Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

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.

Yes, but there are patterns to these roles and what I'm offering as an answer to your second question is that people gauge their current situation and their current responses based on the life they have had and the life they expect to have in the future. Thus, some interaction between the culture (past life) and life expectancy (future life) will create their current mood. Because culture and life expectancy are similar for any people born in a similar place at a around the same time, one will expect their moods to cluster into a noticeable pattern. This clustering is what we are labeling as a "generation."

The next question is your first question -- how do generations create turnings? Now that you have clusters of people with particular moods, these people will in turn effect the culture by their actions. The degree to which they effect the culture will increase as they age up until the point where many of them are dying or retiring at which point, their influence will decline and eventually vanish. New generations that form will, in turn, be influenced by this rising generation. For the most part, a new generation will maintain current cultural perceptions, but to at least some degree, they will gain a negative view of the rising generation(s). This in turn will cause the new generation to be different in mood from the rising generation(s). When the new generation gains influence it will change the direction of society, causing turnings. The turnings will, of course, tend to cause the generation breaks to become more distinct.

Now, one thing that does bother me is that I'm not sure how to get from here to the archetypes. All this does is establish that there will be distinct "eras" in history, each with a particular mood. But why would any particular mood repeat?

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

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.

Oops, this is wrong. Half of these are open-closed pipe harmonics and the other half are string harmonics.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Now, one thing that does bother me is that I'm not sure how to get from here to the archetypes. All this does is establish that there will be distinct "eras" in history, each with a particular mood. But why would any particular mood repeat?

That question doesn't bother me as I believe S&H addressed it with their concepts of alternate loose and strict child raising and outward and inner focus. What I'm not getting from your explanation is why we lump people born 20 years apart into a single generation. If everyone born at a certain time in a given culture shares a certain outlook then why isn't each cohort different from each other?

Originally Posted by jeffw

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Now, one thing that does bother me is that I'm not sure how to get from here to the archetypes. All this does is establish that there will be distinct "eras" in history, each with a particular mood. But why would any particular mood repeat?

That question doesn't bother me as I believe S&H addressed it with their concepts of alternate loose and strict child raising and outward and inner focus.

That works well in the recent time period, but it fails to explain saecula where turning lengths are in the high 20s -- since many late wavers of an archetype would then be the children of the early wavers.

Originally Posted by jeffw

What I'm not getting from your explanation is why we lump people born 20 years apart into a single generation. If everyone born at a certain time in a given culture shares a certain outlook then why isn't each cohort different from each other?

That's why the life phases concept is needed. The level of influence a person has on the culture isn't a gradual curve -- instead it tends to be stepwise. Fame, fortune and promotion tend to cause people to jump to new levels of influence and then stay stationary for a while before jumping to a new higher level of influence.

That in turn, means that a change in mood will require a younger generation whose leading edge has been living entirely under a regime headed by people with a different mood. Anyone older remembers an earlier mood shift. When the leading edge of a generation (on average) reach their next step up in influence, the mood "turns" and continues "turning" as that generation (and others) proceeds to shift into new social roles.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

The next question is your first question -- how do generations create turnings? Now that you have clusters of people with particular moods, these people will in turn effect the culture by their actions. The degree to which they effect the culture will increase as they age up until the point where many of them are dying or retiring at which point, their influence will decline and eventually vanish.

Could you work through it with an example? Let's use cohortia and make the generations exactly 22 years long. Assume generation A born over years 0-21, gen B born over years 22-43, generation C born over years 44-65 and so on. When and how does A affect the culture? B? C? How do turnings develop from this effect? When will they occur?

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

The next question is your first question -- how do generations create turnings? Now that you have clusters of people with particular moods, these people will in turn effect the culture by their actions. The degree to which they effect the culture will increase as they age up until the point where many of them are dying or retiring at which point, their influence will decline and eventually vanish.

Could you work through it with an example? Let's use cohortia and make the generations exactly 22 years long. Assume generation A born over years 0-21, gen B born over years 22-43, generation C born over years 44-65 and so on. When and how does A affect the culture? B? C? How do turnings develop from this effect? When will they occur?

Assuming an LEP/3.5 saeculum where LEP=77 . . .

A would begin impacting the culture at the 22 year mark, but not very much. It's influence would increase further at the 44 year mark (tempered slightly by B). It's influence would peak at year 66 (tempered by B and marginally by C). B's influence would peak at year 88 (when the A group is largely deceased) and so forth.

It would be most accurate to say that an "A" turning begins at year 66.

Assuming an LEP/3 saeculum where LEP=66 . . .

A would begin impacting the culture at the 22 year mark, but not very much. It's influence would increase greatly after the 44 year mark (tempered slightly by B). It's influence would wane after year 66 (tempered by B and marginally by C). B's influence would peak at year 66 (when the A group is dying off) and so forth.

