One more point.

If you are going to refer to a "Net Gen" I would broaden it to include those who were part of the Internet explosion and felt its decline. This would expand beyound the 1975 to 1981 boundaries and probably be extended backward to the late or middle 1960s.
If you think about it, Generation X is the Net Gen.

On 2002-08-05 23:16, cbailey wrote:

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?
[/quote]

Looks like. I did see a thread (or whatever it's called in that set-up) about "Signs of T4T."

What's a "blog" anyway? Is it some kind of weird web anagram I haven't come across before?

On 2002-08-07 03:08, Chis wrote:
One more point.

If you are going to refer to a "Net Gen" I would broaden it to include those who were part of the Internet explosion and felt its decline. This would expand beyound the 1975 to 1981 boundaries and probably be extended backward to the late or middle 1960s.
If you think about it, Generation X is the Net Gen.

I kinda agree with you, but I'm referring to people who first experienced the Internet before College graduation.

I think that the X/Millie Cusp on the Millie side is from 1982-1986
I think second-wavers are 1987-1991
Third Wavers: 1992-1997
Millie/New Silent Cusp on the Millie Side: 1998-2002

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

Hmmm...you have a point there, since I have three 15-16 year gens with Generations "U", "V" and Silent and their corresponding subgens while S & H have a 24 year and an 18 year gen. Perhaps we can introduce a secondary subgen called "Roar" which goes from 1900-06...with their Coming of age event being the Roaring Twenties. Then, a Generation "U" for Unemployment and United from 1907-24, as those people came of age with the Great Depression. and WWII Then, the Generation "V" for Victory subgen from 1925-29, which came of age with the end of WWII. Add the Silent gen from 1930-39 with the coming of age with the Fifties High, and finally the Boom Leaders of the early to mid-40s.

Unfortunately, the fact that Generation "U" is so long and that there has to be a subgen in between "U" and "Silent" makes the Silent Gen start rather late. But this might work.

Note that I have a hard time believing that people born in 1901-06 are in the GI gen...they were in their 20s in the Roaring Twenties...I don't think there were many fortysomethings in combat (except maybe Montgomery Burns on the Simpsons, who is 104 years old and fought in WWII)

On 2002-08-07 15:48, Mark Y wrote:

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

Hmmm...you have a point there, since I have three 15-16 year gens with Generations "U", "V" and Silent and their corresponding subgens while S & H have a 24 year and an 18 year gen.

OMG! Your generations are even shorter than the 18-year people :wink:

Perhaps we can introduce a secondary subgen called "Roar" which goes from 1900-06...with their Coming of age event being the Roaring Twenties. Then, a Generation "U" for Unemployment and United from 1907-24, as those people came of age with the Great Depression. and WWII Then, the Generation "V" for Victory subgen from 1925-29, which came of age with the end of WWII. Add the Silent gen from 1930-39 with the coming of age with the Fifties High, and finally the Boom Leaders of the early to mid-40s.

Unfortunately, the fact that Generation "U" is so long and that there has to be a subgen in between "U" and "Silent" makes the Silent Gen start rather late. But this might work.

Note that I have a hard time believing that people born in 1901-06 are in the GI gen...they were in their 20s in the Roaring Twenties...I don't think there were many fortysomethings in combat (except maybe Montgomery Burns on the Simpsons, who is 104 years old and fought in WWII)

I suppose that might balance things out in your system...

(and anyway, in another episode Burns was revealed to be a 'young private' under the older Abraham Simpson - who himself is only around 80)

Well...if we were to believe the tales he said about him running against Theodore Roosevelt, Abe Simpson is a lot older than 80...but he probably is...he appears about fifty when Homer was a grade-school kid (and he is 34-39 years old, depending on the episode)

On 2002-08-07 15:19, AlexMnWi wrote:
I think that the X/Millie Cusp on the Millie side is from 1982-1986
I think second-wavers are 1987-1991
Third Wavers: 1992-1997
Millie/New Silent Cusp on the Millie Side: 1998-2002

you think that the cusps are bisected approximately in half? here is where I tend to disagree with you... if the gen ending at the cusp is 'dominant' (idealist or civic) they seem to work out that way, but it is my opinion that if the gen ending at a cusp is 'recessive' (adaptive or reactive) it tends to be dominant for most of the cusp due to the alienatory nature of those gens

example: I feel the Silent/Boom cusp is 1940 - 1946 but even 1943 is very strongly Boomer; the 50/50 pt would likely come late in 1944 or even in 1945 (while this range provides leaders for the dominant gen, the majority of the people still follow the example of the recessive gen)

and anyway 86 as a cusp line seems to presuppose the 4-year ES's; not only are many more 5-year than 4-year, but more are 6-year than 4-year!

