On 2002-08-04 21:25, Number Two wrote:

On 2002-08-03 12:30, Mark Y wrote:

On 2002-08-02 23:50, Number Two wrote:
More fun: how about doing generations (and cusps) purely by birthrates? here we get

pre-1940: silent (lowered rates)
1940 - 1945: silent/boom cusp (rates go up, then down; stagnating)
1946 - 1957: baby BOOM (nuff said :smile
1958 - 1964: stagnation (the beginning of Anthony's bust - rates fall but births stay above 4 million)
1965 - 197x: Generation X/baby bust (you can take the x as either a 5, 6, or
1977 (or 1976, or 1979) - 1984 (or 1986): stagnation at the X/Mill cusp
1985 (or 1987) or later: Millies

What's surprising is just how well this lines up with the archetypal generational boundaries (although Justin '79 and Mark Y might disagree here...)

I'm in fairly good agrement with your dates...in fact, for the most part, they are virtually on the money.

Pre-1940 Silent
1940-45 Boom Leaders
1946-56 Generation "W"
1957-63 Generation Jones
1964-74 Generation "X"
1975-81 Net Gen
1982-?? Generation "Y"

we pretty much agree until around 1980; each year after that it seems like our estimates are further and further off tho...

Yeah, we're off by a few years...but the rest we seem to agree on.

<FONT FACE="courier">Pre-1940 Silent
1940-45 Boom Leaders
1946-56 Generation "W"
1957-63 Generation Jones
1964-74 Generation "X"
1975-81 Net Gen
1982-?? Generation "Y"</FONT>

Now that you all are agreed, perhaps you could explain the point of this exercise to me, as I seem to have missed it? I mean I don't mind being part of Generation "W" mind you, but does that actually mean anything to me? Does it make me more "inner" oriented or "outer" oriented. Does being part of the "W" make me tend to be "judgemental" or objective. Does your generational lineup mark a basis for setting our clocks and calenders? Is there any future trends you would care to predict using your lineup?

Or are you, like 99% of the posters here at T4T.com, just having a little fun? :smile:

Jenny:



The American Legion was founded in Paris in 1919 at the first caucus by members of the American Expeditionary Force.


Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States traces its roots back to 1899. That year, Veterans of the Spanish-American War (1898) and the Philippine Insurrection (1899-1902) founded local organizations to secure rights and benefits for their service.


Can't find the year for the founding of the Elks.

So no, the GIs didn't start these organizations. They just joined in mass after WWII and made them very GIish.


In my area they were the favorite hang-outs and watering holes for the Heros. They never did make Boomers feel welcome, and they did not enthusiastically recruit Vietnam Vets either.









<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: cbailey on 2002-08-05 11:58 ]</font>

On 2002-08-05 11:56, cbailey wrote:
So no, the GIs didn't start these organizations. They just joined in mass after WWII and made them very GIish.


In my area they were the favorite hang-outs and watering holes for the Heros. They never did make Boomers feel welcome, and they did not enthusiastically recruit Vietnam Vets either.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: cbailey on 2002-08-05 11:58 ]</font>

Well, Toastmasters has been very welcoming to Boomers, who are very eager to pass on the message that Toastmasters will change your life! I'm sure that the GI and Silent Toastmasters leaders were happy to have Boomers bringing in new members and starting new clubs with a missionary zeal! :lol:

In my organization, there are a couple of younger GIs (eightyish) who remain active and are kind of revered as pioneers (one was the second woman to join the organization back in 1972). Meanwhile, X'ers are starting to take leadership roles and are bringing the Boomers down to earth.

My husband and I belong to Rotary International. It, like Toastmasters, seems to be evolving generationally quite well. Doesn't hurt that it's mission has always been WORLD peace.

Another great attraction is the Student Exchange Program. Because of Rotary, we always have foreign exchange students adding so much to our local highschool.

My daughter did an exchange with a wonderful girl and her family from Finland last year. It was wonderful. ( For our family, too.)

On 2002-08-05 10:44, Mark Y wrote:

On 2002-08-04 21:25, Number Two wrote:

On 2002-08-03 12:30, Mark Y wrote:

On 2002-08-02 23:50, Number Two wrote:
More fun: how about doing generations (and cusps) purely by birthrates? here we get

pre-1940: silent (lowered rates)
1940 - 1945: silent/boom cusp (rates go up, then down; stagnating)
1946 - 1957: baby BOOM (nuff said :smile
1958 - 1964: stagnation (the beginning of Anthony's bust - rates fall but births stay above 4 million)
1965 - 197x: Generation X/baby bust (you can take the x as either a 5, 6, or
1977 (or 1976, or 1979) - 1984 (or 1986): stagnation at the X/Mill cusp
1985 (or 1987) or later: Millies

What's surprising is just how well this lines up with the archetypal generational boundaries (although Justin '79 and Mark Y might disagree here...)

I'm in fairly good agrement with your dates...in fact, for the most part, they are virtually on the money.

Pre-1940 Silent
1940-45 Boom Leaders
1946-56 Generation "W"
1957-63 Generation Jones
1964-74 Generation "X"
1975-81 Net Gen
1982-?? Generation "Y"

we pretty much agree until around 1980; each year after that it seems like our estimates are further and further off tho...

Yeah, we're off by a few years...but the rest we seem to agree on.

if we align our years together we get the following:

Pure Silent
we both agree: pre-1940

Silent/Boom cuspites (Mark calls them "Boom Leaders"):
Mark says 40-45; I say 40-46 (and say that up till 44 or so, this group is significantly silent than boom)

Boom/"W"
Mark says 46-56; I say 47-57 (again, only a 1-year difference)

Jones
Mark says 57-63; I say 58-64; - still really close together

"X"
Mark says 64-74; I say 64-76 (here we begin to diverge)

my "Y"/mark's "Net Gen"
Mark says 75-81; I say 77-85 (marking the end with the class of 2003; now we're four years off)

Millies/mark's "Y"
Mark says 82-92; I say 86 - (at least 1996)

Millie/"Z" cuspites
Mark says 93-98; I say (at least 1997) - (at least 2002)

"Z"
Mark says 99-; I say it hasn't begun yet

The later ones I left in parentheses because I believe we're still in a 3T (and therefore can't tell) - notice how our numbers start out within one year of each other until the 70s and then start radically diverging :smile: (at least to the perspective of someone born in 84)

On 2002-08-05 11:11, Marc Lamb wrote:



<FONT FACE="courier">Pre-1940 Silent
1940-45 Boom Leaders
1946-56 Generation "W"
1957-63 Generation Jones
1964-74 Generation "X"
1975-81 Net Gen
1982-?? Generation "Y"</FONT>

Now that you all are agreed, perhaps you could explain the point of this exercise to me, as I seem to have missed it? I mean I don't mind being part of Generation "W" mind you, but does that actually mean anything to me? Does it make me more "inner" oriented or "outer" oriented. Does being part of the "W" make me tend to be "judgemental" or objective. Does your generational lineup mark a basis for setting our clocks and calenders? Is there any future trends you would care to predict using your lineup?

Or are you, like 99% of the posters here at T4T.com, just having a little fun? :smile:

Well, I personally feel that the Boom that we all know and love ends in the mid 50s...the coming of age events for those who were born before and after are completely different. The draft ended in 1973, so being born before the boundary pretty much put you in drafting age. (I realize 1956 babies were the exception). Also, there was an angst that was not felt by earlier boomers when they came of age...my former boss, who was born in 1958, said that her cohort was the beginning of a "lost" generation...disillusioned and with little hope and care...deeper than the deepest "X" years. Compare that to people born just a few years earlier, who were much more idealistic and part of the Vietnam protests and civil rights efforts of the 60s and 70s. So I definitely believe in Generation "Jones", a minor gen in between Generations "W" (for George W. Bush) and "X".


On the other hand, it's all just having a little fun with the alphabet :smile:
_________________
Mark Yorsaner '78

Thank goodness for Howe and Strauss...the only ones who don't dump me in the Britney Spears and Barney the Dinosaur Generation

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mark Y on 2002-08-05 18:31 ]</font>

On 2002-08-05 17:06, Number Two wrote:

On 2002-08-05 10:44, Mark Y wrote:

On 2002-08-04 21:25, Number Two wrote:

On 2002-08-03 12:30, Mark Y wrote:

On 2002-08-02 23:50, Number Two wrote:
More fun: how about doing generations (and cusps) purely by birthrates? here we get

pre-1940: silent (lowered rates)
1940 - 1945: silent/boom cusp (rates go up, then down; stagnating)
1946 - 1957: baby BOOM (nuff said :smile
1958 - 1964: stagnation (the beginning of Anthony's bust - rates fall but births stay above 4 million)
1965 - 197x: Generation X/baby bust (you can take the x as either a 5, 6, or
1977 (or 1976, or 1979) - 1984 (or 1986): stagnation at the X/Mill cusp
1985 (or 1987) or later: Millies

What's surprising is just how well this lines up with the archetypal generational boundaries (although Justin '79 and Mark Y might disagree here...)

I'm in fairly good agrement with your dates...in fact, for the most part, they are virtually on the money.

Pre-1940 Silent
1940-45 Boom Leaders
1946-56 Generation "W"
1957-63 Generation Jones
1964-74 Generation "X"
1975-81 Net Gen
1982-?? Generation "Y"

we pretty much agree until around 1980; each year after that it seems like our estimates are further and further off tho...

Yeah, we're off by a few years...but the rest we seem to agree on.

if we align our years together we get the following:

Pure Silent
we both agree: pre-1940

Silent/Boom cuspites (Mark calls them "Boom Leaders"):
Mark says 40-45; I say 40-46 (and say that up till 44 or so, this group is significantly silent than boom)

Boom/"W"
Mark says 46-56; I say 47-57 (again, only a 1-year difference)

Jones
Mark says 57-63; I say 58-64; - still really close together

"X"
Mark says 64-74; I say 64-76 (here we begin to diverge)

my "Y"/mark's "Net Gen"
Mark says 75-81; I say 77-85 (marking the end with the class of 2003; now we're four years off)

Millies/mark's "Y"
Mark says 82-92; I say 86 - (at least 1996)

Millie/"Z" cuspites
Mark says 93-98; I say (at least 1997) - (at least 2002)

"Z"
Mark says 99-; I say it hasn't begun yet

The later ones I left in parentheses because I believe we're still in a 3T (and therefore can't tell) - notice how our numbers start out within one year of each other until the 70s and then start radically diverging :smile: (at least to the perspective of someone born in 84)

Well, your Generation "X" is pretty close to the mainstream "X"...but I'm curious to why you think a 1976 cohort should be in the same group as a 1970 cohort because their "coming-of-age" events are much different. 1973, 1974? Yes, they're "X"...you still had a lousy post-grad economy in the mid-90s...if you got those mags in your college mailbox like Link and stuff like that you get the sense that "X" was prevalent. But I think that the class of 97+ are not as "X" as their predecessors, with 77/78 being a boundary between more "X" than "Y" and the opposite.

I see that our gens do diverge...I guess especially with Generation "Z", the events on 9-11 and whether they mark the 4T affect our dates. To be honest, I don't know if we are in 4T...there is still a major 3T component to our culture, and culture wars are still limping on. The next few months will be critical...I feel that if we enter a double-dip recession (which I don't think will happen) or if we strike Iraq (which is probably more likely), then we are probably in a 4T. If the bulls start running again and college grads once again rush into the interview rooms with their parents demanding six figure salaries and corner offices, then we are still in a 3T. Right now I say it's 50-50.

On 2002-08-05 18:30, Mark Y wrote:
Also, there was an angst that was not felt by earlier boomers when they came of age...my former boss, who was born in 1958, said that her cohort was the beginning of a "lost" generation...disillusioned and with little hope and care...deeper than the deepest "X" years. Compare that to people born just a few years earlier, who were much more idealistic and part of the Vietnam protests and civil rights efforts of the 60s and 70s. So I definitely believe in Generation "Jones", a minor gen in between Generations "W" (for George W. Bush) and "X".

I'm completely with you on what you just said. It's what I have been trying to say for 2 1/2 years. There's a reason why the Jones label has stuck--it fits! Late "Boomers" like myself identify with it more than with Baby Boomer. We were kids during Vietnam and Woodstock. Most of us have little to no memory of JFK. We came to the party after it was already ending--just a few drunken stragglers left and a lot of garbage to try to make sense of.

When I was in high school and college, you could even see the beginnings of the goth movement. It wasn't called that yet, but there were a group of us who wore black and muddy colors and wrote dark poetry and almost idealized depression and angst. There were a lot of cynics among us. There was a feeling of hopelessness and deep disappointment. I knew kids my age who committed suicide.

In many ways I am probably more Xer-ish than other 1958 cohorts. When you get to the cusps, other factors such as age of parents, siblings, and geographical location come into play. My parents were Silents and I was raised in the NYC/NJ area. My mother went to consciousness raising groups in the early 70s and I was a child of divorce. From 8th grade on, I often came home to an empty house and had to cook my own dinner. Some evenings I was alone all night while my mother went out on dates.

As a subgeneration that straddles Boom and X, we are idealistic, but pessimistic (not optimistic, as earlier Boomers are). Early Xers are just as pessimistic, but less idealistic. We cuspers "jones" for the stuff we were promised as children and never got. In a way true Xers were fortunate--they were never promised anything.

I can understand Anthony's viewpoint, and used to agree with him about Gen-X being, as Doug Coupland put it, "the generation born in the late 50s and 1960s," but we're still a little too idealistic to be true Xers. I dislike the term Busters. So Jones is perfect for me.

I don't feel, as some do, that subgenerations like Jones and Y mess up S&H's 4-cycle theory. I believe there are only 4 archetypal generations, and the subgenerations (or transiton zones) straddle adjacent generations. S&H should incorporate this more into their theory.

_________________
We're all created from an act of love, so why is there so much hate?



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Heliotrope on 2002-08-05 19:15 ]</font>

On 2002-08-05 19:11, Heliotrope wrote:

On 2002-08-05 18:30, Mark Y wrote:
Also, there was an angst that was not felt by earlier boomers when they came of age...my former boss, who was born in 1958, said that her cohort was the beginning of a "lost" generation...disillusioned and with little hope and care...deeper than the deepest "X" years. Compare that to people born just a few years earlier, who were much more idealistic and part of the Vietnam protests and civil rights efforts of the 60s and 70s. So I definitely believe in Generation "Jones", a minor gen in between Generations "W" (for George W. Bush) and "X".

I'm completely with you on what you just said. It's what I have been trying to say for 2 1/2 years. There's a reason why the Jones label has stuck--it fits! Late "Boomers" like myself identify with it more than with Baby Boomer. We were kids during Vietnam and Woodstock. Most of us have little to no memory of JFK. We came to the party after it was already ending--just a few drunken stragglers left and a lot of garbage to try to make sense of.

When I was in high school and college, you could even see the beginnings of the goth movement. It wasn't called that yet, but there were a group of us who wore black and muddy colors and wrote dark poetry and almost idealized depression and angst. There were a lot of cynics among us. There was a feeling of hopelessness and deep disappointment. I knew kids my age who committed suicide.

In many ways I am probably more Xer-ish than other 1958 cohorts. When you get to the cusps, other factors such as age of parents, siblings, and geographical location come into play. My parents were Silents and I was raised in the NYC/NJ area. My mother went to consciousness raising groups in the early 70s and I was a child of divorce. From 8th grade on, I often came home to an empty house and had to cook my own dinner. Some evenings I was alone all night while my mother went out on dates.

As a subgeneration that straddles Boom and X, we are idealistic, but pessimistic (not optimistic, as earlier Boomers are). Early Xers are just as pessimistic, but less idealistic. We cuspers "jones" for the stuff we were promised as children and never got. In a way true Xers were fortunate--they were never promised anything.

I can understand Anthony's viewpoint, and used to agree with him about Gen-X being, as Doug Coupland put it, "the generation born in the late 50s and 1960s," but we're still a little too idealistic to be true Xers. I dislike the term Busters. So Jones is perfect for me.

I don't feel, as some do, that subgenerations like Jones and Y mess up S&H's 4-cycle theory. I believe there are only 4 archetypal generations, and the subgenerations (or transiton zones) straddle adjacent generations. S&H should incorporate this more into their theory.

Perhaps they will. With the Authors all but declaring that we're now 4T, you have to wonder how long it will be before S&H publish "The First Turning: A New Beginning for America, and the World".

On 2002-08-05 19:28, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:

Perhaps they will. With the Authors all but declaring that we're now 4T, you have to wonder how long it will be before S&H publish "The First Turning: A New Beginning for America, and the World".

Huh? Where did S&H hint we're in 4T? Did I miss something? :???:

On 2002-08-05 19:11, Heliotrope wrote:

On 2002-08-05 18:30, Mark Y wrote:
Also, there was an angst that was not felt by earlier boomers when they came of age...my former boss, who was born in 1958, said that her cohort was the beginning of a "lost" generation...disillusioned and with little hope and care...deeper than the deepest "X" years. Compare that to people born just a few years earlier, who were much more idealistic and part of the Vietnam protests and civil rights efforts of the 60s and 70s. So I definitely believe in Generation "Jones", a minor gen in between Generations "W" (for George W. Bush) and "X".

I'm completely with you on what you just said. It's what I have been trying to say for 2 1/2 years. There's a reason why the Jones label has stuck--it fits! Late "Boomers" like myself identify with it more than with Baby Boomer. We were kids during Vietnam and Woodstock. Most of us have little to no memory of JFK. We came to the party after it was already ending--just a few drunken stragglers left and a lot of garbage to try to make sense of.

When I was in high school and college, you could even see the beginnings of the goth movement. It wasn't called that yet, but there were a group of us who wore black and muddy colors and wrote dark poetry and almost idealized depression and angst. There were a lot of cynics among us. There was a feeling of hopelessness and deep disappointment. I knew kids my age who committed suicide.

In many ways I am probably more Xer-ish than other 1958 cohorts. When you get to the cusps, other factors such as age of parents, siblings, and geographical location come into play. My parents were Silents and I was raised in the NYC/NJ area. My mother went to consciousness raising groups in the early 70s and I was a child of divorce. From 8th grade on, I often came home to an empty house and had to cook my own dinner. Some evenings I was alone all night while my mother went out on dates.

As a subgeneration that straddles Boom and X, we are idealistic, but pessimistic (not optimistic, as earlier Boomers are). Early Xers are just as pessimistic, but less idealistic. We cuspers "jones" for the stuff we were promised as children and never got. In a way true Xers were fortunate--they were never promised anything.

I can understand Anthony's viewpoint, and used to agree with him about Gen-X being, as Doug Coupland put it, "the generation born in the late 50s and 1960s," but we're still a little too idealistic to be true Xers. I dislike the term Busters. So Jones is perfect for me.

