07-21-2020, 04:46 PM
Consider the generations as commonly asserted today:
1946-1964 Boomers
1965-1980 GenX
1981-1996 Millennials
1997-2012 GenZ
The start of GenX implies that the 4T started a few years later, 911 is a popular choice so lets go with that. This establishes the more recent four turnings span 72 years, giving a turning/generation length of 18 years.
The S&H theory states that the cause of a new turning is the appearance of a generational constellation a few years earlier. With 18 year generations/phases of life the Boomer-Xer-Millennial constellation happened approximately 54, 36, 18 and 0 years after the start of the four generations above: 2000, 2001, 1999, 1997 giving 1999 as the consensus date for the constellation, Two years later we have 911 and the start of the 4T.
We can do the same by adding 54, 36 and 18 years on the the starts of the bottom three generations to give dates of 2019, 2017, 2015, giving a consensus date of 2017 for the next constellation. This means we will see the 1T staring about now. Alternatively we can add 18 years to 2001 to 72 years to 1946 to get 2019, or 2018. They all agree the 4T, as identified by the existing generations, is probably over.
I don't think anyone here thinks we are now in a 1T. Now we can also establish a 4T by looking at events. People have done that, and come up with 2008 as a start date. But this is TWELVE years after the start of GenZ and so violates the generational constellation mechanism. Now you can say, well the new adaptives didn't start being born until much later. But then you are putting young adults who identify as not millennials into the millennial category. On what basis do you assign their generational identity? Wouldn't that be up to them?
Once we proceeded far enough into the new millennial that the babies born around when the T4T site was young had grown old enough to establish their own generational identity that does not comport with the S&H generational scheme, the facial validity the S&H theory of how generations cause the turnings was invalidated.
There is simply no way to square this circle. This does not mean their cycle ideas are necessarily invalid, just the link of the cycle to generations.
1946-1964 Boomers
1965-1980 GenX
1981-1996 Millennials
1997-2012 GenZ
The start of GenX implies that the 4T started a few years later, 911 is a popular choice so lets go with that. This establishes the more recent four turnings span 72 years, giving a turning/generation length of 18 years.
The S&H theory states that the cause of a new turning is the appearance of a generational constellation a few years earlier. With 18 year generations/phases of life the Boomer-Xer-Millennial constellation happened approximately 54, 36, 18 and 0 years after the start of the four generations above: 2000, 2001, 1999, 1997 giving 1999 as the consensus date for the constellation, Two years later we have 911 and the start of the 4T.
We can do the same by adding 54, 36 and 18 years on the the starts of the bottom three generations to give dates of 2019, 2017, 2015, giving a consensus date of 2017 for the next constellation. This means we will see the 1T staring about now. Alternatively we can add 18 years to 2001 to 72 years to 1946 to get 2019, or 2018. They all agree the 4T, as identified by the existing generations, is probably over.
I don't think anyone here thinks we are now in a 1T. Now we can also establish a 4T by looking at events. People have done that, and come up with 2008 as a start date. But this is TWELVE years after the start of GenZ and so violates the generational constellation mechanism. Now you can say, well the new adaptives didn't start being born until much later. But then you are putting young adults who identify as not millennials into the millennial category. On what basis do you assign their generational identity? Wouldn't that be up to them?
Once we proceeded far enough into the new millennial that the babies born around when the T4T site was young had grown old enough to establish their own generational identity that does not comport with the S&H generational scheme, the facial validity the S&H theory of how generations cause the turnings was invalidated.
There is simply no way to square this circle. This does not mean their cycle ideas are necessarily invalid, just the link of the cycle to generations.