97|98 seems to be a good place to draw the line IF we are very close to 4T but it could easily be pushed back if we stay in 3T much longer

On 2002-08-07 15:48, Mark Y wrote:


Note that I have a hard time believing that people born in 1901-06 are in the GI gen...they were in their 20s in the Roaring Twenties...I don't think there were many fortysomethings in combat.

There were not many but my late father, born in 1906 was fighting in Italy in WWII in his late 30's as a GI and had many officers that were older. HTH

hey Chet
dude, you were cool even if i thought you should chill sometimes.
I think these people don't know you're not mean but hurting they need to chill more than you.
That's cool tho and i still think we oughta hang out and play some tunes
i saw you like the srtokes and kylie minogue, they rock
it's all good
bye

On 2002-08-07 20:44, Virgil K. Saari wrote:

On 2002-08-07 15:48, Mark Y wrote:


Note that I have a hard time believing that people born in 1901-06 are in the GI gen...they were in their 20s in the Roaring Twenties...I don't think there were many fortysomethings in combat.

There were not many but my late father, born in 1906 was fighting in Italy in WWII in his late 30's as a GI and had many officers that were older. HTH

Well there are always exceptions to the rule...but I doubt there were many 38 year old members in Generation "Roar" fighting in WWII...although my Grandfather born in 1910 (close to the boundary) fought in the Canadian army during the war, so there were probably many others even older. But I think I'll stand pat with my new Generation "U" and its associated subgens.

_________________


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mark Y on 2002-08-07 21:02 ]</font>

On 2002-08-07 15:48, Mark Y wrote:


Note that I have a hard time believing that people born in 1901-06 are in the GI gen...they were in their 20s in the Roaring Twenties...I don't think there were many fortysomethings in combat (except maybe Montgomery Burns on the Simpsons, who is 104 years old and fought in WWII)

No, but remember that many of people born in those years were some of the newer workers at the beginning of the depression and were likely laid off; so many joined relief programs, which also put them with heroes.

On 2002-08-08 09:18, AlexMnWi wrote:

On 2002-08-07 15:48, Mark Y wrote:


Note that I have a hard time believing that people born in 1901-06 are in the GI gen...they were in their 20s in the Roaring Twenties...I don't think there were many fortysomethings in combat (except maybe Montgomery Burns on the Simpsons, who is 104 years old and fought in WWII)

No, but remember that many of people born in those years were some of the newer workers at the beginning of the depression and were likely laid off; so many joined relief programs, which also put them with heroes.

But one must remember that these gens are defined by coming of age events. There were 50, 60 year olds tremendously affected by the Depression...they were also in the WPA. But just because of that does not necessarily mean they're part of Generation "U". The events that define my gens are not exclusive to those particular gens. Hence the separation between the "U"ers and the others.

There were plenty of men born in the first decade of the 20th century who fought in WW2. First, many enlisted, of course. Second, the draft worked very differently in WW2 than in Vietnam; it included men well into their 40s, and there were quotas from different parts of the country that basically forced certain areas to cough up older guys to fill their quota, as it were.

WW2 was a MASSIVE mobilization compared to subsequent wars; it's only rivals in US history being the War for Independence and the Civil War.

On 2002-08-08 10:57, ksaur wrote:
There were plenty of men born in the first decade of the 20th century who fought in WW2. First, many enlisted, of course. Second, the draft worked very differently in WW2 than in Vietnam; it included men well into their 40s, and there were quotas from different parts of the country that basically forced certain areas to cough up older guys to fill their quota, as it were.

WW2 was a MASSIVE mobilization compared to subsequent wars; it's only rivals in US history being the War for Independence and the Civil War.

Yes, there were probably a number of Roarers in WWII. But, ksaur, WWII was NOT a coming of age event for those people. That's the key. Generations "Roar", "U" and "V" make up a generational block...pretty close to the "GI gen". So this does not necessarily discount the contributions of the "Roar" generation in WWII.

I think I should have made myself a bit clearer when I said that the 01-06 crowd is not "GI's". They are part of the generational block GI, but they are not ***CORE*** GI's. I think that those slightly younger make up the core. But the "Roarers" are certainly not Losters (or Generation "T"/Great War using my terminology).

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mark Y on 2002-08-08 11:29 ]</font>

One point.

What about that Tom Hanks character in Saving Private Ryan?

He was certainly from that first decade. Too make it easier on your minds, it checks out that two of the most "GI" leading males, Jimmy Stewart, and Robert Young were both born in the first decade of the 20th Century.

I work in an office where the age range is 1968 to 1980. I really don't see too much of a difference. We are all young, but not "Millennial".

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: chis on 2002-08-09 03:32 ]</font>

on another interesting note...

does anyone else realize just how alike much Anthony/Buster Brown and Will Strutts sound? i mean, both are born around 1960 and each tries to passionately argue that *HE* is just about at the beginning of the Xrs - both even had a profile based on "Whatever" for a time!

Is it really all that obvious or even true that when Anthony, born within 2 1/2 years of the first S&H Generation X birthyear, argues about why he belongs in Generation X/Baby Busters, his arguments are just pathetic Boomer ramblings trying to get into the club, while when Will, born LESS THAN FOUR YEARS LATER, does the EXACT SAME THING (albeit without the 'Busters'), he is easily recognizable (and welcomed) as a true member of the Gen-X club?

I've noticed the obvious similarities between Anthony and Will as well. My take is that both are arguing their positions from a primarily personal emotional position rather than one grounded in general historical facts. What seems to be at least one, probably the main, driving force behind their strong emotions is a hatred of the stereoptypic Baby Boomer-led counterculture of "The Sixties", ie. the long hair on guys, the sex & drugs lifestyles, the percieved left-wing politics, etc. Each seems desperate to not be considered a part of that, nor even influenced by it. Anthony's posts reflect a passionate desire to not be considered part of the same generation as his brother who was born in, if memory serves, somewhere around 1955. His brother apparently lived this stereoptypic counterculture lifestyle, which Anthony detests, and my impression has been that distancing himself from his brother is probably the driving force behind Anthony's approach to his generational identity (I'm not trying to play psychoanalyst, especially about people who I only know through little snippets on a message board--I'm jut giving my offhand impressions which are admittedly based on very limited info). Unfortunately, both Anthony and Will extend their personal feelings to then try to make general claims about people their age, like trying to argue that others their age generally weren't a part of, nor influenced by, "The Sixties", which is of course nonesense. I've seen this before: the strong feelings, either against or for, "The Sixties" by Jonesers and very early Xers. Whether the feelings are for or against, what is striking to me is the strength of the feeling, which goes a long way toward arguing that indeed, the extremely emotionally powerful zeitgiest of the sixties naturally had a major impact on the real children of the sixties, who were, like children are generally, emotionally impressionable.

What also seems to drive both Anthony and Will is a craving to be younger, or at least thought of as younger. Both emphatically, self-consciously use words like "Dude", and "Whatever", both have squeezed themselves inside (at the oldest end, but "hey, we're still a part of") the younger generation.

By letting their own personal feelings, rather than objective scholarship, drive their thinking about generations, they don't let truth get in the way of their ideas-- by ignoring and distorting facts. Both continue to make claims that have been pointed out to them as untue. Anthony's key few arguments for his theories are primarily untrue and frivolous (e.g. he puts tremendous weight on the idea that Doug Coupland defined Gen X as those born in the late fifties and sixties, despite the fact that it has been pointed out to Anthony repeatedly that Doug Coupland has consistently said he was not defining a chronological generation but rather a state of mind with his novel "Generation X", and that Coupland always objected to his publisher puting in the "late fiftties and sixties" reference. Anthony also makes a big deal about the relevance of birth rates, while consistently failing to defend this relevance when challenged on it).