It would be most accurate to say that an "A" turning begins at year 44.


Everybody is relevant to the overall mood but some are more influential than others. To use a real world example, the Boomers are moving towards peak right now, but their cultural influence began in the mid 60s.

Now, in the examples above, what is an "A" turning? If we call generation A a Prophet generation, then an "A" turning for the upper scenario is a Crisis. But in the lower scenario, if the "A" turning is a Crisis, then those Prophets are born during an Awakening. If we insist on Prophets born in a High, then the "A" turning is an Unraveling.

I can't but help thinking there's a resolution to the Civil War Anomaly debate hidden in there somewhere, but I haven't worked it out yet.

Note, though, that all my LEP/X stuff is just demonstrating why there would be turnings and how they would be patterned. Archetypes and Turning Types are still left unexplained.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Assuming an LEP/3.5 saeculum where LEP=77 . . .
A would begin impacting the culture at the 22 year mark, but not very much. It's influence would increase further at the 44 year mark (tempered slightly by B). It's influence would peak at year 66 (tempered by B and marginally by C). B's influence would peak at year 88 (when the A group is largely deceased) and so forth.

Using L = 22, the first cohort enters adulthood in year 22 so I see why you say A starts affecting the culture then. The last A cohort turns adult in year 44 so now all of A is out there impacting history. So I see why you flagged 44. But how did you determine that A's influence would peak at year 66?

Assuming an LEP/3 saeculum where LEP=66 . . .

A would begin impacting the culture at the 22 year mark, but not very much. It's influence would increase greatly after the 44 year mark (tempered slightly by B). It's influence would wane after year 66 (tempered by B and marginally by C). B's influence would peak at year 66 (when the A group is dying off) and so forth.

When does A peak here? How did you get a value in the first case but not in the second.

I need you to spell it out. Do the math, show all the steps.

It would be most accurate to say that an "A" turning begins at year 66. (for LEP/3.5]

It would be most accurate to say that an "A" turning begins at year 44. [for LEP/3]

Does a turning start when influence peaks? Why isn't the influence of A just before the peak just as effective in impacting culture as the influence of A just after the peak (assuming equal magnitude).

Can you come up with an theoretical expression to approximate a generation's influence as a function of time, L, and LEP?

Now, in the examples above, what is an "A" turning? If we call generation A a Prophet generation, then an "A" turning for the upper scenario is a Crisis. But in the lower scenario, if the "A" turning is a Crisis, then those Prophets are born during an Awakening. If we insist on Prophets born in a High, then the "A" turning is an Unraveling.

How can the same generation produce different types of turnings?

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Assuming an LEP/3.5 saeculum where LEP=77 . . .
A would begin impacting the culture at the 22 year mark, but not very much. It's influence would increase further at the 44 year mark (tempered slightly by B). It's influence would peak at year 66 (tempered by B and marginally by C). B's influence would peak at year 88 (when the A group is largely deceased) and so forth.

Using L = 22, the first cohort enters adulthood in year 22 so I see why you say A starts affecting the culture then. The last A cohort turns adult in year 44 so now all of A is out there impacting history. So I see why you flagged 44. But how did you determine that A's influence would peak at year 66?

At year 66, all of the generation A people have (on average) taken on full adulthood roles. Those born on year zero reach 44 at year 44. Those born on year 21 reach 44 at year 65. So we can expect that at year 66 is when all average members of the generation are in leadership roles and only the leading edge of the generation is beginning to retire.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Assuming an LEP/3 saeculum where LEP=66 . . .

A would begin impacting the culture at the 22 year mark, but not very much. It's influence would increase greatly after the 44 year mark (tempered slightly by B). It's influence would wane after year 66 (tempered by B and marginally by C). B's influence would peak at year 66 (when the A group is dying off) and so forth.

When does A peak here? How did you get a value in the first case but not in the second.

I need you to spell it out. Do the math, show all the steps.

Jeez, I wasn't thinking at all when I wrote that.

That should read "B's influence would peak at year 88 (when the A group is dying off)." A peaks at 66 just like in the above case. Now this presents a question: is the A turning when generation A begins dying or when they begin entering leadership? It should be the former. The A turning should be the last years when A influences events (their last years because that's when they will hold their most influential positions). In a string harmonic saeculum a generation's turning will occur when the first cohort begins to die -- mortality provides the urgency for their most significant actions. In a closed pipe harmonic saeculum a generation's turning will occur when the first cohort begins to retire -- a desire to leave a legacy provides the urgency for their actions.

