Originally Posted by stab1969

I remember those too, but I think the ones I saw were pretty colorful...

Oh yes indeed. The NBC peacock (after the test pattern) was a pretty bird to be sure.

unless i was watching a black and white tv. I don't really see many of those these days now that I think about it

Actually, the first TeeVee memories I have were all shades of gray. Color came a bit later.

My TV progression, off the top of my head:

Early Childhood: Sesame Street, Mr. Rogers

Childhood: G.I. Joe, Transformers, Voltron, Looney Tunes

Later Childhood/Early Teens: The A-Team, Miami Vice, Hunter, Knight Rider (occasionally prime time serial crap like Dallas, L.A. Law, etc when my parents were controlling the TV).

Early Teens: Cosby Show, Cheers, Night Court, etc.

Late Teens: Married with Children, the Simpsons, Cops, etc.

TV really went downhill in the 90s, and you tend to stop watching as much as you get older, so the earlier stuff was probably more formative for me.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The political 4T did not begin until people got disgusted with the lax, weak leadership of George Worthless Bush. Evidence: in 2004 Dubya was barely re-elected; in 2006 the Democrats won six Senate seats from incumbent Republicans and won the majority in the House. That itself suggests that the political realities had taken a sharp break. It is of course possible that the GOP might have limped along some in 2006 had it not been for the bungled response to Hurricane Katrina (America has traditionally excelled in responses to natural disasters).

The economic 4T did not begin until 2007. After both, Americans could have seen Barack Obama first as a genuine candidate for President... and elect him.

It is possible that Barack Obama is a Boomer in the sense that FDR was a Missionary just to fit the theory. FDR had several Reactive characteristics; he was more pragmatic and less dogmatic than his immediate predecessors. He abandoned the eugenicist, prohibitionist, and fundamentalist crusades of core Missionaries, which is very Reactive. He adopted much of the rest of the Missionary agenda -- conservationism, agrarian reform, and feminism because such were ... practical. He was more cautious than the usual Missionary. Sure, he could vituperate with as much hostility toward moral pariahs such as gangsters and fascists as any Missionary... but such was the norm for the Lost during the 1930s and 1940s, too. If Obama excoriates drug traffickers or pirates, then he won't be alone.

It might still be blasphemy to compare Obama to FDR, Lincoln, or Churchill... he has yet to accomplish what any of them could do at the ultimate test. But Dubya absolutely wasn't going to resemble any Grey Champion of the past. He is a shrewd speaker, he gets the moral priorities right (as in "We do not torture!"), he recognizes that every word has meaning, and he gets his way with Congress -- at least the majority.

I would suggest using neutral words like "George W. Bush", so that your point isn't lost with the partisan bickering.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

When it comes to the interpretation of S&H's theories and their application to current events, my views are very fluid and flexible. There are only two things that I am fully convinced of, if there is validity in what S&H wrote:

1. The 4T began on 9/11/2001.

2. "Generation Jones" are Boomers.

On pretty much everything else, my views are not set in stone.

As for "the majority of people on this site", they are unfortunately not primarily interested in an objective analysis of the subject at hand. They're primarily interested in how the theories of S&H can confirm their biases and provide support for their political ideology.

Well, I'm with you on point two, but on point one there is empirical evidence against your assertion and that is that Boomer representation in politics continued to increase after 9/11 and has only recently peaked. Given how conservative the second half of the Boomer generation is, shouldn't the end of the Unraveling be marked by a peak in conservatism?

I think that I can fairly easily avoid the charge of confirming my own biases. I've just spent this thread predicting that my own views will occupy the center in the early 22nd century, a circumstance I will very likely not live to see. My temperament won't even be mainstream until roughly 2060.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Variety shows, you mean things like Carole Burnett?

Maybe the Ed Sullivan Show.

I also remember the Smothers Brothers, and when I was an older kid (what we now call "tween"), Laugh In.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Maybe the Ed Sullivan Show.

I also remember the Smothers Brothers, and when I was an older kid (what we now call "tween"), Laugh In.

The Smothers Brothers... Ah such good memories. Slapstick comedy along with intros to good music like Jefferson Airplane, etc.

Oh yeah, I'll toss in Lassie as well.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Well, I'm with you on point two, but on point one there is empirical evidence against your assertion and that is that Boomer representation in politics continued to increase after 9/11 and has only recently peaked. Given how conservative the second half of the Boomer generation is, shouldn't the end of the Unraveling be marked by a peak in conservatism?

T4T, p.272:

"Sometime around the year 2005, perhaps a few years before or after, America will enter the Fourth Turning."

I would say 2001 qualifies. Especially because they already cited the CW crisis as having "arrived early". They admit in the book, and I would tend to agree, that establishing boundary lines and time ranges for turnings and generations, especially in the current saeculum where we do not have the benefit of hindsight, is an inexact science. Instead, as they say, you have to look for dramatic events, and changes in public mood.

On those grounds, I think the 4T starting on 9/11 is undeniable, based in part on the excerpt I posted previously.

I think that I can fairly easily avoid the charge of confirming my own biases. I've just spent this thread predicting that my own views will occupy the center in the early 22nd century, a circumstance I will very likely not live to see. My temperament won't even be mainstream until roughly 2060.

I wasn't specifically referring to you in that comment. I find your theory problematic for other reasons, namely your definition of the political spectrum, and the idea of defining it as a two dimensional axis in general.

Originally Posted by ragnarök_62

good music like jefferson airplane

boooooommmmerrrrrrrr

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I would suggest using neutral words like "George W. Bush", so that your point isn't lost with the partisan bickering.

The partisan bickering is his point.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

We saw Captain Kangaroo; Generation X saw Sesame Street.

I watched Captain Kangaroo all the time; it was my little brother (1985) that watched Sesame Street.

Originally Posted by Pbrower2a

The cultural divide between Boom and 13th is huge. We Boomers stayed clear of 13th music and other fads. We saw Captain Kangaroo; Generation X saw Sesame Street. We remember variety shows on prime-time TV; Generation X missed them.

....
some more posts
...

Originally Posted by Stab

Im a core Xer('69) and I, as well as my younger brother('72) plus many of our peers at the time used to watch Captain Kangaroo as well as Sesame Street on a regular basis when we were little. I remember variety shows too, but had little interest in them. just sayin'....

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I watched Captain Kangaroo all the time; it was my little brother (1985) that watched Sesame Street.

As Odin put it. Pbrower2a did some serious "self pwnage" here.

"self pwnage" ROTFLMAO

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

T4T, p.272:

"Sometime around the year 2005, perhaps a few years before or after, America will enter the Fourth Turning."

I would say 2001 qualifies. Especially because they already cited the CW crisis as having "arrived early". They admit in the book, and I would tend to agree, that establishing boundary lines and time ranges for turnings and generations, especially in the current saeculum where we do not have the benefit of hindsight, is an inexact science. Instead, as they say, you have to look for dramatic events, and changes in public mood.

On those grounds, I think the 4T starting on 9/11 is undeniable, based in part on the excerpt I posted previously.



I wasn't specifically referring to you in that comment. I find your theory problematic for other reasons, namely your definition of the political spectrum, and the idea of defining it as a two dimensional axis in general.

You are a hypocrite. You accuse us of being ideologues yet your biases shout loudly and clearly in this post

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

boooooommmmerrrrrrrr

I like Jefferson Airplane and I'm WAY to young to be a Boomer. Quit making things up.

Originally Posted by Odin

You are a hypocrite. You accuse us of being ideologues yet your biases shout loudly and clearly in this post

Actually, from my observations of human behavior and nature, we're all hypocritical in some form or another. We think by labeling someone a hypocrite (or in some cases a "flip flopper" ) that "it's the worst label in the world", but in actuality everyone has the potential to be labeled a hypocrite (myself included) it just depends on what scenario you're placed in and how your motivations have been effected/changed or unchanged. The ability to act in violation of some of your beliefs, when not put under the label of "hypocrisy" is usually called "compromise", "adaptability", & "flexibility". However I'm sure you'll say that usually when this human trait has become labeled as one of those more "positive" qualities, usually the person has "given up" the belief in some form or another. Yet I've witnessed a handful of scenes where this is not always the case. In the end what it all comes down to is what they teach in acting class:

Find your motivation.

How far you'll go to get that motivation depends on how committed to that motivation. If the best way to get your "motivation" is to "sell out" or simple not act in accordance with your beliefs then a good deal of people would do so, if they really were devoted to that specific motivation.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Actually, from my observations of human behavior and nature, we're all hypocritical in some form or another. We think by labeling someone a hypocrite (or in some cases a "flip flopper" ) that "it's the worst label in the world", but in actuality everyone has the potential to be labeled a hypocrite (myself included) it just depends on what scenario you're placed in and how your motivations have been effected/changed or unchanged. The ability to act in violation of some of your beliefs, when not put under the label of "hypocrisy" is usually called "compromise", "adaptability", & "flexibility". However I'm sure you'll say that usually when this human trait has become labeled as one of those more "positive" qualities, usually the person has "given up" the belief in some form or another. Yet I've witnessed a handful of scenes where this is not always the case. In the end what it all comes down to is what they teach in acting class:

Find your motivation.

How far you'll go to get that motivation depends on how committed to that motivation. If the best way to get your "motivation" is to "sell out" or simple not act in accordance with your beliefs then a good deal of people would do so, if they really were devoted to that specific motivation.

~Chas'88

At least you and me can admit when we being hypocrites, THAT'S the difference! Must be an F thing...

I strive for objectivity, but don't always achieve it. There are some here who I do not believe have any interest in objectivity at all.

Originally Posted by Odin

At least you and me can admit when we being hypocrites, THAT'S the difference! Must be an F thing...

F's do seem more able to admit our faults than T's, who often need to think they have the objective truth. But on the other hand, we are more likely to engage in childish memes like "no fair!" or "why won't you play nice?!"

Originally Posted by Odin

I like Jefferson Airplane and I'm WAY to young to be a Boomer. Quit making things up.

And I'm too old to be a Boomer and I like them.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I strive for objectivity, but don't always achieve it. There are some here who I do not believe have any interest in objectivity at all.

Is this intended as a wierd stab at humor? If so, I missed the laugh.

Originally Posted by 1990

F's do seem more able to admit our faults than T's, who often need to think they have the objective truth. But on the other hand, we are more likely to engage in childish memes like "no fair!" or "why won't you play nice?!"

Have you been on an INTP list? Extraverted feeling is the INTP's inferior function. Sometimes disagreements blossom into flame wars replete with childish name calling and STFU's, etc.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Have you been on an INTP list? Extraverted feeling is the INTP's inferior function. Sometimes disagreements blossom into flame wars replete with childish name calling and STFU's, etc.

Ugh, I HATE that kind of crap...

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Have you been on an INTP list? Extraverted feeling is the INTP's inferior function. Sometimes disagreements blossom into flame wars replete with childish name calling and STFU's, etc.

It is so funny to see INTPs get into nasty flame wars over fanboyism (Fanboy1: Digimon is far better than Pokemon. Fanboy2: You are an idiot...Pokemon is the original show and blah blah blah...DIE!!!!). It is sad when any VI or EMACS article or thread is essentially flame bait.

Originally Posted by 1990

F's do seem more able to admit our faults than T's, who often need to think they have the objective truth. But on the other hand, we are more likely to engage in childish memes like "no fair!" or "why won't you play nice?!"

We're also more likely to take attacks personally when we shouldn't, if I read the description right.

Personally I purposely try to balance T & F in myself, but I'm not always so successful...

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Odin

Jefferson was wrong. That is the Rousseau-derived thinking that lead to the Totalitarianism of the Great Power Saeculum. The authority of the mob is still authority. A republican form of government requires that the majority cannot trample on people they disagree with, that is why a liberal-democratic society creates a system of rights and liberties.

I find that bolded quote particularly frightening.

I know, I'm going back a little bit, but here is where the idea of how to explain the difference in how we view Majority-Minority using Literature.

Odin & The Grey Badger see Majority-Minority interaction as: The Lottery by Shirley Jackson - people/ideas are singled out democratically and are openly but "fairly" put to "death" by a mob which for some strange reason keeps to a "barbaric" tradition that has long since lost its original meaning.

JPT sees Majority-Minority interaction as: Fuente Ovejuna by Lope de Vega - people are suppressed by a self-important entitled jerk who takes advantage of his supremacy and lords it over everyone else. The people revolt and kill him, and stick together in saying that: "Fuente Ovejuna" aka the town as a whole killed the bad seed of a knight when inquisitioned by the governor. The King comes in and pardons everyone for fear that their wrath might come to him next. Fuente Ovejuna in Spanish means: Sheep Fountain.

I see Majority-Minority interaction as: Cafe Nigeria - a little known Hungarian short story that's in a similar (but not the same) vein to Brave New World by Adolous Huxley - people are suppressed/screwed/beaten and for some odd reason they like it enough (or think that they should like it enough because everyone else does) to say "give me more" and leave tips. (How else did GWB get a second term?) All of this of course takes place behind the Red Curtain both literally and figuratively.

So we have an American, Spanish, and Hungarian viewpoints conflicting. Who's right? I'd have to say that we're all a little right in our own ways:

People openly and democratically vote out the minority to the "nether regions" are essentially led & convinced into continuing to screw themselves because it's a long standing tradition that they've been convinced that they "like" or "should like". When someone has finally convinced them of their negative interpretation of the situation they've been put into, the people realize that they've had enough of the tradition, that they don't like it anymore, and they gather together & revolt. They are then led into a new tradition which equally screws them and are told to like it because it's "better than the old system" and they convince themselves that they in fact do "like it".

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I would suggest using neutral words like "George W. Bush", so that your point isn't lost with the partisan bickering.

Or flagged for censoring by the moderator by overzealous busybodies.