Anthony and Will's personal feelings lead to certain kind of academic blindness and stubborness. Anthony, for example, agrees with the concept of a generation between the Boomers and Xers born from the mid/late 50s to mid/late 60s, ie. Generation Jones (like many of us born around the same time as him, myself included, identify with), but because of his anti-"Sixties" obsession doesn't like the Gen Jones moniker (he posted here once that he "resented" that moniker as "drug-soaked" and therefore "un-American" (?!), even though that moniker in truth has many connotations, none of which really having to do with drugs). So he continues to call Jonesers "Busters", notwithstanding the fact that he has been unable to enlist support for that name, but rather has consistently been criticized and ridiculed for the goofiness and complete unviability of that name. He embarrasses himself by letting his feelings blind himself to common sense and good judgement, as does Will, with his pattern of thinking that just because he happens to hold a certain view that that must mean that others his age do as well. Notwithstanding the relatively "unscientific" nature of the social sciences, we still need to let logic, rationality, and empirical evidence guide us rather than our own personal experiences and feelings.

"I've noticed the obvious similarities between Anthony and Will..." --Anne T.

Boy, that's some post! And an interesting take on how the sixties influence some to swat the truth as one might swat flies.

That the post was written by someone who preaches of the necessities of throwing in the "Joneser" thing in between the Boom and the X makes me wonder whether she wasn't talking mainly to herself, though.

Other than a marketing tool, or perhaps a fun little game, I see no relevance whatsoever to generational boundaries, or to seek this mythical "belonging" to something like a club or social group. This is just plain silliness... and very selfabsorbed baby boomerish if I don't mind saying so. But if one wishes to engage in silliness, well have at it. We cohorts of 1956 are a pretty interesting generation too!

No what Strauss and Howe have done is moved the notion of "what is a generation" into it's most profound and fitting context: History and time. And in that context, to maintain any worth or relevance at all, a generation must be between 18-24 years give or atke a few here and there.

Any thing else is just plain silly, folks. :P

The reasons why subgenerations like Jones or Y make sense, Marc, is because there has to be a transitional period from one archetypcal generation into another. Most people born from 1957 or so to 1965 or so don't and can't identify fully with either Boomers or Xers, so there has to be something in between to cover the hybrids. Generation Y serves the same purpose--a subgeneration that overlays (not replaces) the end of X and the beginning of Millennials. Most people born between 1978 or 79 and 1982 or 1983 are neither fully Millennials or fully Xer. Like Jonesers, they are hybrids.

So there is no way that taking into account transition zones or hybrid generations (which are not the actual archetypal generations) would mess up S&H four-cylce theory, only clarify it. If you poopoo the whole idea of transition zones, then you also believe that a person born at 11:30 PM on December 31, 1960 is automatically a Prophet and a person born a half hour later is automatically a Nomad.. Now *that* is really silly.

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

The reasons why subgenerations like Jones or Y make sense, Marc, is because there has to be a transitional period from one archetypcal generation into another. Most people born from 1957 or so to 1965 or so don't and can't identify fully with either Boomers or Xers, so there has to be something in between to cover the hybrids. Generation Y serves the same purpose--a subgeneration that overlays (not replaces) the end of X and the beginning of Millennials. Most people born between 1978 or 79 and 1982 or 1983 are neither fully Millennials or fully Xer. Like Jonesers, they are hybrids.

So there is no way that taking into account transition zones or hybrid generations (which are not the actual archetypal generations) would mess up S&H four-cylce theory, only clarify it. If you poopoo the whole idea of transition zones, then you also believe that a person born at 11:30 PM on December 31, 1960 is automatically a Prophet and a person born a half hour later is automatically a Nomad.. Now *that* is really silly.

that makes sense... is there any reason you made the X/Mill transition zone merely half the size of the Boom/X one tho? (i think 1977 - 1985 would be more analogous to 1957-1965 than 1978/9 - 1982/3)

but I would just like to see what Anthony and Will have to say about all this...

Originally Posted by Number Two

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

The reasons why subgenerations like Jones or Y make sense, Marc, is because there has to be a transitional period from one archetypcal generation into another. Most people born from 1957 or so to 1965 or so don't and can't identify fully with either Boomers or Xers, so there has to be something in between to cover the hybrids. Generation Y serves the same purpose--a subgeneration that overlays (not replaces) the end of X and the beginning of Millennials. Most people born between 1978 or 79 and 1982 or 1983 are neither fully Millennials or fully Xer. Like Jonesers, they are hybrids.

So there is no way that taking into account transition zones or hybrid generations (which are not the actual archetypal generations) would mess up S&H four-cylce theory, only clarify it. If you poopoo the whole idea of transition zones, then you also believe that a person born at 11:30 PM on December 31, 1960 is automatically a Prophet and a person born a half hour later is automatically a Nomad.. Now *that* is really silly.

that makes sense... is there any reason you made the X/Mill transition zone merely half the size of the Boom/X one tho? (i think 1977 - 1985 would be more analogous to 1957-1965 than 1978/9 - 1982/3)

but I would just like to see what Anthony and Will have to say about all this...

No reason, and you are correct. I should have expanded Y to include 1977 and go up to at least 1984 or 85.

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Originally Posted by Number Two

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

The reasons why subgenerations like Jones or Y make sense, Marc, is because there has to be a transitional period from one archetypcal generation into another. Most people born from 1957 or so to 1965 or so don't and can't identify fully with either Boomers or Xers, so there has to be something in between to cover the hybrids. Generation Y serves the same purpose--a subgeneration that overlays (not replaces) the end of X and the beginning of Millennials. Most people born between 1978 or 79 and 1982 or 1983 are neither fully Millennials or fully Xer. Like Jonesers, they are hybrids.

So there is no way that taking into account transition zones or hybrid generations (which are not the actual archetypal generations) would mess up S&H four-cylce theory, only clarify it. If you poopoo the whole idea of transition zones, then you also believe that a person born at 11:30 PM on December 31, 1960 is automatically a Prophet and a person born a half hour later is automatically a Nomad.. Now *that* is really silly.

that makes sense... is there any reason you made the X/Mill transition zone merely half the size of the Boom/X one tho? (i think 1977 - 1985 would be more analogous to 1957-1965 than 1978/9 - 1982/3)

but I would just like to see what Anthony and Will have to say about all this...

No reason, and you are correct. I should have expanded Y to include 1977 and go up to at least 1984 or 85.

There is no necessity that these cusps be of equal length. The generations themselves are not all of equal length. For example, I think one has to conclude that the Lost/GI cusp spanned 1901-1911 or something very close to it (and obviously I reject a clear 1901 start for GIs...more like 1906 when GI archetypes began to outnumber Lost ones among the births, and also midway through the cusp. This also roughly corresponds to Anthony's Interbellum Generation which of course is intended as another bridge or cusp generation. But this cusp is roughly ten years long. I believe you find an unquestionably shorter cusp between most or all of the other generations. For example, the Silent/Boomer cusp might span 1940-1946. The Boom/X cusp might span 1958-1964 or something close to it. Regardless, these cusps are a lot shorter than that Lost/GI one. So who knows how the X/Millennial cusp might finally turn out? It may even be along the lines of 1978-1983 as you suggested. There is no necessity that all cusps be of equal length any more than all generations need be of equal length.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Originally Posted by Number Two

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

The reasons why subgenerations like Jones or Y make sense, Marc, is because there has to be a transitional period from one archetypcal generation into another. Most people born from 1957 or so to 1965 or so don't and can't identify fully with either Boomers or Xers, so there has to be something in between to cover the hybrids. Generation Y serves the same purpose--a subgeneration that overlays (not replaces) the end of X and the beginning of Millennials. Most people born between 1978 or 79 and 1982 or 1983 are neither fully Millennials or fully Xer. Like Jonesers, they are hybrids.

So there is no way that taking into account transition zones or hybrid generations (which are not the actual archetypal generations) would mess up S&H four-cylce theory, only clarify it. If you poopoo the whole idea of transition zones, then you also believe that a person born at 11:30 PM on December 31, 1960 is automatically a Prophet and a person born a half hour later is automatically a Nomad.. Now *that* is really silly.

that makes sense... is there any reason you made the X/Mill transition zone merely half the size of the Boom/X one tho? (i think 1977 - 1985 would be more analogous to 1957-1965 than 1978/9 - 1982/3)

but I would just like to see what Anthony and Will have to say about all this...

No reason, and you are correct. I should have expanded Y to include 1977 and go up to at least 1984 or 85.

There is no necessity that these cusps be of equal length. The generations themselves are not all of equal length. For example, I think one has to conclude that the Lost/GI cusp spanned 1901-1911 or something very close to it (and obviously I reject a clear 1901 start for GIs...more like 1906 when GI archetypes began to outnumber Lost ones among the births, and also midway through the cusp. This also roughly corresponds to Anthony's Interbellum Generation which of course is intended as another bridge or cusp generation. But this cusp is roughly ten years long. I believe you find an unquestionably shorter cusp between most or all of the other generations. For example, the Silent/Boomer cusp might span 1940-1946. The Boom/X cusp might span 1958-1964 or something close to it. Regardless, these cusps are a lot shorter than that Lost/GI one. So who knows how the X/Millennial cusp might finally turn out? It may even be along the lines of 1978-1983 as you suggested. There is no necessity that all cusps be of equal length any more than all generations need be of equal length.

You make a valid point; I was merely objecting to the notion that the length of the current Nomad/Hero cusp is only about HALF of the current Prophet/Nomad cusp, when, for example, the LONGEST cusp of all the examined cusps is an 11-year Nomad/Hero cusp... I agree that we can't tell much about how the 1985 cohorts will currently end up (altho we might still be able to analyze the 77s at the moment); anyway by making my Boom/X cusp the HS classes of 1976 - 1982 (not counting grade skips/repeats after about age 10) and the X/Mill cusp the HS classes of 1995 - 2003 I do not even make those cusps the same length! :-)

only time will tell tho... i'm pretty sure that this cusp zone will end up more than 5 years long and less than 15 tho ;-)

Originally Posted by Number Two

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Originally Posted by Number Two

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

The reasons why subgenerations like Jones or Y make sense, Marc, is because there has to be a transitional period from one archetypcal generation into another. Most people born from 1957 or so to 1965 or so don't and can't identify fully with either Boomers or Xers, so there has to be something in between to cover the hybrids. Generation Y serves the same purpose--a subgeneration that overlays (not replaces) the end of X and the beginning of Millennials. Most people born between 1978 or 79 and 1982 or 1983 are neither fully Millennials or fully Xer. Like Jonesers, they are hybrids.

So there is no way that taking into account transition zones or hybrid generations (which are not the actual archetypal generations) would mess up S&H four-cylce theory, only clarify it. If you poopoo the whole idea of transition zones, then you also believe that a person born at 11:30 PM on December 31, 1960 is automatically a Prophet and a person born a half hour later is automatically a Nomad.. Now *that* is really silly.

that makes sense... is there any reason you made the X/Mill transition zone merely half the size of the Boom/X one tho? (i think 1977 - 1985 would be more analogous to 1957-1965 than 1978/9 - 1982/3)

but I would just like to see what Anthony and Will have to say about all this...

No reason, and you are correct. I should have expanded Y to include 1977 and go up to at least 1984 or 85.

There is no necessity that these cusps be of equal length. The generations themselves are not all of equal length. For example, I think one has to conclude that the Lost/GI cusp spanned 1901-1911 or something very close to it (and obviously I reject a clear 1901 start for GIs...more like 1906 when GI archetypes began to outnumber Lost ones among the births, and also midway through the cusp. This also roughly corresponds to Anthony's Interbellum Generation which of course is intended as another bridge or cusp generation. But this cusp is roughly ten years long. I believe you find an unquestionably shorter cusp between most or all of the other generations. For example, the Silent/Boomer cusp might span 1940-1946. The Boom/X cusp might span 1958-1964 or something close to it. Regardless, these cusps are a lot shorter than that Lost/GI one. So who knows how the X/Millennial cusp might finally turn out? It may even be along the lines of 1978-1983 as you suggested. There is no necessity that all cusps be of equal length any more than all generations need be of equal length.

You make a valid point; I was merely objecting to the notion that the length of the current Nomad/Hero cusp is only about HALF of the current Prophet/Nomad cusp, when, for example, the LONGEST cusp of all the examined cusps is an 11-year Nomad/Hero cusp... I agree that we can't tell much about how the 1985 cohorts will currently end up (altho we might still be able to analyze the 77s at the moment); anyway by making my Boom/X cusp the HS classes of 1976 - 1982 (not counting grade skips/repeats after about age 10) and the X/Mill cusp the HS classes of 1995 - 2003 I do not even make those cusps the same length! :-)

only time will tell tho... i'm pretty sure that this cusp zone will end up more than 5 years long and less than 15 tho ;-)

I like the way the quotes nest themselves inside each other, the effect is really cool when the original post has been quoted a number of times, as this post here shows.