It would be most accurate to say that an "A" turning begins at year 66. (for LEP/3.5]

It would be most accurate to say that an "A" turning begins at year 66. [for LEP/3]

Pardon the error.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Does a turning start when influence peaks? Why isn't the influence of A just before the peak just as effective in impacting culture as the influence of A just after the peak (assuming equal magnitude).

The description above explains this. Each generation has a "signature turning" -- the sequence of events caused by each age cohort of that generation wielding its final year in power. So in both examples above, years 66-87 are the years when the average people of generation A are wielding power for the last time. They must make an impact then or they never will. Depending on temperament gained through earlier life experiences their actions will have a particular tone which in turn will be the primary tone of that turning.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Can you come up with an theoretical expression to approximate a generation's influence as a function of time, L, and LEP?

Not precisely, but a cohort's influence should generally increase up to whatever date is at the last node in their life phase harmonic (66 years in both examples above).

It would be a complicated equation to define -- not the sort of math I typically do. It wouldn't be linear but rather a bell curve starting at X=L, peaking at X = L*TRUNC(LEP/L) and declining sharply thereafter (with X being the age of the cohort in question). However, if you superimposed all those bell curves on one chart, you'd get a plateau shape with the leading slope somewhat gradual and the trailing slope quite precipitous. The top of the plateau is that generation's signature turning.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Now, in the examples above, what is an "A" turning? If we call generation A a Prophet generation, then an "A" turning for the upper scenario is a Crisis. But in the lower scenario, if the "A" turning is a Crisis, then those Prophets are born during an Awakening. If we insist on Prophets born in a High, then the "A" turning is an Unraveling.

How can the same generation produce different types of turnings?

Point taken, and with the error noted above taken into account, if generation A is a Prophet archetype, their signature turning should be a Crisis and in both cases they would be born during a High.

Now an LEP/2 or LEP/2.5 saeculum would have the conundrum of Prophets born during Awakenings. That suggests to me that perhaps birth and childhood are the wrong places to look for a person's key time of archetype imprinting. For LEP/2 and LEP/2.5 saecula to produce the same turning pattern as LEP/3 and LEP/3.5 saecula then it would have to be the prior turning that does the imprinting. In other words, Prophets are Prophets because they gain influence during the Unraveling (that's when they "learn the ropes").

This actually makes a whole lot of sense. Any radical policy changes are going to be, by definition, a change from the older generation's policies. The rising generation spends years toiling as subordinates to those "morons" higher up the ladder. This also resolves why there is debate about the Xer/Millenial cutoff date. Full imprinting is only now occurring for the Xers (and only the leading wave).

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

The description above explains this. Each generation has a "signature turning" -- the sequence of events caused by each age cohort of that generation wielding its final year in power. So in both examples above, years 66-87 are the years when the average people of generation A are wielding power for the last time. They must make an impact then or they never will. Depending on temperament gained through earlier life experiences their actions will have a particular tone which in turn will be the primary tone of that turning.

You propose that a tiny set of people, those aged 65, exert a massively disproportinate influence on events. The vast majority of power-wielders at any given time are not aged 65. Why should this tiny group create history and not all the others? This doesn't seem very plausible to me.

Can you show evidence of substantially greater activity by mid-60ish leaders in their final year of office as compared to activity by leaders at other ages and not in theihr final years? Two term presidents tend to accomplish their greatest feats in their first terms, not their second. CEOs usually have their greatest impact early, often in their last years they are embattled and unable to accomplish anything.

Dear Mike,

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

> You propose that a tiny set of people, those aged 65, exert a
> massively disproportinate influence on events. The vast majority
> of power-wielders at any given time are not aged 65. Why should
> this tiny group create history and not all the others? This
> doesn't seem very plausible to me.

> Can you show evidence of substantially greater activity by
> mid-60ish leaders in their final year of office as compared to
> activity by leaders at other ages and not in theihr final years?
> Two term presidents tend to accomplish their greatest feats in
> their first terms, not their second. CEOs usually have their
> greatest impact early, often in their last years they are
> embattled and unable to accomplish anything.

I believe that the mechanism is that the power-wielders are
influenced by the ideas of the above-65, as the Prophets influence
the Nomads during the crisis era. It's really the power-wielders who
make the decisions, but they make them by selecting from among the
ideas of the elders. Then it's the elders who often get the credit,
even though the younger generation actually made the choices.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

At year 66, all of the generation A people have (on average) taken on full adulthood roles. Those born on year zero reach 44 at year 44. Those born on year 21 reach 44 at year 65. So we can expect that at year 66 is when all average members of the generation are in leadership roles and only the leading edge of the generation is beginning to retire.

This assumes that people hold leadership roles at age 44 and above. S&H's data on leadership age shows the average age of leaders was 46 in the decades after 1789. My data on monarch ages suggests an average leader age of about 41 before the late 17th century which rises up to meet S&H's value of 46 in the 2nd half of the 18th century. A good estimate for the average age of leaders in the 18th century would be 44 years.