I don't feel, as some do, that subgenerations like Jones and Y mess up S&H's 4-cycle theory. I believe there are only 4 archetypal generations, and the subgenerations (or transiton zones) straddle adjacent generations. S&H should incorporate this more into their theory.

_________________
We're all created from an act of love, so why is there so much hate?



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Heliotrope on 2002-08-05 19:15 ]</font>

Right...there have to be subgens. You can't tell me that people born December 31, 1964 (or 1960) tend to be idealistic and optimistic while people born born January 1, 1965 (or 1961) are generally disillusioned and apathetic...there has to be a transition, and these subgens are meant to fill in the gaps.

By the way, a while back, did someone mention that S&H once say that upon further review, there may actually be a subgen in between Gens "X" and "Y"/Milie?

On 2002-08-05 19:32, Kiff '61 wrote:

On 2002-08-05 19:28, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:

Perhaps they will. With the Authors all but declaring that we're now 4T, you have to wonder how long it will be before S&H publish "The First Turning: A New Beginning for America, and the World".

Huh? Where did S&H hint we're in 4T? Did I miss something? :???:

No, you didn't. They haven't told us what turning they think we're in yet. They're probably watching our reactions to make a determination. We're their guinea pigs. :smile:

Mr. Yorsaner responds,
"Well, I personally feel that the Boom that we all know and love ends in the mid 50s...the coming of age events for those who were born before and after are completely different. The draft ended in 1973, so being born before the boundary pretty much put you in drafting age."

First of all, does the same reasoning hold true for say, the Lost Generation? How many of there 1883-1889 cohort members do you think were drafted into the "War to end all wars"?

But let's jump ahead to the Silent generation: By your own stated reasoning, there should be a generational dividing line when the Korean War ended in 1953. Veterans included those born from 1925 to 1932 (including many GI's).

Furthermore, by your reasoning, many of your "Pre-1940 Silent" were present and accounted for, as 25 year-old draftees, when the shooting started in Vietnam started in 64/65.

And no, by this same reasoning, your 1946-56 Generation "W" doesn't hold up. I ('56), like every 18 year-old until 1979 (I think) were required to get a draft card, but I can assure you that turning 18 in 1974 prempted any fear of being drafted.

So, it's back to the generational boundary drawing board, son.

Have fun! :smile:

On 2002-08-05 19:36, Heliotrope wrote:

On 2002-08-05 19:32, Kiff '61 wrote:

On 2002-08-05 19:28, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:

Perhaps they will. With the Authors all but declaring that we're now 4T, you have to wonder how long it will be before S&H publish "The First Turning: A New Beginning for America, and the World".

Huh? Where did S&H hint we're in 4T? Did I miss something? :???:

No, you didn't. They haven't told us what turning they think we're in yet. They're probably watching our reactions to make a determination. We're their guinea pigs. :smile:

Okay. I guess now I'm wondering why Kevin thinks that S&H have "all but declared" we're in 4T. Kevin?

"They're probably watching our reactions to make a determination. We're their guinea pigs."

<FONT SIZE="-15">If this is the case, it high time to implement my divergency plan that is sure to throw them off my scent.</FONT>


Yes, Ms. Susan, I quite agree with Mr. Parker on the 4T thing. Yup, we've surely have turned alright, I knew it the moment those planes hit! I mean E2K hit, well actually it was the Nasdaq Crash that did it for me. Or was it Y2K? Monicagate? Clinton's Impeachment?

No! It was Enron, that's right, those damn greedy, filthy rich Republicans in Congress making our grandparents eat dog food! Dang it all!

Yup, 4T's here alright, no doubt about that! :smile:




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-08-05 20:16 ]</font>

On 2002-08-05 19:37, Marc Lamb wrote:


Mr. Yorsaner responds,
"Well, I personally feel that the Boom that we all know and love ends in the mid 50s...the coming of age events for those who were born before and after are completely different. The draft ended in 1973, so being born before the boundary pretty much put you in drafting age."

First of all, does the same reasoning hold true for say, the Lost Generation? How many of there 1883-1889 cohort members do you think were drafted into the "War to end all wars"?

But let's jump ahead to the Silent generation: By your own stated reasoning, there should be a generational dividing line when the Korean War ended in 1953. Veterans included those born from 1925 to 1932 (including many GI's).

Furthermore, by your reasoning, many of your "Pre-1940 Silent" were present and accounted for, as 25 year-old draftees, when the shooting started in Vietnam started in 64/65.

And no, by this same reasoning, your 1946-56 Generation "W" doesn't hold up. I ('56), like every 18 year-old until 1979 (I think) were required to get a draft card, but I can assure you that turning 18 in 1974 prempted any fear of being drafted.

So, it's back to the generational boundary drawing board, son.

Have fun! :smile:

These are the gens I have posted in June on this forum. Note that main Gens are given a letter (except Silent) and subgens are given names.

Gen DOB Defining Event when coming of age
Generation "Y" 1982- "9-11"
Net-Gen 1975-81 Internet Revolution
Generation "X" 1964-74 Reaganism, Gulf War, recession,
Generation Jones 1957-63 Watergate, cynicism
Generation "W" (For G. W. Bush) 1946-56 Sixties movement, Civil Rights, Vietnam
Boom Leaders 1940-45 Little Rock, Sputnik, End of Innocence
Silent Gen 1931-39 Trumanism and Eisenhowerism, The High, Levittown Rebel Without a Cause
Post War 1926-30 End of WWII, Optimism Abounds
Generation "V" (for Victory) 1916-25 European Conflict, WWII
Depression 1910-15 Great Depression
Generation "U" (for Unemployment) 1900-09 Roaring Twenties
Great War 1894-99 WWI
Generation "T" (for Turn of the Century or Teddy Roosevelt) 1882-93 First years of
20th Century, Optimism, Speak Softly
Imperialistic 1875-81 Spanish-American War, Imperialism
Generation "S" (for Strike) 1862-74 Labor Unions, Haymarket incident
Gilded 1855-61 Gilded Age
Generation "R" (For Rebels and Reconstruction) 1843-54 Civil War, Reconstruction)

Well, I think regarding the Lost Gen (corresponding to Generations "T" and Great War), I think I did pretty well in terms of drafting age...the oldest member of Generation "T" would be 35 at the onset of WWI in the US, which is a good measuring stick in terms of who gets drafted and not, and the youngest member of the Great War Gen would be 19 at the conclusion of the War...the draft age was 18 even then (http://www.wabash.edu/orgs/sphinx/WWI.htm).

I agree that there were probably a lot of Silents who went to Vietnam...but since the people who fought tended to be younger than in most wars, it is likely that the vast majority of those were born during or after 1940, the beginning of the Boom Leaders...when the war escalated starting in 1965, you're talking about 25 year olds, which was OLD for Vietnam.

Since the Korean War was a relatively minor war, that is not included.

Keep in mind that my boundaries reflect "coming-of-age" events...not necessarily events that exclusively affected members of those cohorts.

On 2002-08-05 19:06, Mark Y wrote:

On 2002-08-05 17:06, Number Two wrote:

On 2002-08-05 10:44, Mark Y wrote:

On 2002-08-04 21:25, Number Two wrote:

On 2002-08-03 12:30, Mark Y wrote:

On 2002-08-02 23:50, Number Two wrote:
More fun: how about doing generations (and cusps) purely by birthrates? here we get

pre-1940: silent (lowered rates)
1940 - 1945: silent/boom cusp (rates go up, then down; stagnating)
1946 - 1957: baby BOOM (nuff said :smile
1958 - 1964: stagnation (the beginning of Anthony's bust - rates fall but births stay above 4 million)
1965 - 197x: Generation X/baby bust (you can take the x as either a 5, 6, or
1977 (or 1976, or 1979) - 1984 (or 1986): stagnation at the X/Mill cusp
1985 (or 1987) or later: Millies

What's surprising is just how well this lines up with the archetypal generational boundaries (although Justin '79 and Mark Y might disagree here...)

I'm in fairly good agrement with your dates...in fact, for the most part, they are virtually on the money.

Pre-1940 Silent
1940-45 Boom Leaders
1946-56 Generation "W"
1957-63 Generation Jones
1964-74 Generation "X"
1975-81 Net Gen
1982-?? Generation "Y"

we pretty much agree until around 1980; each year after that it seems like our estimates are further and further off tho...

Yeah, we're off by a few years...but the rest we seem to agree on.

if we align our years together we get the following:

Pure Silent
we both agree: pre-1940

Silent/Boom cuspites (Mark calls them "Boom Leaders"):
Mark says 40-45; I say 40-46 (and say that up till 44 or so, this group is significantly silent than boom)

Boom/"W"
Mark says 46-56; I say 47-57 (again, only a 1-year difference)

Jones
Mark says 57-63; I say 58-64; - still really close together

"X"
Mark says 64-74; I say 64-76 (here we begin to diverge)

my "Y"/mark's "Net Gen"
Mark says 75-81; I say 77-85 (marking the end with the class of 2003; now we're four years off)

Millies/mark's "Y"
Mark says 82-92; I say 86 - (at least 1996)

Millie/"Z" cuspites
Mark says 93-98; I say (at least 1997) - (at least 2002)

"Z"
Mark says 99-; I say it hasn't begun yet

The later ones I left in parentheses because I believe we're still in a 3T (and therefore can't tell) - notice how our numbers start out within one year of each other until the 70s and then start radically diverging :smile: (at least to the perspective of someone born in 84)

Well, your Generation "X" is pretty close to the mainstream "X"...but I'm curious to why you think a 1976 cohort should be in the same group as a 1970 cohort because their "coming-of-age" events are much different. 1973, 1974?

Because I don't do generations by "coming of age" events :smile:

The end of "X" was the hardest boundary line for me to draw here... in the end I drew it by asking myself the question, "What is the earliest possible birthyear in which someone might reasonably consider Generation X to *NOT* be their generation?" - I got 1977 here - and subtracting 1

(the media often uses 1977 as the start date for "Y"; Mensa uses 1985 as the end date for "X" as seen in http://tallahassee.us.mensa.org/newsletter.htm) - that is why those are the boundaries I use for the bridge gen

Yes, they're "X"...you still had a lousy post-grad economy in the mid-90s...if you got those mags in your college mailbox like Link and stuff like that you get the sense that "X" was prevalent. But I think that the class of 97+ are not as "X" as their predecessors, with 77/78 being a boundary between more "X" than "Y" and the opposite.

That's been your big point all along... and here is where we disagree (boy, it's soooo easy for me to get a job now :smile

I see that our gens do diverge...I guess especially with Generation "Z", the events on 9-11 and whether they mark the 4T affect our dates. To be honest, I don't know if we are in 4T...there is still a major 3T component to our culture, and culture wars are still limping on. The next few months will be critical...I feel that if we enter a double-dip recession (which I don't think will happen) or if we strike Iraq (which is probably more likely), then we are probably in a 4T. If the bulls start running again and college grads once again rush into the interview rooms with their parents demanding six figure salaries and corner offices, then we are still in a 3T. Right now I say it's 50-50.

The divergence between our gens is pretty much the expected difference between 18-year gens and 20 (or 21)-year gens: we end up with the following chart here

Generational Boundary Difference (yrs)
End of Silent 0
Beginning of Boom 1
End of Boom 1
Beginning of "X" 1/2
End of "X" 2
Beginning of "Y"/Millies 4
End of "Y"/Millies >=4
Beginning of "Z" >=4

the two years per gen add up little by little; add a couple more gens and we'll be 10 years (a whole "lettered" or bridge gen) or more apart

On 2002-08-05 19:41, Kiff '61 wrote:

On 2002-08-05 19:36, Heliotrope wrote:

On 2002-08-05 19:32, Kiff '61 wrote:

On 2002-08-05 19:28, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:

Perhaps they will. With the Authors all but declaring that we're now 4T, you have to wonder how long it will be before S&H publish "The First Turning: A New Beginning for America, and the World".

Huh? Where did S&H hint we're in 4T? Did I miss something? :???:

No, you didn't. They haven't told us what turning they think we're in yet. They're probably watching our reactions to make a determination. We're their guinea pigs. :smile:

Okay. I guess now I'm wondering why Kevin thinks that S&H have "all but declared" we're in 4T. Kevin?

http://www.lifecourse.com/generations (I THINK this is the URL for the S&H blog) is what he was referring to

[/quote]
http://www.lifecourse.com/generations (I THINK this is the URL for the S&H blog) is what he was referring to
[/quote]



So this is where S&H are posting their comments, found articles and generational references now?

Some comments.

First, these dates are obviously in flux. While they make good approximations it seems irrational to see things as changing so rapidly as to separate one year from another.

Second, it is interesting that most members on this particular board locate themselves as the first of a new trend (Mark Yorsaner, Heliotrope) or the last of an old trend (Chet, Number Two).

Third, as to the question of Fourth Turning, New York City is currently having a cultural moment, not one of crisis. All of the arts of the young generation (whoever they are) are flourishing in a very press worthy way.
I agree that the still air, of say 1991, is gone, but the world still seems to be racing irrationaly forward, propelled by Internet connections, and mobile phones. I am not exactly sure how this fits into the Fourth Turning paradigm, but it fails to really seem "crisis-esque."

Fourth, if I had to play math, I would start Generation Y, or the current rising youth generation, as starting in 1972-73 and continuing up until about 1980-81. This assessment was all done through personal observation as well as attention to media and the way people are portrayed and whom they associate with.

Fifth, there is a whole other young generation born in the 1980s and 90s, which seems rather militant and global. Not angry, but enough cases of 16 year old girls hitting Prince Charles witha flower to protest the Afghan War, or a 21 year old being taken into American hands while fighting for the Taliban. They are distinguishing themselves.

Sixth, I highly doubt if William Strauss and Neil Howe will change their boundaries at all. From this perspective and from articles that they've given interviews in, they have said that the army should in fact, bypass the leftover Nomads (the 1980, 81 cohorts) and go straight for the rising Hero generation. Given that they also have children this age, and the 1981 cohort hasn't exactly distinguished itself (John Walker Lindh, Columbine, etc.) they will find ample evidence to reinforce their border.

Seventh and final, be careful with your comparisons. It looks like there have only been two Hero generations to look at, the GIs and Thomas Jefferson's. Also be careful when generalizing to foreign nations you know nothing about.

On 2002-08-05 23:04, Number Two wrote:

On 2002-08-05 19:41, Kiff '61 wrote:

On 2002-08-05 19:36, Heliotrope wrote:

On 2002-08-05 19:32, Kiff '61 wrote:

On 2002-08-05 19:28, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:

Perhaps they will. With the Authors all but declaring that we're now 4T, you have to wonder how long it will be before S&H publish "The First Turning: A New Beginning for America, and the World".

Huh? Where did S&H hint we're in 4T? Did I miss something? :???:

No, you didn't. They haven't told us what turning they think we're in yet. They're probably watching our reactions to make a determination. We're their guinea pigs. :smile:

Okay. I guess now I'm wondering why Kevin thinks that S&H have "all but declared" we're in 4T. Kevin?

http://www.lifecourse.com/generations (I THINK this is the URL for the S&H blog) is what he was referring to

They didn't declare it a 4T...
They said that it was either a 4T or that it was a temporary foreshadow for the real crisis. That article has a little checklist-type thing that is supposed to help tell what turning we are in.

On 2002-08-06 04:44, Chis wrote:
Some comments.

First, these dates are obviously in flux. While they make good approximations it seems irrational to see things as changing so rapidly as to separate one year from another.

Agreed.

Second, it is interesting that most members on this particular board locate themselves as the first of a new trend (Mark Yorsaner, Heliotrope) or the last of an old trend (Chet, Number Two).

I'm right in the middle of Xers

Third, as to the question of Fourth Turning, New York City is currently having a cultural moment, not one of crisis. All of the arts of the young generation (whoever they are) are flourishing in a very press worthy way.
I agree that the still air, of say 1991, is gone, but the world still seems to be racing irrationaly forward, propelled by Internet connections, and mobile phones. I am not exactly sure how this fits into the Fourth Turning paradigm, but it fails to really seem "crisis-esque."

It takes a while. Yes, everything is different now, but it will become more different in the future, and less like the stale 90s. The war on Iraq seems imminent now.

Fourth, if I had to play math, I would start Generation Y, or the current rising youth generation, as starting in 1972-73 and continuing up until about 1980-81. This assessment was all done through personal observation as well as attention to media and the way people are portrayed and whom they associate with.

That's not Gen Y. That's 2nd wave Gen X. They're called the Nintendo wave by S&H. I had a term for them, but I forget it, I call the 1st wave Gen X the Slacker wave.

Gen Y or "Gen Next" more accurately refers to the first wave of the new Civic gen. We've been calling that gen the Millies (or the Homelanders).

Some consider "Gen Y" to refer more to the so-called "bridge" gen between X and Millie, much as Jones is the bridge between Boom and X. I personally consider Jones to be 2nd wave Boom.

Fifth, there is a whole other young generation born in the 1980s and 90s, which seems rather militant and global. Not angry, but enough cases of 16 year old girls hitting Prince Charles witha flower to protest the Afghan War, or a 21 year old being taken into American hands while fighting for the Taliban. They are distinguishing themselves.

Yes, these are our young Heroes. You're trying to split the gens into 10-year intervals. This does work, and you can find big differences between "half-gens". I named them all in another thread. In order, I called them Prophet-Moses, Prohpet-Aaron, Nomad-Cynic, Nomad-Nihilist, Hero-Sergeant, Hero-Private, Artist-Compromise, Artist-Party.

Your 1972-1981 gen is the Nomad-Nihilist, and your 1981-1990 gen is the Hero-Sergeants.

S&H themselves came up with the 1st-wave/2nd-wave concept. But the point they make clear is that the waves themselves are less important than the larger gens. Cynics and Nihlists are almost the same, in the grand scale. Sergeants and Privates are almost the same.

Yes, the differences are evident, but they are not new generations. As a late Cynic, I interact with Nihilists all the time, and I find them very similar in perspective on the world. Hero-Sergeants (Gen Y) seem alien to me, as does the Prophet-Moses gen (Jones) behind me.

Sixth, I highly doubt if William Strauss and Neil Howe will change their boundaries at all. From this perspective and from articles that they've given interviews in, they have said that the army should in fact, bypass the leftover Nomads (the 1980, 81 cohorts) and go straight for the rising Hero generation. Given that they also have children this age, and the 1981 cohort hasn't exactly distinguished itself (John Walker Lindh, Columbine, etc.) they will find ample evidence to reinforce their border.

I think S&H have done very well in allowing new evidence to move any boundaries. Their first and 2nd books have some significant date changes.

Seventh and final, be careful with your comparisons. It looks like there have only been two Hero generations to look at, the GIs and Thomas Jefferson's. Also be careful when generalizing to foreign nations you know nothing about.

