Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Originally Posted by wrstrutts

Originally Posted by Anne T.

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.

Wow. You guys tend to take this whole thing way too seriously. I mean you talk about giving evidence and I wonder how do you give evidence to a thing like a generation without using analagy, personal experience or hear say. Unless you survey each and every cohort alive and get responses from them, you don't have a statistical basis to evaluate generations. You guys extrapolate what you think so-and-so historical figure must have identified without knowing if you are correct because they are dead. You can come up with some guidelines by studying history but you can't say for certainity what generation George Washington was in.

As far as being emotional, I would remind you that we were raised by the Silent generation who most respected how we felt about things and so we tend to express ourselves emotionally. Whatever.

Will

That's one of the reasons I love your generation so much.

Hey, I've got just the perfect idea! Let's just all talk about our emotions and how we are feeling today! Doesn't that just sound wonderful?

Seriously, zzzzzzzzzzzzz. Why isn't there a sleepy smiley?

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Hey, I've got just the perfect idea! Let's just all talk about our emotions and how we are feeling today! Doesn't that just sound wonderful?

Let's NOT! Leave that to the Boomers and their encounter groups. No doubt Eric Meece will be along directly to share with us. :wink:

But, Stonewall, T4T.com is an encounter group! :-o

I say that only half in jest. I haven't had such good exchanges with such a variety of people since I took a graduate course in group dynamics twenty years ago.

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

But, Stonewall, T4T.com is an encounter group! :-o

I say that only half in jest. I haven't had such good exchanges with such a variety of people since I took a graduate course in group dynamics twenty years ago.

Oh, I was being somewhat facetious! I was just a little surprised that Nomads were being portrayed as "feelers" here. "Feeling" is for Artists and Prophets. Even so, let's all say "ommmmm" over and over again as we await Eric's arrival! [Eric, I am just giving you a hard time but it really is as if you jumped out of 1969.]

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

But, Stonewall, T4T.com is an encounter group! :-o

I say that only half in jest. I haven't had such good exchanges with such a variety of people since I took a graduate course in group dynamics twenty years ago.

Oh, I was being somewhat facetious! I was just a little surprised that Nomads were being portrayed as "feelers" here. "Feeling" is for Artists and Prophets. Even so, let's all say "ommmmm" over and over again as we await Eric's arrival! [Eric, I am just giving you a hard time but it really is as if you jumped out of 1969.]

I think it depends on gender, Stonewall. Xer men, especially last wavers, tend to show their emotions more than other generations (except you, Stonewall!) because they were, as Will, says, raised by their Silent and first wave Boomer mothers to not fear their emotions as much. Like Justin 79, they were given dolls as children to play with and guns and violent toys were discouraged. This was the "Free to Be You and Me" generation.

OTOH, Xer girls were raised the opposite. They were encouraged by their liberated mothers to be independent and tough, and they are.

So because of parenting trends during the 70s, you are going to see more openly displayed emotions among last wave Xer men (and some first wavers and Jonesers), but Xer women (and some Jonesers) come off as less emotional than women of other generations.

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

But, Stonewall, T4T.com is an encounter group! :-o

I say that only half in jest. I haven't had such good exchanges with such a variety of people since I took a graduate course in group dynamics twenty years ago.

Oh, I was being somewhat facetious! I was just a little surprised that Nomads were being portrayed as "feelers" here. "Feeling" is for Artists and Prophets. Even so, let's all say "ommmmm" over and over again as we await Eric's arrival! [Eric, I am just giving you a hard time but it really is as if you jumped out of 1969.]

I think it depends on gender, Stonewall. Xer men, especially last wavers, tend to show their emotions more than other generations (except you, Stonewall!) because they were, as Will, says, raised by their Silent and first wave Boomer mothers to not fear their emotions as much. Like Justin 79, they were given dolls as children to play with and guns and violent toys were discouraged. This was the "Free to Be You and Me" generation.

OTOH, Xer girls were raised the opposite. They were encouraged by their liberated mothers to be independent and tough, and they are.

So because of parenting trends during the 70s, you are going to see more openly displayed emotions among last wave Xer men (and some first wavers and Jonesers), but Xer women (and some Jonesers) come off as less emotional than women of other generations.

I'll admit that my Mom tried to encourage me to play with dolls when i was little. Thank God for my Dad, who said "HELL NO!!!" to that one! NO WAY were these people going to turn his first born son into a you=know=what.

But i digress from my point...it seems what may happen is that all those "sensitive" Joneser, core Xer and Y-cohort guys will end up with either Millie (or even core-Boomer) women who aren't as quick to label guys as wusses just because they aren't hard-case assholes. Meanwhile...hordes of tough, independent, "liberated", (cold, cruel, etc.) Xer women will end up.....ALONE....until kingdom come.

There is something poetically just about that scenario. I wouldn't say that it would be fair....but JUST nevertheless, in a karmic sense.

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

But, Stonewall, T4T.com is an encounter group! :-o

I say that only half in jest. I haven't had such good exchanges with such a variety of people since I took a graduate course in group dynamics twenty years ago.

Oh, I was being somewhat facetious! I was just a little surprised that Nomads were being portrayed as "feelers" here. "Feeling" is for Artists and Prophets. Even so, let's all say "ommmmm" over and over again as we await Eric's arrival! [Eric, I am just giving you a hard time but it really is as if you jumped out of 1969.]

I think it depends on gender, Stonewall. Xer men, especially last wavers, tend to show their emotions more than other generations (except you, Stonewall!) because they were, as Will, says, raised by their Silent and first wave Boomer mothers to not fear their emotions as much. Like Justin 79, they were given dolls as children to play with and guns and violent toys were discouraged. This was the "Free to Be You and Me" generation.

OTOH, Xer girls were raised the opposite. They were encouraged by their liberated mothers to be independent and tough, and they are.

So because of parenting trends during the 70s, you are going to see more openly displayed emotions among last wave Xer men (and some first wavers and Jonesers), but Xer women (and some Jonesers) come off as less emotional than women of other generations.

I think I love you.

Originally Posted by Ryan Stone

I think I love you.

Just what I need--competition!

Originally Posted by Ryan Stone

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

But, Stonewall, T4T.com is an encounter group! :-o

I say that only half in jest. I haven't had such good exchanges with such a variety of people since I took a graduate course in group dynamics twenty years ago.

Oh, I was being somewhat facetious! I was just a little surprised that Nomads were being portrayed as "feelers" here. "Feeling" is for Artists and Prophets. Even so, let's all say "ommmmm" over and over again as we await Eric's arrival! [Eric, I am just giving you a hard time but it really is as if you jumped out of 1969.]

I think it depends on gender, Stonewall. Xer men, especially last wavers, tend to show their emotions more than other generations (except you, Stonewall!) because they were, as Will, says, raised by their Silent and first wave Boomer mothers to not fear their emotions as much. Like Justin 79, they were given dolls as children to play with and guns and violent toys were discouraged. This was the "Free to Be You and Me" generation.

OTOH, Xer girls were raised the opposite. They were encouraged by their liberated mothers to be independent and tough, and they are.

So because of parenting trends during the 70s, you are going to see more openly displayed emotions among last wave Xer men (and some first wavers and Jonesers), but Xer women (and some Jonesers) come off as less emotional than women of other generations.

I think I love you.

Awwww, that's sweet--I'm blushing. :oops:

You too, Pervert (and yes, I finally know who you really are).

Should I set up a booth here and sell kisses for $10 each?
Nah, maybe I'll just give them away for free. You T4T guys all deserve it.

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

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.

"Generations can be separated at exact birth dates by paying attention to what Mar?as defines as the "social cartography" of successive birth cohorts. "In this analogy," he suggested, "each generation would be the area between two mountain chains, and in order to determine whether a certain point belonged to one or the other, it would be necessary to know the relief." Sometimes the watershed is obvious, sometimes subtle. Occasionally, even a split-second can be decisive in binding and separating adjacent generations. In contemporary America, a one-minute delay in birth can mean the difference between kindergarten and first grade six years later. Down the road — depending on the conscription laws — that can mean the difference between gliding through college just ahead of a controversial war, or belonging to a class that feels real pressure from a wartime "draft." A one-minute difference did in fact separate the newborn babies of December 31, 1942, from those of January 1, 1943 — a critical tick of the clock that later helped ignite the fiery college Class of '65 and create a lasting cohort boundary between the Silent and Boomers." --William Strauss and Neil Howe, Generations


Yeah, silly.

This site has died!
:cry:

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

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.

"Generations can be separated at exact birth dates by paying attention to what Mar?as defines as the "social cartography" of successive birth cohorts. "In this analogy," he suggested, "each generation would be the area between two mountain chains, and in order to determine whether a certain point belonged to one or the other, it would be necessary to know the relief." Sometimes the watershed is obvious, sometimes subtle. Occasionally, even a split-second can be decisive in binding and separating adjacent generations. In contemporary America, a one-minute delay in birth can mean the difference between kindergarten and first grade six years later. Down the road ? depending on the conscription laws ? that can mean the difference between gliding through college just ahead of a controversial war, or belonging to a class that feels real pressure from a wartime "draft." A one-minute difference did in fact separate the newborn babies of December 31, 1942, from those of January 1, 1943 ? a critical tick of the clock that later helped ignite the fiery college Class of '65 and create a lasting cohort boundary between the Silent and Boomers." --William Strauss and Neil Howe, Generations


Yeah, silly.

But there are a lot of X-factors (pardon the pun)...geography has a lot to do with it...I don't think that the Class of 1965 (or 66 or 67 or 68 or 69 or 70 etc.) at the University of Mississippi was a "fiery" class, unless you're talking about fiery in terms of preventing blacks from attending, unfortunately. Also you have to remember that in those days, most HS grads didn't even attend college. So most '43ers were already in the workforce for several years before the Sixties Movement began.

However, yes, the 43ers (and 40-45ers) were coming of age when the seeds of the Sixties Movement were being planted...but there is hardly a defining point for these "seeds". Hence I feel that a subgen from 40-45 exists of "Boom Leaders"...those people who more than likely never experienced the full-fledged movement in their schools, but who witnessed the seeds of the movement as they became adults.

i don't know about all the birthyears but as a 77 cohort I feel more X-ish than like a hero, thats for sure. I dont like groups and i hated Boy scouts which my mom tried to put me in, i have never been interested in teamwork or being a player in some company.
All that stuff sucks to me.
In high school i never fit in with the jocks and the cheerleaders and popular kids.
I didn't fit in with the nerds either because i wasnt smart enough
My friends were as scattered and lost as i was.
We were there to comfort ad protect each other when no one else could or would.
I defintly feel like a nomad. That has been the story of my life.
Most boomers think i am some kind of loser and tell me to stop complaining and get a real job.
They tell me i've been pretty fortunate and i guess in a way they are right.
But I don't really understand Millenials at all, they are like aliens to me
I'm not saying anything bad about them, just that we're not on the same waveleingth.
Sometimes i envy them and wish I could be that idealistic but i can't.
So i guess maybe thre's something to all this, I don't know
I just dont like being put in some kind of box

i don't know about all the birthyears but as a 77 cohort I feel more X-ish than like a hero, thats for sure. I dont like groups and i hated Boy scouts which my mom tried to put me in, i have never been interested in teamwork or being a player in some company.
All that stuff sucks to me.
In high school i never fit in with the jocks and the cheerleaders and popular kids.
I didn't fit in with the nerds either because i wasnt smart enough
My friends were as scattered and lost as i was.
We were there to comfort ad protect each other when no one else could or would.
I defintly feel like a nomad. That has been the story of my life.
Most boomers think i am some kind of loser and tell me to stop complaining and get a real job.
They tell me i've been pretty fortunate and i guess in a way they are right.
But I don't really understand Millenials at all, they are like aliens to me
I'm not saying anything bad about them, just that we're not on the same waveleingth.
Sometimes i envy them and wish I could be that idealistic but i can't.
So i guess maybe thre's something to all this, I don't know
I just dont like being put in some kind of box

Originally Posted by Anne T.

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.

So Will's recognition of Xerishness in 1962 cohorts is just feelings without rationality? The only reason he views 1962 cohorts as X-like is because he's Nomadic and just like an Xer himself as opposed to really seeing it in others?

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

This site has died!
:cry:

Susan, it has NOT!!! Look at all the wonderful people that this site continues to bring together as a community! Granted the discussion has become a tad bickerative (a new word?) and/or dull lately, but that's only until a new Crisis-like event stirs up the pot a bit.

Speaking of which, isn't it interesting the reaction of people about the new West Nile/mosquito threat? The news media is putting a concerned, rational face on the problem rather than an Unravelling-style hysterical one. They say "here's a problem, here is what the risks are, how to minimize one's risks.....let's all stay calm, avoid overreacting to this issue and try not to panic....there is nothing to fear except --FEAR ITSELF".

Three years ago it would have been "WOW--West Nile strikes again...FILM AT ELEVEN!!! Gee....here at NBC News we're all wondering who's going to croak THIS week, and where!!! Aren't YOU??!!!"

Welcome to the 4T folks.

True enough, Kevin, but the hysteria over all these kidnapped girls reminds me of last summer's shark attacks and Gary Condit mania. The 3T won't let go that easily.

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

True enough, Kevin, but the hysteria over all these kidnapped girls reminds me of last summer's shark attacks and Gary Condit mania. The 3T won't let go that easily.

Oh, noooo....I disagree completely Kiff. The kidnappings this summer are much different than last year's sharkmania.

The overall media theme in Summer 2001 was "Don't even THINK of going NEAR the water.....it's NOT SAFE!!!!!"

This year it is "Stranger abductions happen, but they are rare....here's what to do to keep your child as safe as you can" and "when it does occur, this is what WE will do in response". When i was in D.C. this weekend the big story was Virginia's Jennifer Smart kidnapping. The focus was much less on "OMG--They're coming after our children!!!" than the fact that a nationwide manhunt was out for her kidnappers, and that all the stops, everywhere, were being pulled out to find her. This is a measured, deliberate, 4T response to a real Crisis event, rather than a hysterical, "oh-shit-what-now-Batman???!!!" Unravelling sideshow reaction to a blown-out-of-proportion threat.

Two weeks ago, the two kidnapped girls from Lancaster, California were on the Today show with Katie Couric, and to me showed themselves to be classic S&H Heroes. These two brave young women dealt with a life-threatening situation, took last-minute action to save themselves and with the help of law enforcement survived to tell the tale. They surely inspired all who watched them that morning-- that in the darkest hour when all seems lost, virtue and justice can indeed prevail.

This is 4T stuff, Kiff, nothing at all like Condit and Jaws MMI.

Settle down beavis.
Who cares what turning it is unless your house is getting blown up?
When my house gets blown up or I have to leave it, then maybe I'll believe this book.

As for this topic there are people born in 1980 that are Xers and people born in 1979 that are Civics.

My FINAL opinion is if you are born at this magentic cusp, then if you have elder siblings that are fairly close (werent teens when you were born) you will identify with Xers.
To most people I know that are born from the late 70s back to the mid 60s there is an undercurrent of nostalgia for the simple life of early 80s Atari that will be understood by those on the cusp who experienced the time.

Those born at this time that are the first of their generation in the family will likely feel sucked younger.

So there are people born in 1979 that very well may have spent some of the 1980s doing coke like Drew Barrymore, and some that have no recollection of this decade other than playing with some My Little Pony dolls.

Make no mistake tho, if you ain't in the atari set, then jet!

I think its all so vague you can't place a date at all. Most of this is so vague you can't figure anything out.

After I read my birth chart, todays horoscope, and determine my enneagram findings and after several personality tests PERHAPS I may have an opinion. But...nah.

Why bother.
Im hungry. And its so nice outside.
go outside.

Originally Posted by Chis

Settle down beavis.
Who cares what turning it is unless your house is getting blown up?
When my house gets blown up or I have to leave it, then maybe I'll believe this book.

As for this topic there are people born in 1980 that are Xers and people born in 1979 that are Civics.

My FINAL opinion is if you are born at this magentic cusp, then if you have elder siblings that are fairly close (werent teens when you were born) you will identify with Xers.
To most people I know that are born from the late 70s back to the mid 60s there is an undercurrent of nostalgia for the simple life of early 80s Atari that will be understood by those on the cusp who experienced the time.

Those born at this time that are the first of their generation in the family will likely feel sucked younger.

So there are people born in 1979 that very well may have spent some of the 1980s doing coke like Drew Barrymore, and some that have no recollection of this decade other than playing with some My Little Pony dolls.

Make no mistake tho, if you ain't in the atari set, then jet!

I think its all so vague you can't place a date at all. Most of this is so vague you can't figure anything out.

After I read my birth chart, todays horoscope, and determine my enneagram findings and after several personality tests PERHAPS I may have an opinion. But...nah.

Why bother.
Im hungry. And its so nice outside.
go outside.

HUH???!!! :-?

I wonder if Justin '79 still lurks this board?

He does sometimes, but mostly he's been playing outside and eating yummy homemade pies with justmom.

Originally Posted by Xer of Evil

I miss Justin.

XoE

Oh, I'm sure he's lurking somewhere very close by. Isn't that correct Ryan Stone? Chis? :lol:

BTW, I liked the old "lol" face much better. Perhaps Craig can find a way to reactivate it?

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Originally Posted by Xer of Evil

I miss Justin.

XoE

Oh, I'm sure he's lurking somewhere very close by. Isn't that correct Ryan Stone? Chis? :lol:

BTW, I liked the old "lol" face much better. Perhaps Craig can find a way to reactivate it?

I liked the old one better too. This new one looks like it has a nervous tic.

Interesting story on memory development during early childhood. For those of you who are into the "first memories" camp when it comes to delineating gen boundaries, this could be of interest...

http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science...ory/index.html

Kids start remembering by second year, study finds
By Marsha Walton
CNN
Wednesday, October 30, 2002 Posted: 3:02 PM EST (2002 GMT)






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Story Tools




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


(CNN) -- Harvard researchers have found that by age 2 children have developed memories strong enough to repeat tasks shown to them months earlier.

The study, published Wednesday in the British journal Nature, gets closer to unraveling how memory develops by establishing that 2-year-olds have recall, something that their 1-year-old counterparts do not. But it doesn't explain why most adults can remember only as far back as age 3, 4 or 5.

"We want to know what's happening between about the middle of the second year of a child's life, and age 4 or 5, when permanent autobiographical images pop up," said researcher Conor Liston, who studied a dozen babies in three age groups: nine, 17 and 24 months old.

It's a kind of Twilight Zone that scientists call "infantile amnesia," that period of two years or more, between ages 2 and 5, when most humans have little or no recollection of specific events.

Scientists believe many factors aid the development of long-term memory. Many of those factors go beyond the physical structures of brain development. Language skills, socialization, environment and self awareness could play a part.

Many answers are difficult to come by because memories, in the young and old, are often tied to stories that have been told and embellished for years. For example, does someone really remember riding a pony at his grandma's house when he was 3? Or has he just heard the story and seen the picture so many times that he thinks he remembers?

Because many questions remain, neuroscientists advise parents to provide their children ample stimulation. Talking, reading and playing all might help an infant create and keep good memories as early as possible.

How the study worked
Liston, who worked on the study as a Harvard undergraduate, said studying child memory is complicated by the inability of kids to put their thoughts in words.

The study analyzed infants while they sat at home on their mothers' laps and watched Liston complete simple, three-step tasks.

They included: putting a rock and a driver in a toy dump truck and making it move; putting a ball and a lid on a tube and making it rattle; and wiping a spill with a paper towel and tossing it in a basket. Liston repeated the task six times for the nine-month-olds, and four times for the 17- and 24-month-olds. During the demonstrations, he also repeated a simple phrase, such as "make a rattle" or "clean up time." Then the child would try to complete the same task. The tests each lasted about 45 minutes, until the child lost interest in the process.

Four months later, Liston returned to each home and spread out the objects the youngsters had worked with before. He'd give the same verbal instructions, such as "make a rattle," but he wouldn't do another demonstration.

The older babies, who had reached 21 and 28 months, were like old pros with their "assignments," he said. More than 90 percent of the kids in those age groups completed at least one of the tasks they had been shown months before.

But infants in the youngest group, who were 13 months old by Liston's second visit, performed no differently from babies of the same age who had never seen the objects. Their ability to recall and repeat tasks hadn't kicked in yet. Sometime between nine and 17 months, neurons in the pre-frontal cortex of the brain connect to many other parts of the brain, and another area of the brain, the hippocampus, is becoming fully functional, the study found.

The research indicates "that there is a neurobiological component to memory enhancement across the second year, contrary to early assumptions that this is entirely attributable to experience," the researchers wrote.