This is just a quibble. We can make your model work by defining the characteristic role of mid-life to be something that individuals actually perform between ages 2L and 3L. Leaders today, whose average age is 56, would fit into this category.

However this is an important point I need to make. The S&H model is not like yours. It does not call for leadership roles to be played by mid-lifers, although they do call leadership a mid-life role.

The 18th century saeculum was the one which fits with the L = 22 years paradigm best. Thus, for this period mid-life should be age 44-65. Yet fully half of leaders at any one time were younger than 44. Only half of leaders are in mature adulthood and half in rising adulthood at any time. The same thing holds for elder roles. Take the "gray champion" elder role during the Revolutionary crisis. S&H mention two individual gray champions. One was in elderhood when he played his role and the other was in mid-life, a 50:50 split, which is exactly what their theory calls for.

What you seem to be saying is gray champions should all be elders as individuals. Is this correct? Any do you follow what I said about the S&H theory and how it is different from what you are proposing. (This is important).

Now for years I've criticized the S&H theory because most of their individual gray champions weren't very gray (i.e. were not elders). I didn't understand the way the theory works. In fact, only half of gray champions should be elders. Yet their theory makes sense and it plausibly "works" if one defines phase of life roles appropriately. It even works for Sean Love's three-phase model except one has to change the phase of life roles (societal leadership is not a characteristic role).

In a string harmonic saeculum a generation's turning will occur when the first cohort begins to die -- mortality provides the urgency for their most significant actions. In a closed pipe harmonic saeculum a generation's turning will occur when the first cohort begins to retire -- a desire to leave a legacy provides the urgency for their actions.

What is the purpose of the wave harmonic analogy? It doesn't make anything clearer IMO. If anything, it's confusing because I am not sure what it means. Are you implying there is an inherent wave structure to the human experience?

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

The description above explains this. Each generation has a "signature turning" -- the sequence of events caused by each age cohort of that generation wielding its final year in power. So in both examples above, years 66-87 are the years when the average people of generation A are wielding power for the last time. They must make an impact then or they never will. Depending on temperament gained through earlier life experiences their actions will have a particular tone which in turn will be the primary tone of that turning.

You propose that a tiny set of people, those aged 65, exert a massively disproportinate influence on events. The vast majority of power-wielders at any given time are not aged 65. Why should this tiny group create history and not all the others? This doesn't seem very plausible to me.

Can you show evidence of substantially greater activity by mid-60ish leaders in their final year of office as compared to activity by leaders at other ages and not in theihr final years? Two term presidents tend to accomplish their greatest feats in their first terms, not their second. CEOs usually have their greatest impact early, often in their last years they are embattled and unable to accomplish anything.

The oldest people will tend to hold the most senior positions and have the largest number of established connections. Thus, it doesn't take much for their preferences to influence the overall movement of society. Also, keep in mind that a person generally won't know exactly when their last year is going to be, they simply gain a sense of urgency when they approach the perceived end of their careers.

(This is similar to John's response, although I think the elders actually do call the shots.)

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

This is just a quibble. We can make your model work by defining the characteristic role of mid-life to be something that individuals actually perform between ages 2L and 3L. Leaders today, whose average age is 56, would fit into this category.

That seems right, although that role would fall between L and 2L for the medieval saeculum.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

However this is an important point I need to make. The S&H model is not like yours. It does not call for leadership roles to be played by mid-lifers, although they do call leadership a mid-life role.

The 18th century saeculum was the one which fits with the L = 22 years paradigm best. Thus, for this period mid-life should be age 44-65. Yet fully half of leaders at any one time were younger than 44. Only half of leaders are in mature adulthood and half in rising adulthood at any time. The same thing holds for elder roles. Take the "gray champion" elder role during the Revolutionary crisis. S&H mention two individual gray champions. One was in elderhood when he played his role and the other was in mid-life, a 50:50 split, which is exactly what their theory calls for.

What you seem to be saying is gray champions should all be elders as individuals. Is this correct? Any do you follow what I said about the S&H theory and how it is different from what you are proposing. (This is important).

The gray champions should be (on average) at the point of transition to elderhood (assuming a closed pipe saeculum) or nearing their own deaths (assuming a string saeculum). In either case, the critical actions will tend to occur at 2L (for LEP/2 and LEP/2.5) or 3L (for LEP/3 and LEP/3.5). Each individual will be different. So, there can certainly be powerful, influential people taking on a "grey champion" role who are individually younger or older than the average.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

In a string harmonic saeculum a generation's turning will occur when the first cohort begins to die -- mortality provides the urgency for their most significant actions. In a closed pipe harmonic saeculum a generation's turning will occur when the first cohort begins to retire -- a desire to leave a legacy provides the urgency for their actions.

