On 2002-04-26 16:32, mmailliw wrote:
Northern Virginia sucks anyway! And I guess I'll have to say the same for the members of my age cohort who live there...
Hey! Watch out. You gotta problem with us Northern Virginians?
On 2002-04-26 16:32, mmailliw wrote:
Northern Virginia sucks anyway! And I guess I'll have to say the same for the members of my age cohort who live there...
Is this the same Jay N that called me Generation "Y" a few weeks ago? What happened?I think a lot of later Xers and some early Mills get that feeling and rebel against societal attempts to classify them. But I really do think Millenials start way after 1982. More like 1985. And 84 can be squeezed into X. I guess to paraphrase Jesse Jackson, Keep hope alive!
There are so many arguments for breaking points between Generations X and Y...much more than for boomers (who I now call Generation "W" for George W. Bush) and silentsn (who I will not call Generation "V"...the real Gen-V (Victory) is the GI's). Here are some of them (some I made up):
1974/75: Anyone born before '75 probably has a more cynical attitude due to the fact that the economic downturns of the early '90s probably affected them more (they would have been looking for (meaningful) summer jobs in the early 90s and assuming they graduated college in four years would have been in a not-so-friendly economic situation at graduation.)
1975/76: Anyone born before '76 would have almost certainly not have had computers in the classroom when they entered the first grade.
1976/77: The birth rates began rising in '77 and therefore Susan Mitchell & Co. feel that increased fecundity equals happy happy joy joy people
1977/78: People born in '78 would have been the first College graduating class of the Millennium (again, assuming graduation in four years, which is a very tricky assumption). Also, in most schools, computers were available by the time they entered kindergarten/first grade
1978/79: Also separating Gen X from Generation "2001", people born in 79 entered high school when the World Wide Web developed and entered college the year the music (aka Grunge) died (for the most part).
1979/80: Separating 'seventies babies from 'eighties babies.
1980/81: Separating those who were in school when Challenger exploded to those who weren't. Britney Spears was born in '81. 'Nuff said.
1981/82: Separating someone graduating in the 20th century to someon graduating in the famous High School Class of 2000. Also the first to probably have been part of the "baby on board" culture (unless some parents with a nine year old posted it on the back of their car)
Well, he DID say he was an outcast among his peers for all the duration of junior high (I only wonder what turned out in high school).On 2002-04-26 19:26, Susan Brombacher wrote:
Maybe, but for some bizarre reason I just can't picture Robert Reed '82 being a Gen-Xer.
:smile:
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jesse Manoogian on 2002-04-27 18:36 ]</font>
Now, does THIS sound anything at all to you like stuff a typical 1979 cohort would say (especially the #1 item)? Eeewww!ENDNOTES-
01.) Speaking of age, if you`re 18 or older register your ass to vote! Hell you can do it at WWF.com for Zahd`s sake. The first person who starts to complain come November about whatever guy gets in yet did not vote shall suffer a wrath the likes of which has not been seen since the days of the Roman Empire.
02.) What the hell is this malarkey about a "punk government?" Cruise on over to punkrock.net and find yourself a post about some well-intentioned yet totally misguided attempt to set up some abominable thing called The Punk Government. Don`t forget to point and laugh.
Well done Mark Y.
I would like to rule out using "computers" as a means for delineating generations, as you can see, the technology changes every year. Even computer "generations" change every several months or so.
I don't se the relevance in putting the world wide web into the equation either.
I thought this theory was based on turnings.
The last turning was circa 1983-84. This country underwent a conservative shift, and a total makeover.
It was the start of our generations road to nowhere.
In every reference to Generation X, regardless of where the boundaries are placed, they always include 60s and 70s born children, and never people born after 1981 and never those born before 1961.
They have been trimmed to 1965-75 at the smallest, and 1961-1981 at the biggest.
If you were to buy any books on Gen-X culture like "The Complete Guide to the Baby Buster Generation's Collective Unconscious" or "Gen X TV" you would find refernces that would mean the most to this demographic.
The 1980s were our 1960s, a decade that defined us. With the S&H theory they are saying "people that cannot remember a time before 1984 are not Xers."
If you want to base it on computer technology, we might as well start looking back at radio and television to draw lines between 50s cohorts.
If you want to base it on attitude or clothes, you will be hopeless. i am wearing a tie dye shirt as I write.
Generation X, the Grunge Generation, the Baby Busters, weren't even discovered until the eldest members were deep into their 20s.
I would venture that Jesse, William, Craig, robert, and the others won't really assert their generational identity until many, many years from now.
Most of them are only 17, 18...and they are the leading edge.
When the next turning occurs and they start to assert their identity, it will be much easier to distinguish between generations.
Dirk Diggler's said on one of his first posts that he's "really Justin '79"...now we all should KNOW that Justin is still appearing on these boards.
Who ARE you?
If I was to WRITE like WILLIAM I would say JUST a few words AT a time, and THEN capitalize a FEW words to BRING out my MAIN point.
:smile:
Good to know that I have a distinguishable writing style... I DO have quite a few posts that are several paragraphs long or longer (think Pole Position scoring; think 3T vs. 4T, etc) though; anyway knock yourself out - all three of these links (and there are many others like them found through a Google Search) refer to Generation X: what do they have in common?On 2002-04-27 14:33, DirkDiggler wrote:
Who ARE you?
If I was to WRITE like WILLIAM I would say JUST a few words AT a time, and THEN capitalize a FEW words to BRING out my MAIN point.
:smile:
http://www.catholiccourier.com/oldotm/otm0612.html
http://www.achrnews.com/CDA/ArticleI...,65968,00.html
http://www.ism.ws/Pubs/ISMMag/supple...ofSpkg0399.cfm
Think about where I'm from for a moment, and remember a post from Justin '79 a while back about how MD was "the worst state" or something like that; there IS a rivalry between MD and VA (though my current gf IS a northern virginian herself)On 2002-04-26 19:42, Jenny Genser wrote:
On 2002-04-26 16:32, mmailliw wrote:
Northern Virginia sucks anyway! And I guess I'll have to say the same for the members of my age cohort who live there...
That's only because C2K is a millennialized cohort... I make a distinction between them and those born before or after (and it's *THAT* cohort that spoils the fun for the next few!) Remember that the C2K at my school were still "children of the 80s" according to the indicators (they meet 2/3 criterion on most lists; for me it's usually around 1/2); they just acted like they were millennials in debates (always the same conformist, reactionary position I argued against) - for this reason I think of C2K not as 'millennial' but 'millennialIZED'; Robert Reed and Chris Loyd (two '82 C2Kers) are very millennialized, but every regular poster born in 83 (Tristan) - 85 (Samarrah, but she doesn't quite meet the definition of a regular poster) is notOn 2002-04-26 19:26, Susan Brombacher wrote:
Maybe, but for some bizarre reason I just can't picture Robert Reed '82 being a Gen-Xer.
Don't give up hope about being included in X just yet. Strauss and Howe did write (and back in 1990 at that) that it would be several decades before we knew for sure the boundary between us (Xers) and them (Mills).
:smile:
It is my understanding that Justin '79 is also Terminator X!On 2002-04-27 14:24, Jesse Manoogian wrote:
Dirk Diggler's said on one of his first posts that he's "really Justin '79"...now we all should KNOW that Justin is still appearing on these boards.
You're forgetting why Generation X was created in the first place!On 2002-04-26 14:03, Terminator X wrote:
If 1984 becomes part of Gen-X, what does Gen-X even mean anymore?
It has no historical relevance, or cultural commonality.
It just becomes absolutely obsolete as far as trying to work with what a "generation" means.
Maybe that is the end all desire.
It was always meant to be more of an anti-generation than a generation! When the term was first created, it was not to say what it WAS part of, but it was NOT part of! (they'd say "We're Generation X" when what they really meant was "We're not Baby Boomers at all!") I think another post from a few months back said something along the lines of "Just as the first Xrs knew nothing except that they were not Boomers, the last Xrs know nothing except that they are not Millennials." That's it, RIGHT THERE! What was X defined to be anyway; a collection of common experiences (e.g. the "eighties" which has so many different parts that it CANNOT be considered a coherent decade) or a repudiation of 'common' experiences with those before or after (early Xrs using the 80s to separate themselves from the 60s and they called themselves 'children of the 70s and 80s'; late Xrs using the 80s to separate themselves from the 'oh oh teens' - calling themselves 'children of the eighties and nineties'; my wave - whatever it is - often uses either that, 'children of the early nineties' (which are more 80s mix than 90s) or Landau's 'teens of the nineties'!)
X, Y, M, I, N, Z, W, whatever... the 'generation' I call myself, Y, has the benefit of standing for
'Y do we care?' or
'Y does it matter what generation demographers place me into?' W is used more for the baby boomers, but that could work too for us; after all we all know that W stands for... "WHATEVER!"
Oh you are so full of it.
What does Millennial stand for and what makes you not Millennial Mr. Jarvard?
Im sure all the 89 cohorts hate Harry Potter too and they're not REALLY like that. Its really the 94 cohorts. I could see them making the same arguments you are making.
And Gen X never meant it had nothing in common, it meant we had "no cause" we had no "event" we had no "mission."
We were following the Baby Boomers and everybody is looking at you thats between about 60 and 40 something now going, "Well what is YOUR generation gonna do that we haven't done?"
And even if we protested anything, it just wasn't as a valid as saying "fuck" on TV because that was a political statement, man.
And being the reactionary people that a reactive generation is, we went and played by ourselves instead of paying attention to that crap (I think we internalized it like so many other things).
So Gen X doesn't necessarily stand for "nothing" it stands for something.
Historically it is pretty easy to delineate based on turnings.
I am not the fondest of the whole archtype business. It reminds me of astrology which either isnt correct or can just be interpreted by anybody like the archtypes are here.
Pure chaos :smile:
Think about yourself historically and culturally and in a historical context.
I guess your problem is the 1980s and 1990s (the last 18/19 years make you feel better?) have been so aimless and boring and directionless that I can't really think of events that meant anything to me, other than the early middle East stuff (Libya, Lebanon, Iran) the slow fall of the USSR (which was more ofa cultural thing), the slow fall of Michael Jackson. The only event I can think of that really effected the at a young age was the Challenger explosion in 1986, and the Chernobyl meltdown shortly after.
I think the iran-Contra Affair laid the seeds for my politics, although i was very much a conservative kiid until Clinton ran and gave into such "fuck the poor" attitudes.
...
After 1992, I can only think of the Impeachment as solidifying my descent into cynicism, and then Seattle as making me feel alive and very much a part of a movement that unfortunately so few can understand.
9-11 was just sad, it didnt crystalize anything for me (oy yeah, I forgot about Columbine--no impact whatsoever).
Basicly i have become so cynical that I dont care when famous people die, at ALL (except maybe Spenser for Hire) when planes blow up, barely pay attention (even in the begining of 9-11 when they thought it was an accident I was still thinking "shit happens")
So this is the way life has impacted me.
Just watching the hairstyles go from farrah Fawcett to Martha Stewart I think burned my whole Gen out.
We grew up watching adults change themselves every season of TV. Then we grew up and if you look around we've been on broken record of 1995 since about, 1995. Yeah, yeah, we've got cellphones and pocket whatevers, but those are just annoying and show that people are really dumb apes that love their toys.
Technologically, as a child we had no remote control, no microwave, no answering machine (im not sure if they existed but we didnt have them until after the Turning, c.1985-86)
I met a 1982 cohort who had a song she had sung played on her parents answering machine.
I said "Oh they taped something you sang and put it on the answering machine?"
She said, "no it's been on there since I was 4"
When I was 4, I was wearing Buster Brown shoes, Osh Kosh, watching Dukes of Hazzard.
I started to realize that she was a late 80s child, vs an early 80s child, which has more in common with the late 70s child than the late 80s child technologically.
Anyway Im full of shit.
Im going to go eat some ice cream.
Look at how the real Gen Xers (Neisha, Jon Carson, Stonewall, Angeli) have reacted to this board.
They make lists of films with Jon Cusack in them, talk about their crummy jobs, analyze X-Men and star wars as if they were the blueprnt for everything, and talk about indie-rock bands.
They see some guy like Craig, who might as well be 5, saying "I'm in GenX" or some guy like me that sucks, and they just kind of smirk.
Then theres the Sbarros, JayNs,Terminator Xs, Justin'77s, who are actively involved in political discussions on this board and are probably radical yet don't think they are, in one way or another.
Then there are the prophets, die hard Woodstocks like Eric meece, die hard Christians like Marc lamb, and people like Anthony'58 and some of those guys born in 59 that fill pages analyzing the Vietnam conflict. I dare you to get these guys in a room and mention Abortion. I dare you...
I like you william, You are a cool guy. Now Craig, after the "Ive been listening to alternative music since 1997, Semisonic, Thrd eye blind--whats more alternative than that" comment, I think Im just gonna smirk because I am a musician and musical snob.
Well, we'll have to wait and see what the 89 cohorts themselves say... seeing as they're beginning to be teenagers they might discover this board too; on the other hand 74 cohorts might see you the same way (using 74 to refer to an arbitrary 74 cohort, etc):On 2002-04-27 19:05, DirkDiggler wrote:
Oh you are so full of it.
What does Millennial stand for and what makes you not Millennial Mr. Jarvard?
Im sure all the 89 cohorts hate Harry Potter too and they're not REALLY like that. Its really the 94 cohorts. I could see them making the same arguments you are making.
74 to Dirk: I'm sure all the 84 cohorts hate 'N Sync too and they're not REALLY like that. Its really the 89 cohorts.
Dirk to mmailliw: Im sure all the 89 cohorts hate Harry Potter too and they're not REALLY like that. Its really the 94 cohorts.
mmailliw to 89: Im sure all the 94 cohorts hate (insert some popular preteen culture item popular around 2005) too and they're not REALLY like that. Its really the 99 cohorts.
At this point it's all cultural; how much culture relates with generations is being heavily debated on this forum and continues to do so (you said earlier that culturally you identify with 75-81; in the same way I identify with 80-86) - you can get a specific age location but not a generational archetype from that
But to me, 'Millennial' stands for the conformity, groupthink, and optimism that S&H have described C2K and later as; and my cynicism and individual thought processes are what makes me different from that
sounds about right...On 2002-04-27 19:42, DirkDiggler wrote:
Look at how the real Gen Xers (Neisha, Jon Carson, Stonewall, Angeli) have reacted to this board.
They make lists of films with Jon Cusack in them, talk about their crummy jobs, analyze X-Men and star wars as if they were the blueprnt for everything, and talk about indie-rock bands.
They see some guy like Craig, who might as well be 5, saying "I'm in GenX" or some guy like me that sucks, and they just kind of smirk.
Then theres the Sbarros, JayNs,Terminator Xs, Justin'77s, who are actively involved in political discussions on this board and are probably radical yet
don't think they are, in one way or another.
I spend time in these rooms... I knowThen there are the prophets, die hard Woodstocks like Eric meece, die hard Christians like Marc lamb, and people like Anthony'58 and some of those guys born in 59 that fill pages analyzing the Vietnam conflict. I dare you to get these guys in a room and mention Abortion. I dare you...
thx... maybe that is why no one theorizes that i might be craig '84 (though I DID suggest it, it's just not me!)I like you william, You are a cool guy. Now Craig, after the "Ive been listening to alternative music since 1997, Semisonic, Thrd eye blind--whats more alternative than that" comment, I think Im just gonna smirk because I am a musician and musical snob.
Here's another delineation:
1977/78: Kids born in '77 were part of the K-12 system when "Nation at Risk" came out, while 78ers were not yet in the syste (actually, when Nation at Risk came out, the people in the schools were 1965-77, which is extremely close to the traditional Generation "X" definition--and some people like Martin & Tulgan use that definition. Coincidence?)
Is that an argument for a 13-year generation or just for a 13-year generational core?On 2002-04-28 11:31, Mark Y wrote:
Here's another delineation:
1977/78: Kids born in '77 were part of the K-12 system when "Nation at Risk" came out, while 78ers were not yet in the syste (actually, when Nation at Risk came out, the people in the schools were 1965-77, which is extremely close to the traditional Generation "X" definition--and some people like Martin & Tulgan use that definition. Coincidence?)
Hehehe. How did I get lumped in with this? And Jon too?On 2002-04-27 19:42, DirkDiggler wrote:
Look at how the real Gen Xers (Neisha, Jon Carson, Stonewall, Angeli) have reacted to this board.
They make lists of films with Jon Cusack in them, talk about their crummy jobs, analyze X-Men and star wars as if they were the blueprnt for everything, and talk about indie-rock bands.
While I can attach a face to the name John Cusack, I probably could not name the title of a single movie he starred in. However I believe that he was almost always a guy in college (about my age) pursuing some unapproachable girl. Partial credit? I concentrated more on war and military movies (kicking the commie bastards' asses! hehe) back then. I think you are getting Neisha's and Angeli's female Xer perspective on the movies here.
The X-Men were cartoon characters, weren't they? I ask because I am not absolutely certain. My cartoon viewing dwindled to the point that I only continued to watch the Bugs Bunny/Road Runner Hour by high school. The X-Men were after my time as were a bunch of other '80s cartoons which I cannot name but which I am sure that you can and that I would recognize if you did.
Star Wars? I was and remain more partial to Star Trek...and the original series at that! I enjoyed Star Wars but never got into it, books, action figures or otherwise. The original Star Trek was appealing for the simple fact that most of what was discussed was not pure fantasy thought up in 5 seconds, but was in fact scientifically valid...assuming that man would locate essential starter ingredients like dilithium crystals, etc. by the 23rd century in order to get the scientific ball rolling, so to speak. The muted special effects of Star Trek (disguised egg cartons, coat hangers, etc.) never drowned out the plot and allowed the scientific arguments to come to the fore.
By contrast, special effects ruled in Star Wars. And it was soon followed by a number of spinoffs like Battlestar Galactica in which special effects also ruled. Give me my substantive scientific validity and, if that means less emphasis on special effects, so be it.
Indie-rock? I like my rock southern-fried!
Wrong! I used to smirk at guys like you when I first came here. But now I see that you (I don't know about Craig) have the attitude. Yes, you are definitely an Xer and there is indeed a continuity from the 60s through the 70s. I'd say that the edge/attitude is gone by Robert '82 so I am not sure that Craig would have it either.They see some guy like Craig, who might as well be 5, saying "I'm in GenX" or some guy like me that sucks, and they just kind of smirk.
OTOH, I'd say that '82 is a break in the continuum (from Robert's memories he might as well have been born in 87!); to see other breakdowns of those years check out my post on "Generations based on TFT posters alone"; whether Craig or I are more like the '82s, those immediately before, or something totally different is as of yet undetermined...On 2002-04-29 01:34, Stonewall Patton wrote:
Wrong! I used to smirk at guys like you when I first came here. But now I see that you (I don't know about Craig) have the attitude. Yes, you are definitely an Xer and there is indeed a continuity from the 60s through the 70s. I'd say that the edge/attitude is gone by Robert '82 so I am not sure that Craig would have it either.They see some guy like Craig, who might as well be 5, saying "I'm in GenX" or some guy like me that sucks, and they just kind of smirk.
William, I saw your post but I would need to see you flesh out your argument a little more before commenting on it. For example, I have no idea what your basis is for pinpointing 1982 as THE Millennial birthyear. If those who came after are part of something as yet undetermined, then perhaps the nature of the Millennial Generation is as yet undetermined.On 2002-04-29 01:39, mmailliw wrote:
OTOH, I'd say that '82 is a break in the continuum (from Robert's memories he might as well have been born in 87!); to see other breakdowns of those years check out my post on "Generations based on TFT posters alone"; whether Craig or I are more like the '82s, those immediately before, or something totally different is as of yet undetermined...
I keep seeing a rough consistency of 18-19 year generations, at least in recent history. The 13th Generation began with 1961, which initially surprised me, but it appears that most cohorts from around '61 generally agree with that assignment (the "Joneser" insurgency being the notable exception). The Boom Generation began 18 years earlier in 1943 and this boundary seemed clear-cut to me even before S&H wrote Generations, based upon discussions with people born around 1942 and 1943. The Silent Generation began about 18 years before that around 1925.
Using the now standard 18 year span, the GI Generation would have begun about 1907. This conflicts with S&H's assignment of 1901 as the first GI birthyear, but I have never bought their date and indeed it leaves an abnormal span of 7 years between birth of first cohort and time of turning. Surely, the correct start date is a little later and indeed my '07 grandmother was more Lost than GI in character (for whatever this one sample is worth). My '08 grandfather is more difficult to gauge since he is not obviously Lost nor obviously GI, but I believe he is ever so slightly more GI than Lost. If we accept the turning date of 1908, then the first GI cohort should probably have been born in the 1904-1906 range. Indeed, Firemind remarked on another thread that Joseph Campbell '04 definitely seemed more Lost than GI, even sterotypically Lost. I really tend to believe 1906 is probably a much more accurate date for first GI birthyear.
People can talk about Walt Disney '01, Ray Kroc '02 and Bob Hope '03 all they want but, if these three truly seem GI in character, then there is strong evidence that they were the exceptions among their cohorts just as we see exceptions at the cusps of every generation. Indeed, the fact that they were more GI-ish than most of their peers and not caught in the Lost "rut" might account for their later success. Let me go to S&H's GI list in Generations and take a closer look at this:
1902 Charles Lindbergh
GI? A barnstorming pilot who delivered the mail between St. Louis and Chicago nightly, flying by the seat of his pants in a rickety plane, open to the elements, with nary a navigation instrument nor ground light? And who then "advanced" by crossing the Atlantic while half-asleep at the controls in a flying gas can, like a suicidal loon? How Nomad can you get? This is individual action as opposed to collective action, and reasonably insane individual action at that. Lindbergh seems very Nomad and very Lost to me.
1902 John Steinbeck
GI? I have not looked closely at Steinbeck with respect to this analysis but I really tend to see him as more Lost. Does he not seem to be part of the same "experience" as Lost writers like Hemingway? At least he seems closer to what came before than what came after.
1903 George Orwell
GI? Orwell definitely seems more Lost to me. Hell, he was even very close to the Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War like so many notable Lost peers.
1904 Robert Oppenheimer
GI? I have not looked closely at him but he seems more Lost than GI to me. Close to the cusp though, no doubt about it.
1907 John Wayne
Ah, now John Wayne seems more GI than Lost to me. But he definitely seems very early GI, that is for sure.
1907 Katherine Hepburn
Well, I do not see her as clearly Lost or clearly GI. This is obviously extremely close to the cusp.
1908 Jimmy Stewart
Definitely more GI than Lost. But still definitely very early in the generation. It is not like he is seven years into it as S&H would suggest.
1908 Lyndon B. Johnson
Definitely more GI than Lost. Still early GI though.
1911 Ronald Reagan
Definitely GI. But even Reagan had a touch of Lost in him.
1912 Tip O'Neill
1913 Richard Nixon
1913 Gerald Ford
1914 Joe DiMaggio
Hardcore GIs here, particularly by the time we get to DiMaggio '14. It looks like the last trace of Lost vanished about 1912.
I am comfortable assigning 1908 to the GI Generation although all of its cohorts seem very clearly close to the Lost cusp. 1907 becomes noticeably "cuspier" with the Lost (and recall my '07 grandmother who was even more Lost than GI), but I really tend to think that '07 cohorts were slightly more GI than Lost. Unfortunately, S&H did not provide '05 and '06 examples who are ever so critical to this analysis. But with '04 and earlier I am seeing an unmistakably predominate Lost influence/persona (inclusive of Firemind's Joseph Campbell '04).
In short, '04 and earlier were part of the Lost Generation. I am not even sure why S&H tied them to the GIs except for the fact that a few more GI-ish cohorts were monumentally successful (and probably only succeeded by virtue of the fact that they were more GI-ish than their peers). '08 and Later were part of the GI Generation. '07 probably was majority GI as well. The first GI cohorts were reasonably born in one of three years: 1905, 1906 or 1907. 18 years back from 1925 (Silent advent) takes us to 1907. The alternate 19 year span takes us back to 1906. If we accept 1908 as the turning year and apply the 2-4 year modern differential rule, then 1906 looks like the odds on favorite for first GI cohort year. But I sure wish we could look at some '05 and '06 cohorts (along with more '04 and '07 cohorts).
Moving forward again from what I have always seen (even pre-Generations) as the unmistakable first Boomer birthyear, 1943, 18 years takes us to 1961 and 19 years takes us to 1962. The first 13er year was likely either 1961 or 1962 and we know this is very close from the sentiments of most T4T cohorts from these years (again with a few notable exceptions). A 2-4 year differential from the 1964 turning would allow for either year. 18 years forward from 1961 takes us to 1979. The "maximum" 19 years forward from latter option 1962 takes us to 1981. In other words, if the pattern holds, then the first Millies were born in 1979, 1980, or 1981.
Justin '79 (in all his incarnations) seems very definitely Xer (i.e. he has the attitude). You, William '84, lack that edge so I suspect that you are a bona fide Millie. I have not read enough of Craig '84 to classify him. Robert '82 also lacks that edge so I see him as a definite Millie. From this admittedly very limited sample, I see no evidence that Millies began any later than 1982.
Justin '77 seems to have less of an edge than Justin '79. However it is unlikely that anyone would ever take Justin '77 for a Millie. He is too focused on the individual and individual rights and does not think in terms of community. Even so, he seems reasonably close to the cusp given his milder demeanor.
JayN is what? '76 to '78 or somewhere in there. He seems slightly more community-minded than Justin '77 and has less of an edge than Justin '79. In short, he seems like an Xer close to the Millennial cusp.
Take Justin '79 out of the sample and assess the remainder and it looks like '82 and later are very firmly Millie. '77 and '78 are Xer but close to the cusp. That cusp almost seems closer to '77 and '78 than to '82 and '84. It almost looks like it should be '79 in which case Justin '79 would be a damn Millie! :lol:
Even so, I suspect that Justin '79's impressions are accurate and he and his cohorts are Xers. That would really suggest to me that the first Millie year might be 1980. Our '82 and later T4Ters are so much more Millie than our '78 and earlier T4Ters are Xer that surely 1981 is too late for the change. Indeed I place the turning by 1983 and possibly in 1982, having lived through it. Applying the 2-4 year modern differential, and limiting the Millie advent to 1980 or later, we get 1980 or 1981 for the first Millie year with a greater probability, though not necessity, that it be 1980.
So put it all together and I see a reasonably consistent pattern of 18-19 year generations through the 20th century. Here is the breakdown again:
1906 - GI Advent (possibly 1905 or 1907)
+19 years
1925 - Silent Advent
+18 years
1943 - Boomer Advent (firm even pre-Generations)
+18 years
1961 - 13er Advent (possibly 1962?)
+19 years
1980 - Millennial Advent (possibly 1981?)
Continuing forward, the New Silent Advent probably occurred between 1998 and 2000. The national mood today is fundamentally different from what it was pre-911 and we cannot go back to the slow, monotonous, predictable and lethargic rhythm which defined the Unraveling (because the war-mongering Bush administration will not let us). Therefore 911 was almost certainly the 4T catalyst. Indeed future historians might even trace the mood change to Election 2000. Regardless, applying the 2-4 year modern differential, we get 1998 or 1999 as the New Silent Advent.
I still have not determined how far back into the 19th century this 18-19 year generational pattern holds. That seems to be Mike Alexander's territory. It may well mirror the change from an agrarian to an industrial economy. But I will leave it at that for now.
Finally, someone who feels the same way I do about Star Wars vs Star Trek.On 2002-04-29 01:34, Stonewall Patton wrote:
Star Wars? I was and remain more partial to Star Trek...and the original series at that! I enjoyed Star Wars but never got into it, books, action figures or otherwise. The original Star Trek was appealing for the simple fact that most of what was discussed was not pure fantasy thought up in 5 seconds, but was in fact scientifically valid...
"Regardless, applying the 2-4 year modern differential, we get 1998 or 1999 as the New Silent Advent."
<FONT FACE="arial">For Immediate Release
Tuesday, February 12, 2002
Contact: CDC/NCHS Press Office
(301) 458-4800
Press Release
Women Are Having More Children, New Report Shows
Teen Birth Rate Continues to Decline
Women in the United States are having more children than at any time in almost 30 years, according to the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) birth statistics released today by HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson. At the same time, Secretary Thompson said that births to teens continue to decline.
In 2000, the average number of children born to women over a lifetime was 2.1, according to a new CDC report, ?Births: Final Data for 2000.? During most of the 1970s and 1980s women gave birth to fewer than two children on average, a rate insufficient to replace the population (2.1 is considered the population?s replacement level).
Increased fertility in 2000 was reported for all age groups except teenagers.
Birth rates for teenagers fell to 48.5 births per 1,000 females 15-19 years of age in 2000, a 22 percent decline from the record high of 62.1 in 1991.</FONT>
Gee, and I thought the "New Silent Advent" would mean less babies... not breaking thirty year fertility records! :lol:
Maybe the new Adaptive generation will be called the Viagra generation. :smile:
That is fine, Marc, but has every Adaptive generation been accompanied by a lower birth rate? Or just one or ones in the recent past? For that matter, has every Nomad generation been accompanied by a lower birth rate? For example, was there a lower birth rate during the liberty span than during the preceding Awakener span? I don't see how unless it was a function of later marriages. But what drives Adaptive birthrates?On 2002-04-29 04:49, Marc Lamb wrote:
Press Release
Women Are Having More Children, New Report Shows
Teen Birth Rate Continues to Decline
Gee, and I thought the "New Silent Advent" would mean less babies... not breaking thirty year fertility records! :lol:
Maybe the new Adaptive generation will be called the Viagra generation. :smile:
