Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.



Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 13,942
» Latest member: i6hqdeh257
» Forum threads: 1,434
» Forum posts: 50,587

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 36 online users.
» 4 Member(s) | 32 Guest(s)

Latest Threads
Generational Dynamics Wor...
Forum: Theories Of History
Last Post: John J. Xenakis
45 minutes ago
» Replies: 4,230
» Views: 935,144
The Partisan Divide on Is...
Forum: General Political Discussion
Last Post: David Horn
1 hour ago
» Replies: 2,365
» Views: 106,446
The Maelstrom of Violence
Forum: General Political Discussion
Last Post: David Horn
1 hour ago
» Replies: 666
» Views: 166,404
I have a feeling that tod...
Forum: Generations
Last Post: David Horn
2 hours ago
» Replies: 32
» Views: 344
What the next First Turni...
Forum: Turnings
Last Post: David Horn
3 hours ago
» Replies: 96
» Views: 2,551
The Coronavirus
Forum: General Political Discussion
Last Post: pbrower2a
11 hours ago
» Replies: 1,121
» Views: 57,571
We're settling on a name ...
Forum: Homeland Generation/New Adaptive Generation
Last Post: Warren Dew
Yesterday, 11:19 PM
» Replies: 6
» Views: 77
First Turning "purge"
Forum: Turnings
Last Post: pbrower2a
Yesterday, 08:42 PM
» Replies: 67
» Views: 11,043
Forum: Special Topics/G-T Lounge
Last Post: pbrower2a
Yesterday, 08:37 PM
» Replies: 1,203
» Views: 561,013
Donald Trump: polls of ap...
Forum: General Political Discussion
Last Post: David Horn
Yesterday, 03:07 PM
» Replies: 612
» Views: 157,142

  Astrology and science
Posted by: Eric the Green - 12-17-2020, 04:29 PM - Forum: Religion, Spirituality and Astrology - Replies (3)

Bob Butler throws out astrology as an example of an ideology or value held to despite it having no "objective truth". It is usually very hard to get through to folks who have this notion, which itself is an ideological or value held despite any evidence. 

If astrology is held either to be objective truth never to be questioned, or as a falsehood never to be considered, in either case that is just another dogma like Christian fundamentalism, free-market fundamentalism, conspiracy theory, xenophobia, fundamentalist marxism, or whatever the value or rigid ideology it may be.

It is not longer correct to hold that science does not allow for astrology to be valid. Quantum entanglement theory has proven spooky action at a distance.

This does not by any means prove that any or all claims by astrologers are valid. First of all, astrology deals with human beings and their character and fortune. This is a subject that traditional physical science cannot penetrate. The intellect is characterized by an inability to comprehend life. Consciousness is beyond its ability to encompass. The more alive an object of study is, the less it can be understood by empirical, rational science. The more alive an object of study is, the more its behavior is spontaneous and free and thus cannot be predicted.

Which means that no scientific predictions, either by biology, psychology, sociology, or astrology/esoteric knowledge, and be fully valid, but only valid within a range of uncertainty. The more alive the object is, the greater the uncertainty. The doctrine of efficient cause and effect declines in its validity the more alive an object of study is. Instead, synchronicity and events that "go with" each other become more-often the standard.

Nevertheless, some empirical verification can be made about these subjects, if any claim is made by them about objects of study. Many astrologers just work from the rules and traditions of astrology, although they may be based on past experience or theory. Myself, I prefer that my descriptions and predictions using astrology have an empirical basis as well as on theory and traditions. Such verification of claims made by astrology or other life sciences cannot have the reliability of those sciences on which engineering is based. The objects of those sciences are only barely conscious or alive, not enough to affect the predictions more than the uncertainty principle might allow for. You cannot raise a building or a bridge or put a man on the moon by using astrology. So I do not claim such a level of "objective truth" for my claims. They have some validity and use for prediction if there is a pattern of correspondence of past events to predictions, to some degree. But absolute certainty cannot be gained about astrological predictions. And the Strauss and Howe generations and turnings theory is in much the same boat.

It's interesting though that I mentioned putting a man on the moon. When Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the Moon, Jupiter and Uranus, the planets of flight, adventure and invention, were exactly aligned-- to the minute of arc. Not only that, but the Moon itself was also exactly aligned with them at this moment. What were the chances of that? 

This is what esoteric doctrines call "a sign." The solar system was aligned with the human Moon Landing. Was this conjunction the efficient cause of the landing? No. But it showed some kind of connection with the cosmos for this cosmically-significant event. It upheld the philosophy that all things and all beings are connected, even especially the planets of our solar system and Planet Earth and its Moon and their cycles.

What gives planets their meaning in astrology? A clue is provided by the fact that if you go back a million years from today on Earth, there could not have been planets in the sky that indicated human flight or inventions, or many other human activities and ideas, because such did not exist yet. As humanity evolved through the phases indicated by the planets in planetary dynamics, they discovered and began to embody the meaning of those planets, each in turn. There is something about the planets that indicates their meaning, but mostly it was humans and their discoveries about life through their physical and social evolution in phases that endowed the planets with their meanings.


Print this item

  My criticism on the generationology community
Posted by: Ghost - 12-16-2020, 05:15 PM - Forum: Generations - No Replies

Gen Z definitely ending in 2014 because they were the last to start elementary before COVID
IMO this is like saying 1936 borns are the last Silents because they started elementary before Pearl Harbor or 1923 borns are the last GIs for graduating high school before the event yet WWII went on until 1945 and usually people born until 1927 and 1945 are GIs and Silents respectively.

I honestly don't think COVID can really be a generational marker until it ends, which is most likely in either 2021 or 2022.

Using pop culture as generation markers
Another flawed rule, and I see this especially abused with the electropop era, which people in the generationology community usually say lasted from 2008 until 2012 or early 2013. I still remember seeing and hearing some electropopish things in late 2013 and even in early 2014, but apparently it is not "electropopish" because it did not happen in the "electropop era" that was defined by the generationology community.

This can also be where people get hypocritical. They say Gen Z culture began in 2017 and find it problematic when people include 1999 and especially 2000-2001 in Millennials, but say Millennial culture began in 1998 and have no problem putting 1980, 1981, and even 1982 into Generation X.

Lottery, gun, and tobacco laws
A rarer thing to see in the generationology community, but is still a flawed rule nonetheless.

I commonly see it when people talk about the minimum age of purchasing tobacco products increasing from 18 to 21 sometime last year. The most common things I see on generationology communities (especially on Reddit) are 2002 borns not being able to purchase tobacco until age 21 and 1999 borns turning 21 after the minimum age increased. I don't think this is a good generational marker, as different states (and even different towns) have different tobacco/lottery/gun laws.

There can easily be a 2000 born who wasn't affected by any of them and a 1998 born who was affected by all three of them.

Remembering X event
This is the most abused rule, especially with remembering 9/11. On Reddit, Twitter, PersonalityCafe, and many other sites, I see people say things like "people born in X year are the last to remember X event" and other similar content. I remember hearing about a user on Reddit born in January 2000 who claims to remember 9/11 and there are a bunch of 1998, 1997, and even 1996 borns who don't remember that day at all, yet people in the generationology community will say things like "1996 is the last to have a likely chance of remembering 9/11", "1998 is the last to remember 9/11", and other similar things.

Even worse, I have seen plenty of hypocrisy with this rule. I saw a 1997 born on Reddit talk about how 1998 borns are the last to remember things in 2001 despite him claiming to remember a doctor's trip in 1999. I also saw a 1998 born on Reddit say that 1998 borns are the last to remember 9/11 but he says he can remember 1999 and 2000.

Technological releases and statistics
I have seen people use their Millennial/Gen Z or Zillennial (cusp between Millennials and Gen Z)/Gen Z litmus test as being if someone was in elementary school before Web 2.0/YouTube/the ownership of broadband exceeding dial-up or if someone entered high school before smartphones became popular. The transition from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 wasn't abrupt, YouTube didn't become popular the second it came out, people didn't start getting broadband the second most people in the US had it, and "when smartphones became popular" isn't an exact line you can draw (I've heard people say many different things about it).

Print this item

  For those of you who go on Reddit, this is r/generationology in a nutshell
Posted by: Cocoa_Puff - 12-16-2020, 01:35 PM - Forum: Generations - Replies (3)

This is how the vast majority on r/generationology at Reddit act like:

Example Critic #1: "2000s babies can never be Millennials because I can't see a Tiktok star or somebody who was born after Y2K/graduated after Parkland and Fortnite as a Millennial. I would rather have 1970s babies as Millennials than 2000s babies ANYDAY!"

That is due to your own biases and it is not facts. Early 2000s babies can be Millennials due to where they were in history and even how they grew up. Putting a 70s born with Millennials makes even less sense than putting a 2000s baby there.

Example Critic #2 (this pertains to me as I was born in 2002): "Why do you wanna associate yourself with people older like a 1982 born instead of those younger than you and try to be a Millennial so bad? You are not a Millennial. You are Gen Z! Get over it."

No, I will not get over it because your statement is not facts. It is a pure heavily biased opinion because you are soft and get triggered when someone has a different opinion than you and when you see a person that so happens to place their birth year as the last then you cry "gatekeeping" like the boy who cried wolf and the feminist that cried "Rape!".

Example Critic #3: "Millennials are not that long and I can never see teenagers as a Millennial like those crackhead Boomers Strauss and Howe do who are so out of touch with reality and the current generations that it's cringe!" 

Just because old people call young people Millennials does not mean anything and it is more of an insult to young people like how we use Boomers to insult older people and more. Don't place personal hate towards Strauss and Howe towards me. That's displacement. 

Example Critic #4: "Go find that 82 or 83 born lady that you love so much and confess your love to her. Simply for putting myself in the same generation as a 1982 or 1983 born. ??‍♂️"

Do I even need to explain this one?

Example Critic #5: "Gen Z is 1997-2012 and that's not gonna change. Period. Stop trying to squeeze into being a Millennial because you are not. Just accept the Gen Z label. Embrace it."

That will definitely change as most generation definitions do. And it will evolve to look more like Strauss and Howe's ranges and other sociological ranges as pop culture will be looked at as something that can't define generations once the younger Gen Z group come of age. It's not facts that 1997-2012 are Gen Z and I will not embrace it. I am not even trying to squeeze myself as a Millennial.

Example Critic #6: "I found one thing in your comment that I disagree with and I am just gonna attack you for it even if I am in the wrong here."

There are so many people like that on there.

Example Critic #7: "Generations are not long. They are super short. For them to be over 16-18 and even worse 20 years is unacceptable."

People wanna make generations so short for no reason just because they cannot group themselves with people much younger/older than them even if they still had similar characteristics to be in the same generation.

Example Critic #8: "How can 2000 be in the same generation as 1982? Yet group people born in 1997 in the same generation as a 2012 or 2014 born when there is a much bigger generation gap there."

People on there might be Millennial purists/haters on there tbh. You never know. They would Gen Z much earlier rather than later.

Example Critic #9: "Most sources and researchers on Google/Wikipedia say that Gen Z starts between 1995-1997 so it has to be objectively true."

These are the people that don't do intensive research and the thing that pops out to them first is the only evidence they need.

Example Critic #10: "Billie Eilish was born in 2001 and acts stereotypically Gen Z so that means that everybody born in the early 2000s, let alone 2001, can never be Millennials."

I honestly cannot take people who base generations off of celebrities seriously for obvious reasons.

There are more but I will just point out the main 10 example critic responses. These people don't understand what generations are and just take the word of pop pundits over people like Strauss and Howe, doing the same thing that they criticize, if not worse. They act very self-righteous when it comes to these and are big hypocrites. Some completely write off generations as capitalist marketing, yet use that same "capitalist marketing" to fit their agenda. You have no idea what I deal with constantly on that sub. Now that I think of it, these people can be worse than the trolls that come on there too.

Print this item

  New Fourth Turning Forum on facebook
Posted by: Eric the Green - 12-14-2020, 06:30 AM - Forum: Special Topics/G-T Lounge - No Replies

I have started a public Fourth Turning facebook Group. There are facebook groups on all kinds of interests; dozens and dozens even on such interests of mine as ambient music and astrology, but none on generations and turnings or the S&H book and related subjects-- except secret groups. This approach does not further or attract public interest in this subject very much. So this new group is a public group open to all, except those who have blocked or kicked me or whom I have blocked, with a focus on the ideas and interests, and NOT on advice for or gossip about other posters or admins. I encourage those open to discussion, and those from all perspectives, to apply to join. I am the admin for now, but if we get more participants I will assign other willing moderators as well.

I won't abandon this venerable group and its current offspring, in which I have participated since 1997 and have been the most prolific poster. But I notice that a few ideologues not open to others' opinions are starting to dominate, 3 in particular right now, and the discussion is stuck in a rut a lot of times with these few folks. Also, the moderator has skipped the scene and so spam is increasing. I have thought about creating an alternative forum for some time, and now seems the time to open it. 

Of course, facebook is not appealing for everyone, but it is certainly easy to start a group there, although I and others are subject to facebook rules which can get a bit restrictive sometimes. I myself am not big on censorship or counseling other peoples' conduct, or those who do those things to me.

Apply to join here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/396877864887524

Print this item

  Cleveland Indians dropping the name "Indians"
Posted by: pbrower2a - 12-13-2020, 11:48 PM - Forum: Society and Culture - No Replies

Todd Dybas
Sun, December 13, 2020, 9:44 PM EST·2 min read

Report: Indians follow in WFT footsteps, will change name originally appeared on NBC Sports Washington
The New York Times reported Sunday night the Cleveland Indians will be changing their nickname.
The alteration follows years of protests deriding the name as racist, putting Cleveland in position to reconsider, then subsequently change the nickname, akin to the Washington Football Team.

What’s next is unclear, according to the Times. The paper said the change could come as soon as next week. Cleveland manager Terry Francona is scheduled to meet with reporters Monday via Zoom as part of widespread media opportunities with managers that would typically take place at the winter meetings.

But any move to unbrand a more-than-century-old sports franchise nickname involves several layers. Merchandising concerns, signage, memorabilia. It will all have to be quickly changed since spring training -- should it start on time -- is roughly two months away.

A possibility for Cleveland is to replicate what the Washington Football Team did: eliminate the offensive nickname, then move forward without it while deciphering what to do next. Fans need to be consulted. Reworking uniforms and logos will be ongoing. Cleveland began removing logos and imagery of its cartoon mascot, Chief Wahoo, throughout 2019, moves which now appear to be a precursor to the more dramatic alteration reported Sunday night.
Cleveland began playing in the American League in 1901. It is one of Major League Baseball’s legacy franchises with six World Series appearances, two wins and a slew of star players from Tris Speaker to Francisco Lindor. Thirteen players from Cleveland are in the Hall of Fame. Only four teams -- the Yankees, New York Giants, St. Louis Cardinals and Chicago Cubs -- can claim more.

A “thorough review” of the Cleveland baseball team’s nickname began in July, shortly after the Washington Football Team formally dropped its previous nickname. The team went on to consult with state and national Native American groups. Meanwhile, Chief Wahoo was phased out following a 2018 announcement and replaced with a block “C” on uniforms and signage in 2019.

Now, a new nickname, new logo and new path forward all need to be determined.


Print this item

  Are cultural/mainstream generations = / = historical/sociological generations?
Posted by: Ghost - 12-13-2020, 11:10 AM - Forum: Generations - Replies (5)

I see generation-related threads and posts on Reddit, PersonalityCafe, and Twitter and they are quite different from the generation definitions I see on here, which are more sociological/historical/political based.

Cultural Range
Cultural generations tend to be around 15-18 years in length and are more based on mainstream pop culture trends.

My cultural ranges for generations:

  • GI: 1910-1927
  • Silents: 1928-1945
  • Baby Boomers: 1946-1961
  • Gen X: 1962-1980
  • Millennials: 1981-1997
  • Gen Z: 1998-2014
  • "Gen Alpha": 2015+

Historical Range
Historical/cultural/sociological generations are longer in length and are generally 20-25 years in length. They are based on having four generations in 80-100 year saecula.

My historical ranges for generations:
  • GI: 1901-1924
  • Silents: 1925-1942
  • Baby Boomers: 1943-1960
  • Gen X: 1961-1981
  • Millennials/Civics: 1982-2002
  • Homelanders/New Artists: 2003-2021
  • Neo-Prophets: 2022+

Print this item

  2021: generational tipping point
Posted by: MarkDBlackwell - 12-08-2020, 06:06 PM - Forum: The Future - Replies (30)

The youngest Boomers will retire eventually—are Gen-X ready? There are reasons to think the long-awaited, wholesale tip-over of power, from Baby Boom to Gen-X, will happen next year, in 2021.

My article, Generational tipping point: 2021, explains the historical reasoning.

This aims to be a serious, scientific article, so please critique!

Print this item

  please delete this thread
Posted by: MarkDBlackwell - 12-08-2020, 06:03 PM - Forum: The Future - No Replies


Print this item

  Today in American capitalism
Posted by: Einzige - 11-20-2020, 11:48 AM - Forum: General Political Discussion - Replies (1)

Quote: As state officials and lawmakers urged the shutdown of a Tyson Foods pork-processing plant in Iowa, managers at the plant reportedly placed bets on how many would end up getting sick.

That is one of the many new allegations leveled against Tyson Foods in an amended lawsuit filed Wednesday. The corporation kept its Waterloo, Iowa, plant open even as local officials urged its shutdown early in the pandemic.

As a result, about 1,000 employees contracted COVID-19, five of whom died. That includes Isidro Fernandez, whose family filed the suit against the meat empire this year.

Tyson Foods has since suspended the individuals reportedly involved, per a statement issued Thursday afternoon by the company. "We expect every team member at Tyson Foods to operate with the utmost integrity and care in everything we do," said Tyson CEO and president Dean Banks in a statement. "If these claims are confirmed, we’ll take all measures necessary to root out and remove this disturbing behavior from our company."


Print this item

  Acting pre-seasonally; preparing for the High
Posted by: LTsmith - 11-19-2020, 03:33 PM - Forum: Turnings - Replies (22)

Hello, long time lurker, first time poster here.

Been thinking a lot lately about how to prepare for 1) the coming Crisis climax, and 2) the coming High. In The Fourth Turning, S&H make reference to acting or behaving "pre-seasonally" -- that is, in a way that reflects or demands the nature or needs of the upcoming turning. (I think I've got that term right; please correct if I'm wrong. Too lazy to check the book.) Indeed, this is part of what is needed to bring it on. And it's not necessarily a deliberate choice in all cases; many typical members of a generation act this way based purely on instinct.

I am a 1989 Millennial in Canada and I'm more or less convinced that a cold civil war fueled by digital disinformation is coming south of the border within the next couple of years.

I don't have to do much, personally, to prepare for an outright civil American conflict up here in my snowy neck of the woods. My countryfolk have the privilege of being influenced by American culture but not directly impacted by its fallout. Yes, we have our share of problems as well, but not nearly at the same intensity.

What I *would* like to prepare for, however, is the High. Even before reading S&H, I've always been civic-minded. I would like to position myself and my family to take the best advantage of and contribute positively toward the coming High. I look forward to being part of the new GI Generation, fighting for and subsequently benefiting from massive civic improvements. I'm sick of following and ready to lead.

I predict (and hope) that the Green New Deal in the US will be the cornerstone of the High. This carries some obvious practical implications (say goodbye to oil and gas), but I'm curious if anyone has any thoughts on other aspects of the coming High that should be expected, and how Millennials can position themselves to come out the tail end of the Crisis ready to rebuild society.

One example of what I'm talking about related to the Green New Deal would be the increased reliance on electricity (for car charging, home heating, and so on), and therefore the increased pressure on existing electric grid infrastructure. Some of the grid infrastructure we rely on today is nearing a century old, and occasional power outages simply will not be acceptable anymore. Is a complete North American electric grid re-construction effort undertaken over many years and creating millions of public sector construction jobs (in addition to all the green energy generation jobs) something we can expect? Just one thought. 

Another thought that is less practical and more social is how to better unite as a culture and as a generation. I'm becoming exhausted at anything that is even remotely divisive or even corrective. Even at work, when colleagues disagree about the best approach to do something and it basically winds up never getting done or getting done in a half-assed way to be a "compromise"... I feel like one person or a small team should just do the job, get it done, and so what if it's not perfect? At least it would've accomplished something. We can improve it as we go in real time, in response to real demand, rather than trying to make something perfect from the get-go and ultimately self-sabotaging. I can't wait until I am able to make more executive decisions at work. Especially when in the simplest terms, everyone has the same goals -- it's only the minutiae that people squabble over.

I'm curious to hear anyone else's thoughts on acting pre-seasonally or preparing for the end of a Crisis and beginning of a High. Thanks!

Print this item