What is the purpose of the wave harmonic analogy? It doesn't make anything clearer IMO. If anything, it's confusing because I am not sure what it means. Are you implying there is an inherent wave structure to the human experience?

All I'm saying is that since phases of life are socially constructed, and since each life stretches from birth until death or retirement that the phases of life will have to fit comfortably into that time span. For the life phases to be equal, the possible combinations that work are few in number -- all can be described as harmonics of a pipe/string that is as long as the average human life where the nodes mark the life phase transitions.

For societies where transfers of power typically occur at death, then the last transition is at death. This means there will be one or more transitions evenly spaced between birth and death. In medieval society there was only one such transition, in the late 20s, the time when property tended to be inherited. For this type of pattern, I suppose the harmonic analogy isn't really very illuminating.

However, for a society where transfers of power occur with retirement, you get a different structure. Even though the average age at death will still effect how much time people estimate they have left to impact events, the last transition will no longer be at death. The pipe harmonic model -- where death is now modeled as an antinode -- provides a structure where there are still even amounts of time between transitions and these transitions are still related to lifespan but there isn't a transition (a node) at the point of death. For a modern generation like the Boomers, they have one transition at college age, another at middle age, and a final one at retirement, with (on average) half a life phase before they die.

It's just a model, but it makes sense that people would view their lives as a series of eras leading up to their eventual passing. It makes sense that those viewpoints would tend to be similar amongst many members of the same society and it makes sense that this in turn would cause attitudes to cluster among groups of people born in an age range of the same length as the life phases they perceive themselves to be passing through.

Kurt, you still didn't clarify for Mike how the pipe/string harmonic analogy applies.

When a string vibrates, there are nodes at both ends. When the air inside a pipe vibrates, there is a node at one end, but not at the other. These represent transitions. As a consequence of whether there are nodes at one end or both, addition of new nodes, such as result from higher pitches, will occur at different locations in string-like systems or pipe-like systems.

Kurt, is that what you had in mind?

Originally Posted by The Pervert

Kurt, you still didn't clarify for Mike how the pipe/string harmonic analogy applies.

When a string vibrates, there are nodes at both ends. When the air inside a pipe vibrates, there is a node at one end, but not at the other. These represent transitions. As a consequence of whether there are nodes at one end or both, addition of new nodes, such as result from higher pitches, will occur at different locations in string-like systems or pipe-like systems.

Kurt, is that what you had in mind?

Well, yes, but I don't think I need to explain harmonics to Mike. Rather I think he's asking why I'm using that analogy.

There are three things determining L, which has a fairly direct effect upon turning length. One is that the first node after birth will fall between puberty and age 30. The second is life expectancy when one reaches puberty and the thrid is whether positions of power and influence tend to transfer when someone dies or when someone retires. The first and second put practical limits on the number of life phases, and the third determines whether the last node is at death or retirement (string or closed pipe harmonic respectively).

I plan to respond to your other posts. I simply want to clarify something here.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

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.

This seems right, but its not. Let AL be the average age of leaders, AC be the average age at which youth come of age and AS be the average age of stewards. Consider a generation born between B1 and B2. Theoretically, they will hold more leadership roles than any other generation between the years B1 + AL and B2 + AL. Before you go further think about this until you can see why this is necessarily so.

The same thing will be true for stewardship positions. Similarly this generation will come of age between B1 + AC and B2 + AC.

Thus we have for this generation:

Born: B1 to B2
COA: B1 +AC to B2 + AC
Lead: B1 + AL to B2 + AL
Stew: B1 + AS to B2 + AS

If L is the length of a generation then B2 = B1 + L and

Born: B1 to B1 + L
COA: B1 + AC to B1 + AC + L
Lead: B1 + AL to B1 + AL + L
Stew: B1 + AS to B1 + AS + L

During these periods the generation dominates the successive roles of birth, COA, leadership and stewardship. Let these roles be the defining roles for four phases of life for a generation. Let the birth role define "youth"(Y); the COA role define "rising adulthood"(R), the leadership role "mature adulthood" (M) and the stewardship role "elderhood" (E). Then the generation occupies the various phases of life as follows:

Y: B1 to B1 + L
R: B1 + AC to B1 + AC + L
M: B1 + AL to B1 + AL + L
E: B1 + AS to B1 + AS + L

The end of one phase of life is the beginning of the next so:

B1 + AC = B1 + L --> AC = L
B1 + AL = B1 + AC + L = B1 + 2L --> Al = 2L
B1 + AS = B1 + AL + L = B1 + 3L --> AS = 3L

This gives a general result. The average age at which the a defining phase of life role is performed is a multiple of L.