Didn't S&H go back quite far into European history? I thought they had England mapped out since 1400 or so.

On 2002-08-05 20:01, Mark Y wrote:

On 2002-08-05 19:37, Marc Lamb wrote:


Mr. Yorsaner responds,
"Well, I personally feel that the Boom that we all know and love ends in the mid 50s...the coming of age events for those who were born before and after are completely different. The draft ended in 1973, so being born before the boundary pretty much put you in drafting age."

First of all, does the same reasoning hold true for say, the Lost Generation? How many of there 1883-1889 cohort members do you think were drafted into the "War to end all wars"?

But let's jump ahead to the Silent generation: By your own stated reasoning, there should be a generational dividing line when the Korean War ended in 1953. Veterans included those born from 1925 to 1932 (including many GI's).

Furthermore, by your reasoning, many of your "Pre-1940 Silent" were present and accounted for, as 25 year-old draftees, when the shooting started in Vietnam started in 64/65.

And no, by this same reasoning, your 1946-56 Generation "W" doesn't hold up. I ('56), like every 18 year-old until 1979 (I think) were required to get a draft card, but I can assure you that turning 18 in 1974 prempted any fear of being drafted.

So, it's back to the generational boundary drawing board, son.

Have fun! :smile:

These are the gens I have posted in June on this forum. Note that main Gens are given a letter (except Silent) and subgens are given names.

Gen DOB Defining Event when coming of age
Generation "Y" 1982- "9-11"

S&H Heroes

Net-Gen 1975-81 Internet Revolution
Generation "X" 1964-74 Reaganism, Gulf War, recession,

S&H Nomads

Generation Jones 1957-63 Watergate, cynicism
Generation "W" (For G. W. Bush) 1946-56 Sixties movement, Civil Rights, Vietnam

S&H Prophets

Boom Leaders 1940-45 Little Rock, Sputnik, End of Innocence
Silent Gen 1931-39 Trumanism and Eisenhowerism, The High, Levittown Rebel Without a Cause

S&H Artists

Post War 1926-30 End of WWII, Optimism Abounds
Generation "V" (for Victory) 1916-25 European Conflict, WWII

S&H Heroes

Depression 1910-15 Great Depression
Generation "U" (for Unemployment) 1900-09

*HERE* is where your gens fall off the 4-gen cycle... this is clearly a whole gen in between Heroes and Nomads

Roaring Twenties
Great War 1894-99 WWI
Generation "T" (for Turn of the Century or Teddy Roosevelt) 1882-93 First years of
20th Century, Optimism, Speak Softly

S&H Nomads

Imperialistic 1875-81 Spanish-American War, Imperialism
Generation "S" (for Strike) 1862-74 Labor Unions, Haymarket incident

S&H Prophets

Gilded 1855-61 Gilded Age
Generation "R" (For Rebels and Reconstruction) 1843-54 Civil War, Reconstruction)

S&H Artist

Well, I think regarding the Lost Gen (corresponding to Generations "T" and Great War), I think I did pretty well in terms of drafting age...the oldest member of Generation "T" would be 35 at the onset of WWI in the US, which is a good measuring stick in terms of who gets drafted and not, and the youngest member of the Great War Gen would be 19 at the conclusion of the War...the draft age was 18 even then (http://www.wabash.edu/orgs/sphinx/WWI.htm).

I agree that there were probably a lot of Silents who went to Vietnam...but since the people who fought tended to be younger than in most wars, it is likely that the vast majority of those were born during or after 1940, the beginning of the Boom Leaders...when the war escalated starting in 1965, you're talking about 25 year olds, which was OLD for Vietnam.

Since the Korean War was a relatively minor war, that is not included.

Keep in mind that my boundaries reflect "coming-of-age" events...not necessarily events that exclusively affected members of those cohorts.

based on this model... it seems that you place a *REALLY* large gap between Heroes and Nomads in one cycle and only a 7 year gap in another

On 2002-08-05 23:03, Number Two wrote:

On 2002-08-05 19:06, Mark Y wrote:

On 2002-08-05 17:06, Number Two wrote:

On 2002-08-05 10:44, Mark Y wrote:

On 2002-08-04 21:25, Number Two wrote:

On 2002-08-03 12:30, Mark Y wrote:

On 2002-08-02 23:50, Number Two wrote:
More fun: how about doing generations (and cusps) purely by birthrates? here we get

pre-1940: silent (lowered rates)
1940 - 1945: silent/boom cusp (rates go up, then down; stagnating)
1946 - 1957: baby BOOM (nuff said :smile
1958 - 1964: stagnation (the beginning of Anthony's bust - rates fall but births stay above 4 million)
1965 - 197x: Generation X/baby bust (you can take the x as either a 5, 6, or
1977 (or 1976, or 1979) - 1984 (or 1986): stagnation at the X/Mill cusp
1985 (or 1987) or later: Millies

What's surprising is just how well this lines up with the archetypal generational boundaries (although Justin '79 and Mark Y might disagree here...)

I'm in fairly good agrement with your dates...in fact, for the most part, they are virtually on the money.

Pre-1940 Silent
1940-45 Boom Leaders
1946-56 Generation "W"
1957-63 Generation Jones
1964-74 Generation "X"
1975-81 Net Gen
1982-?? Generation "Y"

we pretty much agree until around 1980; each year after that it seems like our estimates are further and further off tho...

Yeah, we're off by a few years...but the rest we seem to agree on.

if we align our years together we get the following:

Pure Silent
we both agree: pre-1940

Silent/Boom cuspites (Mark calls them "Boom Leaders"):
Mark says 40-45; I say 40-46 (and say that up till 44 or so, this group is significantly silent than boom)

Boom/"W"
Mark says 46-56; I say 47-57 (again, only a 1-year difference)

Jones
Mark says 57-63; I say 58-64; - still really close together

"X"
Mark says 64-74; I say 64-76 (here we begin to diverge)

my "Y"/mark's "Net Gen"
Mark says 75-81; I say 77-85 (marking the end with the class of 2003; now we're four years off)

Millies/mark's "Y"
Mark says 82-92; I say 86 - (at least 1996)

Millie/"Z" cuspites
Mark says 93-98; I say (at least 1997) - (at least 2002)

"Z"
Mark says 99-; I say it hasn't begun yet

The later ones I left in parentheses because I believe we're still in a 3T (and therefore can't tell) - notice how our numbers start out within one year of each other until the 70s and then start radically diverging :smile: (at least to the perspective of someone born in 84)

Well, your Generation "X" is pretty close to the mainstream "X"...but I'm curious to why you think a 1976 cohort should be in the same group as a 1970 cohort because their "coming-of-age" events are much different. 1973, 1974?

Because I don't do generations by "coming of age" events :smile:

The end of "X" was the hardest boundary line for me to draw here... in the end I drew it by asking myself the question, "What is the earliest possible birthyear in which someone might reasonably consider Generation X to *NOT* be their generation?" - I got 1977 here - and subtracting 1

(the media often uses 1977 as the start date for "Y"; Mensa uses 1985 as the end date for "X" as seen in http://tallahassee.us.mensa.org/newsletter.htm) - that is why those are the boundaries I use for the bridge gen

Yes, they're "X"...you still had a lousy post-grad economy in the mid-90s...if you got those mags in your college mailbox like Link and stuff like that you get the sense that "X" was prevalent. But I think that the class of 97+ are not as "X" as their predecessors, with 77/78 being a boundary between more "X" than "Y" and the opposite.

That's been your big point all along... and here is where we disagree (boy, it's soooo easy for me to get a job now :smile

I see that our gens do diverge...I guess especially with Generation "Z", the events on 9-11 and whether they mark the 4T affect our dates. To be honest, I don't know if we are in 4T...there is still a major 3T component to our culture, and culture wars are still limping on. The next few months will be critical...I feel that if we enter a double-dip recession (which I don't think will happen) or if we strike Iraq (which is probably more likely), then we are probably in a 4T. If the bulls start running again and college grads once again rush into the interview rooms with their parents demanding six figure salaries and corner offices, then we are still in a 3T. Right now I say it's 50-50.

The divergence between our gens is pretty much the expected difference between 18-year gens and 20 (or 21)-year gens: we end up with the following chart here

Generational Boundary Difference (yrs)
End of Silent 0
Beginning of Boom 1
End of Boom 1
Beginning of "X" 1/2
End of "X" 2
Beginning of "Y"/Millies 4
End of "Y"/Millies >=4
Beginning of "Z" >=4

the two years per gen add up little by little; add a couple more gens and we'll be 10 years (a whole "lettered" or bridge gen) or more apart

On 2002-08-06 14:05, Number Two wrote:

On 2002-08-05 20:01, Mark Y wrote:

On 2002-08-05 19:37, Marc Lamb wrote:


Mr. Yorsaner responds,
"Well, I personally feel that the Boom that we all know and love ends in the mid 50s...the coming of age events for those who were born before and after are completely different. The draft ended in 1973, so being born before the boundary pretty much put you in drafting age."

First of all, does the same reasoning hold true for say, the Lost Generation? How many of there 1883-1889 cohort members do you think were drafted into the "War to end all wars"?

But let's jump ahead to the Silent generation: By your own stated reasoning, there should be a generational dividing line when the Korean War ended in 1953. Veterans included those born from 1925 to 1932 (including many GI's).

Furthermore, by your reasoning, many of your "Pre-1940 Silent" were present and accounted for, as 25 year-old draftees, when the shooting started in Vietnam started in 64/65.

And no, by this same reasoning, your 1946-56 Generation "W" doesn't hold up. I ('56), like every 18 year-old until 1979 (I think) were required to get a draft card, but I can assure you that turning 18 in 1974 prempted any fear of being drafted.

So, it's back to the generational boundary drawing board, son.

Have fun! :smile:

These are the gens I have posted in June on this forum. Note that main Gens are given a letter (except Silent) and subgens are given names.

Gen DOB Defining Event when coming of age
Generation "Y" 1982- "9-11"

S&H Heroes

Net-Gen 1975-81 Internet Revolution
Generation "X" 1964-74 Reaganism, Gulf War, recession,

S&H Nomads

Generation Jones 1957-63 Watergate, cynicism
Generation "W" (For G. W. Bush) 1946-56 Sixties movement, Civil Rights, Vietnam

S&H Prophets

Boom Leaders 1940-45 Little Rock, Sputnik, End of Innocence
Silent Gen 1931-39 Trumanism and Eisenhowerism, The High, Levittown Rebel Without a Cause

S&H Artists

Post War 1926-30 End of WWII, Optimism Abounds
Generation "V" (for Victory) 1916-25 European Conflict, WWII

S&H Heroes

Depression 1910-15 Great Depression
Generation "U" (for Unemployment) 1900-09

*HERE* is where your gens fall off the 4-gen cycle... this is clearly a whole gen in between Heroes and Nomads

Roaring Twenties
Great War 1894-99 WWI
Generation "T" (for Turn of the Century or Teddy Roosevelt) 1882-93 First years of
20th Century, Optimism, Speak Softly

S&H Nomads

Imperialistic 1875-81 Spanish-American War, Imperialism
Generation "S" (for Strike) 1862-74 Labor Unions, Haymarket incident

S&H Prophets

Gilded 1855-61 Gilded Age
Generation "R" (For Rebels and Reconstruction) 1843-54 Civil War, Reconstruction)

S&H Artist

Well, I think regarding the Lost Gen (corresponding to Generations "T" and Great War), I think I did pretty well in terms of drafting age...the oldest member of Generation "T" would be 35 at the onset of WWI in the US, which is a good measuring stick in terms of who gets drafted and not, and the youngest member of the Great War Gen would be 19 at the conclusion of the War...the draft age was 18 even then (http://www.wabash.edu/orgs/sphinx/WWI.htm).

I agree that there were probably a lot of Silents who went to Vietnam...but since the people who fought tended to be younger than in most wars, it is likely that the vast majority of those were born during or after 1940, the beginning of the Boom Leaders...when the war escalated starting in 1965, you're talking about 25 year olds, which was OLD for Vietnam.

Since the Korean War was a relatively minor war, that is not included.

Keep in mind that my boundaries reflect "coming-of-age" events...not necessarily events that exclusively affected members of those cohorts.

based on this model... it seems that you place a *REALLY* large gap between Heroes and Nomads in one cycle and only a 7 year gap in another

Hey, you forgot all about the Sputnik Generation! Do you realise the fear that traversed American hearts as they listened to Sputnik beeping around the globe? And what about all those 1957 Sputnik babies? How can you leave out the Sputnik babies on your list? :smile: