of age. When the first cohort reaches age 41 that generation gains a plurality of the leadership roles of society. That generation will have more impact on societal leadership than any other generation. This greater impact will remain until the last cohort reaches age 41. During this time, the generation performs the leadership role to a greater extent than any other. We can say that generation is occupying the leadership phase of life role (or the maturity phase of life role according to S&L). It is the generation (not an individual) that moves into the leadership phase of life (role) at age 41.

If you define primacy as the time of societal leadership (as opposed to some other role) then one would divide 41 by one to obtain L= 41 for the length of a phase of life based on a leadership definition for the primacy role. All I am saying is the role of primacy should be defined as something other than societal leadership if you want a 27-year phase of life length.

Think about this, it's a bit tricky. There is a difference between generations occupying a phase of life (role) and individuals occupying a phase of life. For example, we would say that during an Awakening era the Prophet archetype occupies the rising adult phase of life. What we really mean is that the Prophet generation plays the rising adult phase of life role (activity) during an Awakening, not that most Prophets, as individuals, are in rising adulthood. Actually, maximum occupation of the rising adult phase of life by Boomers occurred over 1983-86, when 100% of Boomers were between age 22 and 43, that is, after the awakening era.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

...increasing life expectancy should push L up into the early 30s, which clearly hasn't occurred.

How would you know? It really depends on how you define primacy or coming of age (in a three phase system they are the same).

If we use becoming a parent as the key coming of age role and to define primacy the value of L was 26 years for early boomer women and over 28 for the late GI women. It is projected to be over 29 for late Xer women and may well go over 30 for Millie women. Fathers are typically older so the average age for parents might be a year more than this.

If the primacy role is defined as national leadership then a generation today does not enter primacy or come of age (enter into power) until 56 years after the birth of its first cohort.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Yes, but the phase shift in the saeculum (i.e., to shorter generations) seems to have occurred in the 1820-1860 period in the core West. This coincides with the railroad explosion portion of the IR.

It may have started earlier than that. Consider the period 1800-1815 as a psuedo-Crisis in the West.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

I am intrigued by your international trade idea and will seriously consider it. But one thought: Weren't the labor dislocations of the IR (e.g., unemployed farmers migrating to cities) a more likely cause for the break up of the extended family?

Eventually, but the process started with the colonization of the New World. The New World gave second and third born sons the means to accquire land without waiting for their relatives to die. And since said relatives were living longer the pressure became more intense.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

If you just have youth, adulthood and elderhood of roughly equal length then AL would fall in the middle of the adulthood range and AS just shy of the middle of the elderhood block (less than the middle due to deaths). So AL should be 3L/2 from birth giving an L of 27.

The role of leadership is practiced by people averaging 41 years of age. When the first cohort reaches age 41 that generation gains a plurality of the leadership roles of society. That generation will have more impact on societal leadership than any other generation. This greater impact will remain until the last cohort reaches age 41. During this time, the generation performs the leadership role to a greater extent than any other. We can say that generation is occupying the leadership phase of life role (or the maturity phase of life role according to S&L). It is the generation (not an individual) that moves into the leadership phase of life (role) at age 41.

I can buy this argument, but . . .

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

If you define primacy as the time of societal leadership (as opposed to some other role) then one would divide 41 by one to obtain L= 41 for the length of a phase of life based on a leadership definition for the primacy role. All I am saying is the role of primacy should be defined as something other than societal leadership if you want a 27-year phase of life length.

The 41 year age is an average age of rulers. That means that half of the rulers are younger and half are older. As such, at the middle of the period when a generation is taking leadership roles the middle birth cohort will be 41 years of age. The middle birth cohort will have had leadership roles from sometime before 41 years of age to sometime after. If there is only one phase of life (youth) prior to leadership, than 41 has to be equal to 3L/2 because it is exactly halfway through the second life phase. That gives an L of 27. This, of course, assumes that the life phases are of roughly equal length -- which seems necessary for a repeating pattern of turnings.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Think about this, it's a bit tricky. There is a difference between generations occupying a phase of life (role) and individuals occupying a phase of life. For example, we would say that during an Awakening era the Prophet archetype occupies the rising adult phase of life. What we really mean is that the Prophet generation plays the rising adult phase of life role (activity) during an Awakening, not that most Prophets, as individuals, are in rising adulthood. Actually, maximum occupation of the rising adult phase of life by Boomers occurred over 1983-86, when 100% of Boomers were between age 22 and 43, that is, after the awakening era.

I don't see how the generation can be anything other than the aggregate behavior of the individuals present within it. Let me show you how my schema works for Boomers. AL for Boomers seems to be about 53. The modern saeculum has two phases of life before leadership (childhood and young adulthood) so 53=5L/2 thus L=21. Assuming that the Boomer generation began in 1942, then the first cohort entered young adulthood in 1963 and the peak of Boomer young adulthood would have been 1974. The first cohort would enter leadership in 1984 with the peak coming in 1995 and the first cohort would enter elderhood in 2005 with a peak of elderhood in 2016. This assumes that the phase of life transitions cause the turnings not the phase of life peaks.

However, the AL numbers you've calculated may be derivative of the actual driving factors. I'll discuss that in a separate post.

Let me show you how my schema works for Boomers. AL for Boomers seems to be about 53. The modern saeculum has two phases of life before leadership (childhood and young adulthood) so 53=5L/2 thus L=21. Assuming that the Boomer generation began in 1942, then the first cohort entered young adulthood in 1963 and the peak of Boomer young adulthood would have been 1974. The first cohort would enter leadership in 1984 with the peak coming in 1995 and the first cohort would enter elderhood in 2005 with a peak of elderhood in 2016. This assumes that the phase of life transitions cause the turnings not the phase of life peaks.

You write "the first cohort would enter leadership in 1984 with the peak coming in 1995"

What "peak" are you referring to?

Let AL be 53 (this a good value, AL has averaged 53 for the entire 20th century). That means the average leader in 1995 was born in 1942 the first year of the Boomers in your example.

Let's look at the GIs and Silents. Their first years were 1901 and 1925. If we add 53 to these we get 1954 and 1978. Did leadership for the GIs peak around 1954? No, look it up in Genrations, it was 1965. Did the Silent peak around 1978? No it was in 1985. Did the Boomers peak in 1995? No they still haven't peaked. The present government has the largest Boomer share so far.

A generation starts to play a dominant role in national leadership when it reaches plurality. Generations gives these dates for past generations in the fist page of each generation description. Check it out. See how old the first and last cohorts were when this happened.

Think of leadership being distributed amongst birth cohorts as a bellcurve centered around (Y - AL) where Y is the year and AL is the average age of leaders. As Y moves up in time the bellcurve moves with it. When Y-AL is over the first year of a generation, half of leaders will have been born just before this year and half after it. Of those born after most of them will have been born in the generation of interest. At this point the generation of interest is on the verge of plurality, that is, holding more seats than ony other single generation.

As time continues the bellcurve moves along the axis of rising cohort years and more of the bell curve area will cover the generation of interest. When Y - AL reaches the midpoint of the generation the bell curve will be centered over the generation and the fraction of all leaders that belong to that generation will be at a maximum. This situation roughly corresponds to the max leadership dates given by S&H in the Appendix in Generations. As the bell curve moves further to the right eventually the time will come when Y-AL will be at the last year of the generation. At this point half of the leaders will have been born after the generation and the generation is moving out of plurality (and a new generation will be taking its place).

The span of years between G1+AL and G2 + AL define when this generation has dominant leadership influence. Here G1 is the first and G2 the last birth years in the generation.

Using AL = 53, you get

For Silent (1925-42) you have 1978-1995. Max power is midway in between or 1986. Actual value 1985.

For GI (1901-1924) you have 1954-1977. Max power would be 1965. Actual value 1965.

For the Lost (1883-1900) you have 1936-1953. Max power would be 1945. Actual value 1943 IIRC.

For the Missionaries (1860-1882) you have 1913-1935. Max power would be 1924. Actual value 1923.

See how this works?

Now for the Boomers we get 1996-2013 (using AL of 53). The midpoint is 2005 (this year). Time will tell when the actual peak arrives.

Boomers obtained a plurality of leadership positions roughly around 1996. This is about when the leadership role started to be performed by Boomers rather than by Silents--not in 1984. The Boomer leadership role might be peaking now or in a few years, not in 1995. Boomers will remain the dominant generation in the leadership role until well into the next decade.

The same thing is going to be true for the other phase of life roles.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

The 41 year age is an average age of rulers. That means that half of the rulers are younger and half are older. As such, at the middle of the period when a generation is taking leadership roles the middle birth cohort will be 41 years of age. The middle birth cohort will have had leadership roles from sometime before 41 years of age to sometime after. If there is only one phase of life (youth) prior to leadership, than 41 has to be equal to 3L/2 because it is exactly halfway through the second life phase.

Not necessarily. You are forgetting new entrants into leadership. People get elected at all ages. People rise to prominance at various ages and get promoted at various ages. It's not like a generation moves into leadership at age AL-X, ages in place, and then exits at age AL+Y. Individuals do this, but generations do not. Individuals within the same generation move into and out of societal phase-of-life roles like leadership.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

...increasing life expectancy should push L up into the early 30s, which clearly hasn't occurred.

How would you know? It really depends on how you define primacy or coming of age (in a three phase system they are the same).

A more important question is why the phases of life don't seem to be solidly anchored on a particular age. If the "youth" phase of life ended at say, 25, in one society -- why doesn't it always end at 25?

The obvious answer is that the phases of life are socially constructed. However, no society is simply going to invent phases of life arbitrarily. Instead the phases of life will bear some relation to the expected life that people will live in that society. There are many possible variables but I see two main variables -- life expectancy and retirement.

Life Expectancy (LEP) -- The relevant life expectancy is not life expectancy at birth but life expectancy at puberty. Until puberty a person has almost no opportunity to impact society -- even in the indirect sense of consuming calories. Until recently, a civilized human being that reached puberty would be expected to live into their early 50s. That began to increase in the 17th century reaching about 60 by the late 18th century and then plateauing until the 20th century when it rose again to just over 70 today.

Retirement (R) -- In some cultures, elderhood is typified by people who have been in leadership for a long time. In others there are specific social roles taken by the elderly that are distinct from leadership. The relative prevalence of retirement roles is relevant to the structure of society. In a society with few retirement roles one would expect the leadership/elderhood transition to occur at the point of life expectancy at puberty. In a society with significant retirement roles, the point of life expectancy at puberty would more likely fall at the middle of the elderhood phase of life.

Also, keep in mind the practical limit on L due to metabolic adulthood in the late 20s. So combining these factors, you have the following:

15<L<27

L = LEP/(2 or 3) if R="no"

L = LEP/(2.5 or 3.5) if R="yes"

Examples:

The West up to the mid-17th century had:
R="no" LEP=low 50s
Try LEP/2 = L therefore L=26

As LEP increases in the late-17th century, L approaches the upper bound. Thus, there become two ways to resolve this:
1) Add a new phase of life (L would be 18-20 during the 18th century) OR
2) Emergence of retirement roles (L would be 22-24 during the 18th century)
The existence of the New World provided for both of these possibilities in that you have young men leaving the old world for the new around the 20 year mark (allowing for a new phase of life) and you have an increasing number of people whose wealth is due to trade rather than land and whose companies tend to be passed to their sons prior to natural death (allowing for retirement roles). The latter seems more likely than the former. However, life expectancy is lower in the New World, so simple migration to the less hospitable New World would have temporarily muted the effects of rising LEP in the old world. The net effect is that the Europe continues largely on the same saeculum and America speeds up a little. This explains why the American Revolution looks like a Crisis in America but an Unraveling in England.

In the 19th century, LEP levels off at 60 and for the most part, R="no". L=30 doesn't work, so L=20 becomes the new paradigm. By the beginning of the 20th century, the entire West is clearly on an L=20 schedule. (The US, it seems, followed an LEP/2.5 harmonic until the Jacksonian era, then switched to LEP/3).

In the 20th century, LEP rises again but significant retirement roles begin to emerge. If we remained in LEP/3=L then L would have rose through the 20th century which doesn't seem to have occurred. Instead, a sharp rise in retirement roles creates an LEP/3.5=L saeculum which gives L=18 during the 1930s. Since then, L has increased slightly, as we would expect.

The LEP/3.5 saeculum should be relatively stable unless LEP rises a lot in the future or if retirement roles disappear (both seem unlikely in the near term). Thus, this theory predicts steadily rising turning lengths throughout the 21st century.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

What "peak" are you referring to?

The peak of the 1942 cohort itself -- not the peak of the Boomer generation. I understand your point. Your analysis uses the median cohort.

Using the theory in my most recent post, the Boomers have an LEP of high 60s to low 70s and they definitely expect to have retirement roles. Thus we would expect their L to range from 20-21. If the Boomers are birth years 1942-1962, the Awakening should fall 1962-1983 and the Crisis would begin in the 2001-2004 range. By 2004, all Boomers would be into the adult ("leadership") phase of life. After that, Boomers would begin transitioning into elderhood.

Mike,

You'll recall a while back that we came up with relatively similar saecula for ancient Rome that had turning lengths in the low 20s. That is also explained by the "LEP Harmonic" theory. Rome had a "typical" agricultural age LEP/2 saeculum until the late Republic when its military pension system began to create retirement roles. Thereafter, Rome functioned as an LEP/2.5 society which, given the Roman LEP of the low 50s, would yield L=21.

The collapse of Rome's welfare state would have reverted Europe back to the LEP/2 paradigm.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

What "peak" are you referring to?

The peak of the 1942 cohort itself -- not the peak of the Boomer generation. I understand your point. Your analysis uses the median cohort.

Using the theory in my most recent post, the Boomers have an LEP of high 60s to low 70s and they definitely expect to have retirement roles. Thus we would expect their L to range from 20-21. If the Boomers are birth years 1942-1962, the Awakening should fall 1962-1983 and the Crisis would begin in the 2001-2004 range. By 2004, all Boomers would be into the adult ("leadership") phase of life. After that, Boomers would begin transitioning into elderhood.

If we use a 20.5 year phase of life then this means

0-20 Youth
20-41 Rising adult
41-61 Maturity
61-82 Elder

If we focus on the FIRST cohort of Boomers in 1942 we find that they occupied rising adulthood over 1962-1983 the dates you give for the awakening. This makes sense since Awakenings are supposed to feature Prophets in rising adulthood. Proceeding logically the 1942 cohort would then occupy maturity from 1983-2003, implying a crisis start around 2003, which is consistent with what you wrote. Proceeding in the same way, the 1942 cohort would occupy elderhood from 2003 to 2024, which seems to be a pretty good forecast of the Crisis.

But if we focus on the typical boomer, who was born around 1952, they occupied rising adulthood from 1972-1993, which doesn't agree with your Awakening dates of 1962-1983.

Why are your turnings built around phases of life for the first cohort? What makes them special? Are post-1942 cohorts somehow less "Boomer-like" than the 1942 cohort? Why don't you base it on the typical Boomer?

You claim that what matters is what phase of life a generation's members are in. If this is true, then shouldn't you apply the phase of life markers to the typical or average member of a generation to get the turnings?

I see it as a matter of a transitioning of a generation into a new phase of life. That's what a turning is about. Generations should fully occupy each phase toward the end of the turning.

My current position is that, in most cases (but not all), a turning mood becomes senescent when the generations begin to spill over into the next phase. At some point this makes the mood dysfunctional and a mood shift occurs starting a new turning.

My guess is that phase length right now is running at 20 years, possibly 19 or even the strange 19.5. If that's the case, generations are spilling over now. As a "We Be 3T" proponent, I see our current mood as very dysfunctional and ripe for severe change.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

I see it as a matter of a transitioning of a generation into a new phase of life. That's what a turning is about. Generations should fully occupy each phase toward the end of the turning.

Aren't Crises associated with elder Prophets, mid-life Nomad leaders, and rising adult Heroes? Isn't this the crisis constellation? Doesn't the term gray champion refer to the elder role played by prophet generations during the Crisis?

If so, how does this jive with your definition of a turning as generations in transition?

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

If we focus on the FIRST cohort of Boomers in 1942 we find that they occupied rising adulthood over 1962-1983 the dates you give for the awakening. This makes sense since Awakenings are supposed to feature Prophets in rising adulthood. Proceeding logically the 1942 cohort would then occupy Maturity from 1983-2003, implying a crisis start around 2003, which is consistent with what you wrote. Proceeding in the same way, the 1942 cohort would occupy elderhood from 2003 to 2024, which seems to be a pretty good forecast of the Crisis.

But if we focus on the typical boomer, who was born around 1952, they occupied rising adulthood from 1972-1993. Much of that wasn't an Awakening.

Why are turnings built around phases of life for the first cohort? What makes them special? Are post-1942 cohorts somehow less "Boomer-like" than the 1942 cohort? Why don't you base it on the typical Boomer?

Because, I think the life phase transitions are more important. The Awakening is when the Boomers enter young adulthood. The Unraveling is when the Boomers enter full adulthood. The Crisis is when they enter elderhood.

As support for this model, consider how the Boomers are stereotyped during the Awakening -- as campus radicals. That is a social role played by people in their early 20s, consistent with the transition point between two phases of life, not the midpoint of one phase of life. Furthermore, the yuppie stereotype is also near a transition point. The Xer slacker stereotype is also commonly associated with the transition age (21) rather than the midpoint age (32).

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

I tried to explain this before. There is a difference between when a generation collectively displays a phase of life role and when an individual does.

I am not thinking of the generations collectively. I see the individuals from a particular birth year as having characteristics in common with each other and with adjoining birth years. As they move through life they react to their environment, an environment shaped by older (and later younger) people. This, in turn, gives groups of people in a range of birth years similar characteristics. These are the generations. The generation breaks are a result of individual estimations of how much life people have left and what their life should be like at particular times within their lifespan. In the aggregate these values will smooth out and become similar for everyone, simply because humans are social beings.

Look at how a Crisis is described by S&H:

Old Artists disappear, Prophets enter elderhood, Nomads enter midlife, Heroes enter young adulthood—and a new generation of child Artists is born.

It is the transitions that typify the turning.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

My current position is that, in most cases (but not all), a turning mood becomes senescent when the generations begin to spill over into the next phase. At some point this makes the mood dysfunctional and a mood shift occurs starting a new turning.

What causes the turning mood? Explain how it works.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Because, I think the life phase transitions are more important. The Awakening is when the Boomers enter young adulthood. The Unraveling is when the Boomers enter full adulthood. The Crisis is when they enter elderhood.

OK I see, but how do these transitions create cyclical history?

As support for this model, consider how the Boomers are stereotyped during the Awakening -- as campus radicals. That is a social role played by people in their early 20s, consistent with the transition point between two phases of life, not the midpoint of one phase of life. Furthermore, the yuppie stereotype is also near a transition point. The Xer slacker stereotype is also commonly associated with the transition age (21) rather than the midpoint age (32).

Yuppies refered to young urban professionals in the 1980's, folks in their late 20's and thirties. The term slacker came out in the early 1990's also to refer to people who hadn't developed the direction earlier generations had by this age. Nobody is expected to have direction at age 21. They are by age 30.

Neither yuppies or slackers refers to a transition age.

Here's the problem I have with the idea of transitions being what matters.

There isn't a sharp rising adult/mature adult transition. The rising adult/elderhood transition is even more diffuse. The sharpest transition is the one into youth (i.e. birth), but I can't see infants creating turnings.

So all you really have as a distinct transition is the transition from youth to rising adult, "coming of age".

Granted, at certain times this group will transition from one archetype to another. Only a small fraction of the population is coming of age at any one time. Not only that but it is a pretty powerless group of people. How do they create turnings and generations all by themselves?

It simply makes no sense to me that people in their early 20's have more impact on creating history than people in leadership positions.

If generations reflect real differences (on average) between groups of people, then one can expect different policies when different generations dominate leadership positions.

For example the Republican generation held a plurality in Congress from 1789-1813 and the Presidency from 1801 to 1824, suggesting leadership dominance around 1793-1817. This is roughly the lifespan of the parties founded by the Republicans. Alexander Hamilton's Federalists disbanded after 1816, and by this time Jefferson's Republicans, originally an opposition party to the Federalists, now favored Federalist policies, so in effect, they too had disappeared. This period is also roughly one Schlesinger political cycle (1789-1816).

The Compromisers, who over their ca. 1817-1840 domination of government created new parties to replace those of the Republicans: Democratic and Whig. This period is also roughly one Schlesinger political cycle (1816-1840).

The Transcendentals, when they held sway over ca. 1840 to 1870 created an explicitly anti-slave replacement for the Whigs, resulting in the Civil War. This period is also roughly one Schlesinger political cycle (1840-1868).

The Progressive generation held a plurality in the House of Representatives over 1893-1909. They held the Presidency from 1897 through 1920 and the Senate from 1903 to 1917. This translates to political dominance from about 1897 to 1915.

This leaves Gilded leadership for ca. 1870-1897.

The 1870-1897 period corresponds to the Gilded Age, and roughly to the conservative half-cycle of the Schlesinger cycle (1868-1901).

The 1897-1915 dates correspond to the Progressive era, and roughly to the liberal half-cycle of the Schlesinger cycle (1901-1918).

Each generation from the Republicans to the Transcendental reorganized the political structure when in power. Their "reign" roughly comprised one of Schlesinger's political cycles.

The next two generations have named eras corresponding to their "reign" and roughly correspond to a half political cycle.

S&H generations of the 19th century impacted political history in detectable ways when each generation dominated political leadership in turn. If generations in political leadership can impact political history and produce a political cycle, why shouldn't generations in societal leadership impact societal history (i.e. create history) and produce a societal cycle (the saeculum)?

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Because, I think the life phase transitions are more important. The Awakening is when the Boomers enter young adulthood. The Unraveling is when the Boomers enter full adulthood. The Crisis is when they enter elderhood.

OK I see, but how do these transitions create cyclical history?

The response of the individual people to events shifts. The shift is driven by individual perception of their own lives (how good things are and how much of their life is left to live), but there is also feedback from other people at other ages.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

As support for this model, consider how the Boomers are stereotyped during the Awakening -- as campus radicals. That is a social role played by people in their early 20s, consistent with the transition point between two phases of life, not the midpoint of one phase of life. Furthermore, the yuppie stereotype is also near a transition point. The Xer slacker stereotype is also commonly associated with the transition age (21) rather than the midpoint age (32).

Yuppies refered to young urban professionals in the 1980's, folks in their late 20's and thirties.

It also sometimes referred to ex-hippies who had moved on to professional life. However, you're right that this seems to be more of a late 20s stereotype of Generation Jones than a observation about early-wave Boomers. However, the origin of the term is a corruption of the term "hippie" and it clearly implies people backsliding from their earlier idealism although it also came to mean people who were never campus activists in the first place.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

The term slacker came out in the early 1990's also to refer to people who hadn't developed the direction earlier generations had by this age. Nobody is expected to have direction at age 21. They are by age 30.

The slacker stereotype has a much younger feel to me than the yuppie one. Also, while people aren't expected to have a direction by 21, they are expected to be looking for one -- which the slackers were not.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Here's the problem I have with the idea of transitions being what matters.

There isn't a sharp rising adult/mature adult transition. The rising adult/elderhood transition is even more diffuse. The sharpest transition is the one into youth (i.e. birth), but I can't see infants creating turnings.

So all you really have as a distinct transition is the transition from youth to rising adult, "coming of age".

Biologically, yes. But I'm talking about cultural perceptions of life phases, not biological ones.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Granted, at certain times this group will transition from one archetype to another. Only a small fraction of the population is coming of age at any one time. Not only that but it is a pretty powerless group of people. How do they create turnings and generations all by themselves?

It simply makes no sense to me that people in their early 20's have more impact on creating history than people in leadership positions.

The model I suggested on this forum is independent from my earlier youth emergence concept. The youth emergence concept was, in part, a reaction to the focus on Grey Champions (the notion that the elders are the people driving the whole process). Really it seems that everyone, once old enough to hold a conversation, is part of the saeculum. The harmonic concept doesn't need any particular life phase to be more important than the others.

The only reason that youth could have a significant impact is because a youth cohort with a new phase of life structure would be out of phase with the rest of the culture causing shifts in public mood to occur in a muddled manner during the transition from one saeculum to another. I.e. the youth are marginally more important because any anomalies occur with the new generation. OTOH, you could well be right that any new generation with a shorter L doesn't create shorter turnings until adulthood. The data doesn't seem clear on that point.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

For example the Republican generation held a plurality in Congress from 1789-1813 and the Presidency from 1801 to 1824, suggesting leadership dominance around 1793-1817.

Such a result would be consistent with an LEP/2.5 saeculum. The Republicans are said to be born 1742-1766 by S&H. That means the leading wave transitioned to elderhood in 1790 and was half deceased by 1802 and the trailing wave transitioned to elderhood in 1814 and was half deceased by 1826. So the Congressional dominance period is indicative of a High and it follows the period when Republicans were entering elderhood. By the 1820s the Republican generation has faded from history.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

The Progressive generation held a plurality in the House of Representatives over 1893-1909. They held the Presidency from 1897 through 1920 and the Senate from 1903 to 1917. This translates to political dominance from about 1897 to 1915.

This is consistent with an LEP/3.5 generation. (L=17+) You would get a generation born 1843-1859 with an elderhood period of 1894-1910 and most of the generation dead by 1919.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

If generations in political leadership can impact political history and produce a political cycle, why shouldn't generations in societal leadership impact societal history (i.e. create history) and produce a societal cycle (the saeculum)?

I'm not contending that they don't.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Here's the problem I have with the idea of transitions being what matters.

There isn't a sharp rising adult/mature adult transition. The rising adult/elderhood transition is even more diffuse. The sharpest transition is the one into youth (i.e. birth), but I can't see infants creating turnings.

So all you really have as a distinct transition is the transition from youth to rising adult, "coming of age".

Biologically, yes. But I'm talking about cultural perceptions of life phases, not biological ones.

I was speakingly culturally. I just pased the rising adult/mature adult phase of life boundary. Unlike coming of age, which was associated with new roles and changes in what was expected of me, no such change was apparent to me nor do I foresee one.

Really it seems that everyone, once old enough to hold a conversation, is part of the saeculum. The harmonic concept doesn't need any particular life phase to be more important than the others.

What is the harmonic concept? This comes across as a buzzword to me.

The Republicans are said to be born 1742-1766 by S&H. That means the leading wave transitioned to elderhood in 1790 and was half deceased by 1802 and the trailing wave transitioned to elderhood in 1814 and was half deceased by 1826. So the Congressional dominance period is indicative of a High and it follows the period when Republicans were entering elderhood. By the 1820s the Republican generation has faded from history.

Elderhood begins at age 48?

I think you are misunderstanding my critique. It appears to me that neither you or Sean understand exactly how the S&H mechanism works. Adjusting phase of life lengths doesn't address this question of mechanics. You can't just change a parameter like L and assume that everything else S&H say about generations and turnings creating each other still applies--it doesn't necessarily. You have to specify a mechanism by which generations and phases of life create turnings and then you can play with L.

How are turnings created by generations and phases of life--regardless of length? Why does a set of adults at one particular point display different moods or behaviors? With the exception of the youth roles, individuals perform phase of life roles at all ages.

What S&H's mode says is that mood or behavior is determined by generations performing phase of life roles. That is a Crisis features Prophets performing a visionary leadership role (an elder role as shown by the term gray champion, which emphasizes age), while Nomads provide the bulk of the leaders (a mid-life role) and Civics provide the bulk of the "doers" (a rising adult role).

A Crisis has a different mood than an Unraveling because all three roles are being performed by people who (on average) see the world differently than the people who performed these same roles just a few years previously. More precisely, people inclined to see the world in a Crisis-inducing fashion (i.e. Hero grunts, Nomad leaders, Prophet visionaries) did not occupy a majority of these phase of life roles (activity, leadership, stewardship) just a few years previously. People who were inclined differently (Nomad grunts, Prophet leaders and Artist visionaries) did, and so the turning was an Unraveling. Now, the people whose worldview is crisis-inducing dominate all three roles, have learned the ropes and are now in comtrol, and the result is a crisis turning.

Note when a generation provides particular phase of life role, this doesn't mean that the individuals within that generation are in that phase of life. For example, many individual gray champions have been in mid-life, not elderhood.

It just so happens (and it is not trivial to show this) that a generation occupies a phase of life when its first cohort does as individuals. This is why S&H use the expression moving into a phase of life when they talk about what individuals are doing, but then talk about visionary Prophet leaders, clear-eyed Nomad managers and energetic Hero rising adults as the generational constellation for the crisis. From the very start of the Crisis, prophets will dominate the elder role (gray champion) even though few prophets will themselves be elders. Nomads will dominate the mid-life role (leadership) even though few will be in mid-life; and Heroes will dominate the rising adult role (activity), even though few heroes will be in rising adulthood.

The reason why is that individuals can (and do) play these roles when they are younger than the phase of life boundary. Youth age 18-21 can (and do) serve as grunts, a rising adult role. Plenty of rising adults in their 30's served in Congress in the early decades of the republic (a mid-life role). Finally, plenty of elder roles have been filled by people in mid-life (How many of the GCs have actually been elders themselves?).

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Biologically, yes. But I'm talking about cultural perceptions of life phases, not biological ones.

I was speakingly culturally. I just pased the rising adult/mature adult phase of life boundary. Unlike coming of age, which was associated with new roles and changes in what was expected of me, no such change was apparent to me nor do I foresee one.

For many people, the low 40s transition is where their career path becomes settled. They become managers and unwiling to switch to a different profession. The cultural perception of the average life (which I admit seems to be shifting) is to start work in one's early 20s, move up into management in one's 40s and retire in one's 60s. This is, of course, different for all people (see below).

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Really it seems that everyone, once old enough to hold a conversation, is part of the saeculum. The harmonic concept doesn't need any particular life phase to be more important than the others.

What is the harmonic concept? This comes across as a buzzword to me.

Sorry, my intent was to give a label to that long post I made about the relationship between LEP and L. I used the word harmonic, since the LEP to L relationship seemed to occur in a pattern much like resonance frequencies. Keep in mind the next two paragraphs are an analogy:

Imagine a human lifespan like a pipe that is open on one end and being vibrated by sound. Certain vibratory frequencies will produce a harmonic and these harmonics will follow a pattern where the first inflection point is at the mouth of the pipe, then at two-thirds up the pipe, then halfway up the pipe, then 40% of pipe length, etc.

LEP is your pipe length, L is the half-wavelength, and the vibrations are the culture around a person. LEP and L have limitations on what their values can be, so the number of combinations is limited.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Elderhood begins at age 48?

If you expect to be dead by 60, it certainly could.

Keep in mind that this theory has the saeculum as an aggregate property of many individuals operating on different schedules. The saeculum will tend to settle on a common pattern for almost everyone, since cultural perceptions will tend to reinforce each other. However, if the underlying conditions keep changing, the saeculum will too.