Thus if leadership is a defining role for a phase of life, such as primacy, or maturity and AL is the average age at which it is performed then L must be AL or Al/2 or Al/3 and so on.

This finding applies to constellation models like that of S&H. For S&H generations create turnings by acting in concert. A turning is defined by the generation constellation, a set of four ordered pairs of archetypes and phase of life roles. For example a Crisis constellation is

Artists - Youths being born
Heroes -Rising Adults coming of age
Nomad -Mature Adult Leaders
Prophet-Elder Stewards

The Crisis begins as a few years after Artists start being born, Heroes stop being born and start coming of age, Nomads stop coming of age and first achieve plurality in leader positions. Prophets lose plurality in leadership positions and gain plurality of stewardship positions.

From the very beginning of the turning the generations dominate their phase of life roles. Thus the constellation also describe three parallel generational forces exerted on History collectively by those acting in phase of life roles. For example a Crisis constellation also means

Heroic Coming of Age
Pragmatic Leadership
Visionary Stewardship
Can you see how these forces are all aligned to get things done? Compare to the constellation for an Awakening

Narcissistic Coming of Age
Indecisive Leadership
Stewards busy with their own lives
Can you see how these forces conspire to prevent anything from getting done?

now look at the Unraveling
Alienated Coming of Age
Moralistic Leadership
Sensitive Stewards
Can you see this constellation is set for a collision between the rising adults and midlifers? Note that the stewards, who could decide on who's right instead see both sides. What are the prospects for collective action, considering this will require that these two generations closely work together?

now look at the High
Conformist Coming of Age
Powerful Leaders
Reclusive Stewards
Can you see how this constellation is set for unity under the leadership? Like in the unraveling, the stewards are ineffective, but here there is no discord to smooth over, society is ordered as the mature adult leaders see fit.

Turnings change abruptly because in the space of just a few years the relative numbers of one generation versus its next largest competitor playing a role can change dramatically. Generation length is forced by the values of AC, AL and AS, which is a characteristic of the time in history.

Kurt's (and apparently Sean's) model is not a constellation model. Their mechanism works is VERY differently from how a constellation model works. Their model proposes that turnings reflect changing "moods" or zeitgeist--not constellations. One important difference: in a constellation model, phase of life and generation length must be the same. A zeitgeist model doesn't require this.

Kurt and Sean's models appear to be zeitgeist models. If I understand correctly, Kurt's model works something like this.

Assume generations exist. A birth cohort's maximum impact on history will occur close to the end of the time when they exert maximum influence on the world arround them. Let X be the average age when this occurs. Then generation/turning transitions will follow X years after previous transitions. Thus X must be a multiple of generation/turning length L.

The value of X depends on whether power is transfered at death or at retirement. It also depends on the life-expectancy at puberty (LEP). Finally X is restricted to being a multiple of L.

The following rules apply to L.

In a society where power transfers at death
if LEP < 60 then L = LEP/2 else L= LEP/3.

In a society when power transfers at retirement
if LEP < 60 then L = LEP/2.5 else L = LEP/3.5

So far this looks a lot like the constellation model in that X is a multiple of L. But X doesn't have an independent meaning like AL or AS has. That is one cannot find independent values for it. Thus, X is completely dependent on L and L is completely depending on LEP and one how power is transmitted.

Give that L = 26 fits the pre-1822 generations/turnings pretty well and power was transmitted at death during most of this time, LEP must be either 52 or 78. The former makes sense so that is what we will use.

Give LEP = 52, what is the impact of changing from a death to retirement mode of power transfer? Answer" a downward shift in generation length from 26 to 21 years. Then what happens when LEP exploded upward to ca 80 today?

L increases from 21 to 24, drops to 17 and then drifts upward to 23 today.

The formula for L shows how L can change as a function of life expectancy and power transition type.
************************************************** ****
Although I have categorized this model as a zeitgiest model, I don't understand exactly how it calls for zeitgeist to change at intervals of L. I can see how the zeitgiest of society can reflect the actions of highly influential X-aged people. I can see how today's zeitgiest can be different from that of ten years ago since the two groups of X-aged people had different formative experiences. What I don't see is why some pairs of X-aged people ten years apart are so different to be different turnings and generations while others are not.

The analogy of a string or open pipe harmonics doesn't help. Harmonics arise from solutions of the differential equations governing the physcial system of interest. These differential equations describe the mechanics of the system. For the string it is F = MA. The cause of the sounds from a string are these mechanics.

Before there can be differential equations or harmonics that apply to the saeculum there must first be mechanics or cause.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Born: B1 to B1 + L
COA: B1 + AC to B1 + AC + L
Lead: B1 + AL to B1 + AL + L
Stew: B1 + AS to B1 + AS + L

During these periods the generation dominates the successive roles of birth, COA, leadership and stewardship. Let these roles be the defining roles for four phases of life for a generation. Let the birth role define "youth"(Y); the COA role define "rising adulthood"(R), the leadership role "mature adulthood" (M) and the stewardship role "elderhood" (E). Then the generation occupies the various phases of life as follows:

This doesn't seem right. You're saying that the new generation that begins to be born at time B1 dominates the Youth phase of life at the very instant they start being born. So when the first cohort of the X Generation turned 41 they dominated the Leadership phase of life. How do you come to that conclusion? It makes more sense to me to say that a generation dominates when their numbers finally surpass the number of their next elders in a particular phase of life. However, I could be open to other definitions since older members of a phase of life might have more influence than the younger members.

Originally Posted by jeffw

This doesn't seem right. You're saying that the new generation that begins to be born at time B1 dominates the Youth phase of life at the very instant they start being born.

Yes, the new generation being born dominates birth, which is the defining role for the youth phase of life for a generation. What do S&H say about the various generations during a particular turning? A Crisis features Prophet elder stewards (gray champions), Nomad midlife leaders, Heroes coming of age and Artists being born.

There is a difference between phase of life for a generation and that for an individual. For example. members of the prophet generation play the GC role (an ELDER phase of life role) in a Crisis, yet the individuals that do it may themselves be in mature adulthood. Similarly members of a Hero generation are coming of age from the very start of a Crisis. Some of those coming of age may be only 18 or 19 and thus still in the youth phase of life as individuals but they are already playing a rising adult role. Alse there are many Nomads still in rising adulthood who have already come of age. They no longer play the rising adult role for their generation, which is why the Heroes now numerically dominate the coming of age role.

So when the first cohort of the X Generation turned 41 they dominated the Leadership phase of life. How do you come to that conclusion?

I didn't. What I wrote was

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander

Let AL be the average age of leaders... Consider a generation born between B1 and B2. Theoretically, they will hold more leadership roles than any other generation between the years B1 + AL and B2 + AL. Before you go further think about this until you can see why this is necessarily so.

When the first cohort of the X Generation turns AL, they will dominate the Leadership role. AL has averaged about 53 over the past century or so. The first GenX cohort is 1961 so we would expect Gen X to start dominating leadership roles around 2014 give or take a few years. (In recent years AL has been running high, like it did in the last crisis, so I expect GenX to be delaying in rising to leadership like the Lost were).

If leadership was a defining role for a phase of life (e.g. mature adulthood) then it follows that the length of a generation/turning would be about AL/2 or around 26-27 today. The actual generations/turnings as uncovered by S&H recently have been about 19 years long, implying AL of 38, which is way too short for leaders.

Actual turnings are not consistent with a constellation model with leadership being the defining role of the mature adult phase of life.

It makes more sense to me to say that a generation dominates when their numbers finally surpass the number of their next elders in a particular phase of life.

Exactly. I have a seven page word document that describes exactly how this is done. If you would like, send me an email at malexan@sbcglobal.net and I'll send it to you for your comments.

I think I found a way to employ some of Kurt's ideas to obtain 26-year phase of life and generations.

I employ a different value for AL. Rather than the average age of all leaders, it is the average age of the most influential leaders, which are those occuping their final (and highest) positions in the last years of life. AL then becomes the average age at whcih leaders die. Using my list of monarchs this works out to age 51. Coming of age is inheritence. I used the average age at which English monarchs inherited the throne from the previous generation (I excluded those that followed members of the same generation or those who seized power) to give a value of 27 for coming of age. This gives values of 27 and 25.5 for L or about 26.

Examination of S&H's constellations show that elders don't play necessary roles in creating history. Even gray champions don't add anything that is required to produce a Crisis. So the fact that elders are largely absent (and that "gray champions in the past tended to be Nomads or even Heroes) doesn't matter.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

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

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.

Well, since I strongly suspect a three phase saecular life-cycle at work in the past (weakly, say 1730-1820; strongly before) the Puritan-gen Gray Champion of 1689 would've been a member of a post-cycle (i.e, fourth phase) generation and therefore quite old, but not a member of a generation transitioning into a new phase, rather one waning off into the afterlife. I see a Nomad playing a “Crisis Champion” role, if you will, in most of those earlier 4T’s (e.g., Elizabeth I, George Washington).

But as for your core question of transitioning versus full alignment, this should come as no surprise since it is part and parcel of S&H theory (as I understand it, anyway). I don't mean this in a Xenakian way when I say that I am surprised you're asking the question.

S&H have full, archetypal generational line-ups (constellations) occurring at the end of turnings. When this alignment specifically occurs depends on one's opinion of phase lengths and generational boundaries, but they nevertheless are always roughly end-of-turning affairs.

For example, in 1983 the first cohort generational line-up was 58: 40: 22: 1. If one assumes the apx. age of net social autonomy to be in the ballpark of 19.5 for most of the 20th century in America (which I think is a good assumption) then the phase boundaries of roughly 59: 39: 20: 1 (rounding off) had been approached, reached, or broached by 1983 and the archetypal generations were overall at, and moving beyond, full occupation of the phases. Since this full occupation takes place at the end of turnings then the mood of the turning itself must by logical necessity be driven by the process of filling these phases (e.g., 1964-1983).

As for how it works, a turning mood is a combination of the new archetypal expressions entering each phase of life and the new dynamic or equilibrium that results. As I have stated before I see most turnings (but not all) as going through four stages.

Stage 1: Opening Transition
This is when the new mood implants.

Stage 2: Early Core
The “core” of a turning is the period when the mood is stable and saecularly functional. But this period can be divided into two turning phases: Early Core and Late Core. The dividing line is the point when there is a transition in generations giving birth to the majority of newborns and when a new generation (the one losing #1 biological parent status) gains at least a plurality of institutional leadership. It is my contention that these two events generally occur around the same time. This double threshold, I believe, subtly changes the dynamic, giving it a different flavor, even if it’s the same basic recipe. I see these thresholds recently as being c.1995, c. 1975, c. 1956, etc . . . . So the Early Core is the time before these points.

Stage 3: Late Core
The phase after the aforementioned thresholds.

Stage 4: Senescence
This phase starts at the point where the leading edges of the generations reach and overflow into new phases. This introduction of new archetypal expressions into each phase triggers increasing instability and dysfunction in the saecular dynamic supporting the current mood. It’s like when the local atmosphere gets “supersaturated”. There comes a point where some other phenomenon, even minor, can trigger a deluge, and a new equilibrium results.


My conjecture about a “senescence” stage obviously puts me in the camp of those who think the phases are shorter than S&H think they are. They officially put them at 21 years long. As I said, I think it’s somewhere in the 18-21 range, with my current guesstimate being 19-20. As I said, due to S&H stating that the length of the youth phase sets the parameters for the length of generations and turning (the solstice-to-equinox thing) I think it is important to know when the point of net social autonomy is. The permutations of 18 (18, 36, 54) are a lot different than that of 21 (21, 42, 63)!

Interesting discussing. But I do not see much value in parsing a generation's length so precisely. Just call it 20 years -- the statistical slop is too great to differentiate 18 from 19 from 20 from 21...

I think the cause of the saeculum is gravitational. Cycles, rhythms, seasons all have gravitational roots. Who would ask, What is the cause of springtime? Some would say it's winter, but I thinks it's the combined gravitational effects of earth, moon, and sun. A physicist might ask if generations have different temperatures, different masses, or different charges. Those feartures seem almost too obvious in T4T theory. So I look for causes that seem associated with these physical attributes and cycles.

--Croakmore

Originally Posted by Croakmore

But I do not see much value in parsing a generation's length so precisely. Just call it 20 years -- the statistical slop is too great to differentiate 18 from 19 from 20 from 21...

Said "slop" has significant reprecussions down the line. I reiterate:

The permutations of 18 (18, 36, 54) are a lot different than that of 21 (21, 42, 63)!

A near-decade difference two phases later is not insignificant. But frogs don't live that long, so no worries. 8)

Sean, in your mind do all generational separations have historical markers? I'm guessing that's how it works, but those markers are often arbitrary. The boundaries often seem blurred to me, blurred even by more than one or two years. For example, I was born in 1939 but I don't seem much like a Silent. My attitude was mostly Boomer as I matured (as if I ever did). So this is why I worry if historical markers mean that much (unless of course they have biological implications like wars and plagues).

For what it's worth, I was read Virginia Lee Burton's "The Little House" before the end of WWII. And I believe that this wonderful story, with its quaint illustrations, made me aware of pollution at a very early age. It made me want to go "back to the country."

--Croak

Dittos for such "back to the country" yearnings, from one Charles Allen Smart (b. 1904) in the midst of the Great Depression.

Yes, the Smart New Yorker did pick quite the dumbass spot, here in racist, bigoted Jesusville of Chillicothe, Ohio. But his "good earth" yearning did manage to capture the imagination of a culture (via a RFD book, and quite a few Hollywood movies and TV shows) totally enmeshed in a 1930s mechanized collectivism, er, society, hellbent on taming (streamlining the edges, shall we say) that evil beast named Henry Ford.

Alas, but dear Henry's Nazi machines prevailed (though a Tin Lizzy smoothed)... and poor commie Charles, like all the good "salt of the earth," was merely ground into forgotten dust by Jesus the Christ and His tractor pulls. :wink: