Looking at the generations from the Fourth Turning perspective

[sbarrera]

I decided this belongs in Turnings, not Generations, because it looks at all generations in the Fourth Turning.


Years ago, well over a decade ago, I had a web site called “Generation Watch” where I blogged about current events and news stories from a generations perspective. I had a page there for news story submissions where I listed the sorts of patterns and trends to expect of each generation, in both the Third and Fourth Turnings. The text was cribbed from The Fourth Turning by Strauss and Howe.

I moved that page to another location and was thinking I would revisit the observations and apply them to the current social era – about halfway through the Fourth Turning with the climax still ahead. Here’s the link-

http://home.mindspring.com/~saecularpage...okFor.html

I would love to hear responses about what people on this forum think the authors got right or wrong, or whether or not the list I put together accurately reflects their theory.

[tg63]

It's a great perspective. I was struck by how many appear accurate, but the one that made me think a bit was that, in the crisis, boomers would be expected to trade material security for moral authority. I'm not sure if/how that is manifesting ... or maybe that's the next stage.

[sbarrera]

(06-05-2018, 12:25 PM)tg63 Wrote: It's a great perspective. I was struck by how many appear accurate, but the one that made me think a bit was that, in the crisis, boomers would be expected to trade material security for moral authority. I'm not sure if/how that is manifesting ... or maybe that's the next stage.

Not sure about that one, either. The only thing that comes close is that they are not making any effort to salvage social security/medicare which will hurt them materially. But it will hurt Gen-Xers worse.

[David Horn]

(06-05-2018, 06:24 PM)sbarrera Wrote:

(06-05-2018, 12:25 PM)tg63 Wrote: It's a great perspective. I was struck by how many appear accurate, but the one that made me think a bit was that, in the crisis, boomers would be expected to trade material security for moral authority. I'm not sure if/how that is manifesting ... or maybe that's the next stage.

Not sure about that one, either. The only thing that comes close is that they are not making any effort to salvage social security/medicare which will hurt them materially. But it will hurt Gen-Xers worse.

SS and MC are actually in pretty good shape.  No commercial alternative is better, and, in any case, no upgrade to either is even possible.  What should tell the tale is the willingness of Boomers to be taxed for the general welfare.  Obviously, the Trumpists are adamantly opposed, but the jury is still out on the rest of us.  We've reached a near terminal point in wealth disparity that is still compatible with Western-style democracy.  Obviously, most of the 1% will fight to keep theirs, but the next tier are the ones who will suffer some loss of prestige and comfort.  Let's see if they will accept the loss graciously, though it may be a bit of a stretch to expect them to give it up willingly.

[Eric the Green]

(06-05-2018, 06:24 PM)sbarrera Wrote:

(06-05-2018, 12:25 PM)tg63 Wrote: It's a great perspective. I was struck by how many appear accurate, but the one that made me think a bit was that, in the crisis, boomers would be expected to trade material security for moral authority. I'm not sure if/how that is manifesting ... or maybe that's the next stage.

Not sure about that one, either. The only thing that comes close is that they are not making any effort to salvage social security/medicare which will hurt them materially. But it will hurt Gen-Xers worse.

Don't confuse blue boomers with red boomers. The ones who are not making an effort to salvage social security and medicare are Republicans and libertarians, not boomers. It's political, not generational.

I will never agree that red boomers are the real thing, despite whatever good points are made otherwise. Only blue boomers fulfill the role. Only they remain true to the ideals in which they came of age. The red boomers are phony and just uphold the status quo given to them. They may do it in a way typical of prophet generations, doctrinaire, impractical, ideological, righteous and fanatical etc., but that does not make them true prophets, because they don't proclaim the truth, like Jeremiah and Ezekiel and Isaiah did.

[tg63]

From where I sit, red boomers do remain "true to the ideals in which they came of age"; they're just different ideals from the ones that resonated with you & your peers.

[sbarrera]

(06-06-2018, 03:57 PM)tg63 Wrote: From where I sit, red boomers do remain "true to the ideals in which they came of age"; they're just different ideals from the ones that resonated with you & your peers.

  That's how I see it too. Two different values camps that each stick to their authentic beliefs. Since neither is willing to compromise, the existing order is being allowed to disintegrate.

[sbarrera]

(06-06-2018, 10:07 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(06-05-2018, 06:24 PM)sbarrera Wrote:

(06-05-2018, 12:25 PM)tg63 Wrote: It's a great perspective. I was struck by how many appear accurate, but the one that made me think a bit was that, in the crisis, boomers would be expected to trade material security for moral authority. I'm not sure if/how that is manifesting ... or maybe that's the next stage.

Not sure about that one, either. The only thing that comes close is that they are not making any effort to salvage social security/medicare which will hurt them materially. But it will hurt Gen-Xers worse.

SS and MC are actually in pretty good shape.  No commercial alternative is better, and, in any case, no upgrade to either is even possible.  What should tell the tale is the willingness of Boomers to be taxed for the general welfare.  Obviously, the Trumpists are adamantly opposed, but the jury is still out on the rest of us.  We've reached a near terminal point in wealth disparity that is still compatible with Western-style democracy.  Obviously, most of the 1% will fight to keep theirs, but the next tier are the ones who will suffer some loss of prestige and comfort.  Let's see if they will accept the loss graciously, though it may be a bit of a stretch to expect them to give it up willingly.

 This is the latest news I recall:

 https://www.ohio.com/akron/news/nation/t...-worsening

Medicare, Social Security finances worsening, federal report warns
Published: June 5, 2018 - 5:34 PM | Updated: June 5, 2018 - 11:48 PM
By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Andrew Taylor
Associated Press
WASHINGTON: Medicare will run out of money sooner than expected, and Social Security’s financial problems can’t be ignored either, the government said Tuesday in a sobering checkup on programs vital to the middle class.
The report from program trustees says Medicare will become insolvent in 2026 — three years earlier than previously forecast. Its giant trust fund for inpatient care won’t be able to fully cover projected medical bills starting at that point.
The report says Social Security will become insolvent in 2034 — no change from the projection last year.
The warning serves as a reminder of major issues left to languish while Washington plunges deeper into partisan strife. Because of the deterioration in Medicare’s finances, officials said the Trump administration will be required by law to send Congress a plan next year to address the problems, after the president’s budget is submitted.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in a statement that there’s time to fix the problems.
“The programs remain secure,” Mnuchin said. Medicare “is on track to meet its obligations to beneficiaries well into the next decade.”
“However, certain long-term issues persist,” the statement added. “Lack-luster economic growth in previous years, coupled with an aging population, has contributed to the projected shortages for both Social Security and Medicare.”
The recent Republican tax-cut bill is expected to add to the debt.
Last year’s tax law, which cut taxes on Social Security benefits, helped exacerbate the shortfall. So too did repeal of the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act, known as “Obama­care,” which promises to increase the number of people without health insurance and therefore Medicare payments for uncompensated medical care.
And higher deficits mean less maneuvering room for policymakers when the day of reckoning finally arrives for Social Security and Medicare.
Social Security recipients are likely to see a cost-of-living increase of about 2.4 percent next year, said government number-crunchers who produced the report. That works out to about $31 a month.
At the same time, the monthly Medicare “Part B” premium for outpatient care paid by most beneficiaries is projected to rise by about $1.50, to $135.50.
Both the cost-of-living increase and the Medicare outpatient premium are not officially determined until later in the year, and the initial projections can change.
More than 62 million retirees, disabled workers, spouses and surviving children receive Social Security benefits. The average monthly payment is $1,294 for all beneficiaries. Medicare provides health insurance for about 60 million people, most of whom are age 65 or older.
Together the two programs have been credited with dramatically reducing poverty among older people and extending life expectancy for Americans. Financed with payroll taxes collected from workers and employers, Social Security and Medicare account for about 40 percent of government spending, excluding interest on the federal debt.
But demands on both programs are increasing as America ages.
Unless lawmakers act, both programs face the prospect of being unable to cover the full cost of promised benefits.

[David Horn]

(06-06-2018, 05:57 PM)sbarrera Wrote:

(06-06-2018, 10:07 AM)David Horn Wrote: SS and MC are actually in pretty good shape.  No commercial alternative is better, and, in any case, no upgrade to either is even possible.  What should tell the tale is the willingness of Boomers to be taxed for the general welfare.  Obviously, the Trumpists are adamantly opposed, but the jury is still out on the rest of us.  We've reached a near terminal point in wealth disparity that is still compatible with Western-style democracy.  Obviously, most of the 1% will fight to keep theirs, but the next tier are the ones who will suffer some loss of prestige and comfort.  Let's see if they will accept the loss graciously, though it may be a bit of a stretch to expect them to give it up willingly.

 This is the latest news I recall:

 https://www.ohio.com/akron/news/nation/t...-worsening

Medicare, Social Security finances worsening, federal report warns

By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Andrew Taylor
Associated Press

WASHINGTON: Medicare will run out of money sooner than expected, and Social Security’s financial problems can’t be ignored either, the government said Tuesday in a sobering checkup on programs vital to the middle class.

The report from program trustees says Medicare will become insolvent in 2026 — three years earlier than previously forecast. Its giant trust fund for inpatient care won’t be able to fully cover projected medical bills starting at that point.

The report says Social Security will become insolvent in 2034 — no change from the projection last year.

The warning serves as a reminder of major issues left to languish while Washington plunges deeper into partisan strife. Because of the deterioration in Medicare’s finances, officials said the Trump administration will be required by law to send Congress a plan next year to address the problems, after the president’s budget is submitted.

Medicare insolvency is mostly an issue of simple demographics: too many seniors being added to the rolls.  Though Trump may decide that it's worth arguing for a means test to stay on the program, I can't see that happening.  AARP and seniors in general, are too big a political force to tangle with.  Assume that an adjustment to the funding formula will be offered, and sooner rather than later.  2026 is not that far away, but the amount of offset required is not that large, at least for now.

Social Security is an even easier fix, though not in the era of Trump.  Removing the earnings cap will fix this without any additional taxation needed.

None of this is rocket science … or even something new.  The easy fixes were stonewalled by the GOP while Obama was in office, so now they own both problems 100%.  They will be fixed quietly, so the base doesn't get too aroused.

[pbrower2a]

(06-07-2018, 11:56 AM)David Horn Wrote: Medicare insolvency is mostly an issue of simple demographics: too many seniors being added to the rolls.  Though Trump may decide that it's worth arguing for a means test to stay on the program, I can't see that happening.  AARP and seniors in general, are too big a political force to tangle with.  Assume that an adjustment to the funding formula will be offered, and sooner rather than later.  2026 is not that far away, but the amount of offset required is not that large, at least for now.

Social Security is an even easier fix, though not in the era of Trump.  Removing the earnings cap will fix this without any additional taxation needed.

None of this is rocket science … or even something new.  The easy fixes were stonewalled by the GOP while Obama was in office, so now they own both problems 100%.  They will be fixed quietly, so the base doesn't get too aroused.

People reaching the age of Medicare eligibility in 2018 were born in 1953. During the middle-to-late 1990s and the Double-Zero Decade, the birth-dearth years of 1931 to 1944 were becoming eligible.

Removing the earnings cap for high-income people is something that you can never trust Donald Trump or any other right-wing pols to tamper with. The rich are to them the Salt of the Earth, the ones through whom all blessings flow -- and the rest of America had better believe that about their exploiters.

Republicans will be caught holding the bag for the fixes that they refused to make -- but Democrats will get the blame for making the fixes, at least from the noisy and well-funded Right.

[Eric the Green]

(06-06-2018, 05:52 PM)sbarrera Wrote:

(06-06-2018, 03:57 PM)tg63 Wrote: From where I sit, red boomers do remain "true to the ideals in which they came of age"; they're just different ideals from the ones that resonated with you & your peers.

  That's how I see it too. Two different values camps that each stick to their authentic beliefs. Since neither is willing to compromise, the existing order is being allowed to disintegrate.

No, it's a simple case of blue boomers who have real ideals and want to see progress done, and red boomers who are deceived by the powers that be and stick to ideals that are wrong and that boost the reactionary status quo. Both do have boomer prophet traits of righteous stubborness etc, but that doesn't matter. It's a question of whether our country will start to progress again, or be allowed to disintegrate. It's a question of red vs. blue. The biggest force allowing disintegration may be the persistent belief that there's no difference between red and blue, and therefore to do nothing to help the blue side win, and instead just let things take their course since no-one can be trusted or believed.

Compromises may be needed to move forward. But compromise can't be done because of the intransigence of the red side. Too much compromise with the red side today is to agree to do nothing.

Younger generations continue to align with one side or the other; no other alternative has ever gotten any glimmer of support at the polls. Bernie represents an even stronger version of boomer sixties ideals than what Hillary espoused.

[sbarrera]

Eric M, I always respected that you stick to your beliefs, as the Blue Boomer who calls himself Green. With your latest thoughts about red v. blue in mind, I will now post my look at one of the items on the list of "what to look for in the generations" that started this thread. This is how Millennials enforce a code of good conduct - ie, how they are recreating an expectation for social norms.

http://stevebarrera.com/millennials-as-c...ial-media/
<<
I recently posted a list of patterns to look for among the living generations in the current social era, based on Strauss & Howe generational theory. I wanted to take a closer look at some of the items on that list in a series of posts, and I’ll start with one under that most talked about of generations – the Millennials.

The item in particular is the second one in the Crisis era box – “look for the Millennial generation to enforce, among peers, a code of good conduct.” You can see this happening in that ubiquitous phenomenon that is defining the times – social media.

The rise of social media is part of the story of the maturation of the Internet, which first came into the public eye at a time when computer networks were the province of a small minority of socially outcast nerds. As adoption grew through the “you’ve got mail” era and into the dawn of today’s tech giants like Amazon and Google, going online became more and more mainstream.

Then, just around the start of the Crisis in 2008, came a new kind of computer that made being online essentially effortless – the smartphone. With it came an explosion of participation on Internet sites designed to promote social networking and interaction. Now, ten years later, what we call social media platforms dominate as a source of information and news.

The term “media” refers to an era’s primary means of mass communication. Adding the qualifier “social” suggests that a socializing role has been added to that of communicating, and perhaps that control of mass communication has been transferred from media elites (who are now mistrusted) to society at large.

The socializing role is evident in the familiar features of promoting posts (“liking” and “sharing”). Popular opinions rise to the top of feeds and are seen by the most viewers. Unpopular opinions are quashed. The consensus is reinforced through the use of signal-boosting hashtags like #metoo.

Another form of enforcement involves calling out bad behavior. A post demonstrates a transgression of social mores, which may, unfortunately for the transgressor, be taken out of context. Then a blast of comments shames the person. In extreme cases, the person may be identified in real life – called “doxxing” – which can be ruinous.

Perhaps the exemplary case in point is the store owner who posts an anti-gay sign, and then finds his or her business boycotted after a picture of the sign goes viral on social media. But how far might the phenomenon go? Blogger John Robb speculates about “weaponized social networks” and imagines their full potenital.

As for the people being in charge of mass communication now, the “democratization of the media” if you will – that has proven fraught with challenges. Social networks are vulnerable to infiltration, and social engineering has swayed elections. Social media sharing makes the dissemination of false information much too easy, and so the term “fake news” has come into the zeitgeist.

There is also the question of whose consensus is being enforced, as there are competing “red-state” and “blue-state” networks, each attempting to persuade us with their values-promoting memes. What values prevail will be evident in time. And though all of the living generations are participating in this social evolution, ultimately it will be the rising Millennial generation that defines what conduct is considered correct.
>>

[Eric the Green]

Not the millennial generation alone, as there will be at least three still around at all times. But the Millennial Generation will have the largest role in the next decade or two. That may be a good thing, or it may mean no real difference; we'll see what the elections bring. But the social media does now seem to help create a certain level of enforced consensus of what is liked and unliked, and millennials on their smart phones are driving this more than other generations.

[pbrower2a]

(06-08-2018, 05:26 PM)sbarrera Wrote: I will now post my look at one of the items on the list of "what to look for in the generations" that started this thread. This is how Millennials enforce a code of good conduct - ie, how they are recreating an expectation for social norms.

http://stevebarrera.com/millennials-as-c...ial-media/
<<
I recently posted a list of patterns to look for among the living generations in the current social era, based on Strauss & Howe generational theory. I wanted to take a closer look at some of the items on that list in a series of posts, and I’ll start with one under that most talked about of generations – the Millennials.

The item in particular is the second one in the Crisis era box – “look for the Millennial generation to enforce, among peers, a code of good conduct.” You can see this happening in that ubiquitous phenomenon that is defining the times – social media.

If they are to enforce a good code of conduct, then it will not have been they who formulated it. A Civic generation without the influence of older generations could act much like the leaders of the French Revolution -- seeing demons to expunge from society... the corrupt, the old-fashioned, the parasitical, and those of suspect loyalty. That is not to say that the ancien regime deserved to continue.

Quote:The rise of social media is part of the story of the maturation of the Internet, which first came into the public eye at a time when computer networks were the province of a small minority of socially outcast nerds. As adoption grew through the “you’ve got mail” era and into the dawn of today’s tech giants like Amazon and Google, going online became more and more mainstream.

I also notice the expansion of the computer from a means of command-and-control in businesses (when they did calculation and data-storage) into tools for far more -- like creative activity, education. and entertainment. By now when we have data it has typically gone through a computer, so "computer data" is redundant. Paradoxically the computer has given through its modernity more access to, of all things, antiquity.

Quote:Then, just around the start of the Crisis in 2008, came a new kind of computer that made being online essentially effortless – the smartphone. With it came an explosion of participation on Internet sites designed to promote social networking and interaction. Now, ten years later, what we call social media platforms dominate as a source of information and news.

Miniaturization! I have several reader devices (no smart-phone) yet -- I am astonished that smart-phones aren't built into everything by now. I have dedicated one to use as an input for music into my stereo system. It sits in a cigar box that I effectively use for storage and holding it up.  Something of such general use getting a very limited range of use? No. The musical range is from the late-medieval era to about thirty years ago. You can guess what genre of music that is.

OK, Palestrina is not Shostakovich.

Quote:The term “media” refers to an era’s primary means of mass communication. Adding the qualifier “social” suggests that a socializing role has been added to that of communicating, and perhaps that control of mass communication has been transferred from media elites (who are now mistrusted) to society at large.

But it is also a means of individual communication and (thank you, YouTube!) choice. 

Quote:The socializing role is evident in the familiar features of promoting posts (“liking” and “sharing”). Popular opinions rise to the top of feeds and are seen by the most viewers. Unpopular opinions are quashed. The consensus is reinforced through the use of signal-boosting hashtags like #metoo.

There is a fault: cranky ideas often get an undeserved life.

Quote:Another form of enforcement involves calling out bad behavior. A post demonstrates a transgression of social mores, which may, unfortunately for the transgressor, be taken out of context. Then a blast of comments shames the person. In extreme cases, the person may be identified in real life – called “doxxing” – which can be ruinous.

We need some ethical consensus. I am not going to out someone for being homosexual unless that person is ferociously anti-homosexual. But let us remember that there is much bad behavior on the Internet. People thought that they could use it for accessing lewd images of children and even helpless children themselves through the Internet.  I figure that such is being crushed.

People who steal data for horrible uses are the virtual equivalents of burglars. In time they will be treated as such.

Quote:Perhaps the exemplary case in point is the store owner who posts an anti-gay sign, and then finds his or her business boycotted after a picture of the sign goes viral on social media. But how far might the phenomenon go? Blogger John Robb speculates about “weaponized social networks” and imagines their full potenital.

Discrimination of any kind unless it targets people intent on doing bad things (like theft) is not only cruel, but stupid. If I own the bakery and I have a born-again employee who refuses to frost the words "Congratulations Adam and Steve" or install a same-sex statuette, then I will insist that that employee do as much as does not offend the sensibility of that employee (basically go as far as one can go on a cake for some other purpose). But I have my limits -- no copyright or trademark violations, no praise of crime or child abuse, no pornography,  and no threats or abuse. Obviously I would not make a cake that says "Pay up or die!"

Quote:As for the people being in charge of mass communication now, the “democratization of the media” if you will – that has proven fraught with challenges. Social networks are vulnerable to infiltration, and social engineering has swayed elections. Social media sharing makes the dissemination of false information much too easy, and so the term “fake news” has come into the zeitgeist.

Democratization? No -- it is the recognition of individuality as used to be impossible in the age of mass production and mass communication. It's what still has the mass characteristics (including advertising and partisan politics that have an ethos of command with an attempt to appear as persuasion)  that causes trouble.

The mass society, a reflection of what goes with a certain stage of industrialization, that makes possible a Hitler, a Stalin, a Mao, or a Saddam Hussein. Yes, Donald Trump has resuscitated this mode of mass communication to multitudes who see nothing wrong with it. Others? Those who trivialized the effect still can turn on it by individualizing a coherent message.

So suppose that one is running for office against Donald Trump in a rural area in which farming and ranching form the core of the economy.  So if things go awry (low commodity prices and high input prices, the latter especially fuel) you can address this.

The cure for fake news is real news... the cold, unvarnished truth. That's one way to deal with liars, fools, and fanatics.

Quote:There is also the question of whose consensus is being enforced, as there are competing “red-state” and “blue-state” networks, each attempting to persuade us with their values-promoting memes. What values prevail will be evident in time. And though all of the living generations are participating in this social evolution, ultimately it will be the rising Millennial generation that defines what conduct is considered correct.
>>

The Last Act of this Crisis era will not be the consolidation of the Trump agenda.

[sbarrera]

(06-09-2018, 07:12 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(06-08-2018, 05:26 PM)sbarrera Wrote: I will now post my look at one of the items on the list of "what to look for in the generations" that started this thread. This is how Millennials enforce a code of good conduct - ie, how they are recreating an expectation for social norms.

http://stevebarrera.com/millennials-as-c...ial-media/
<<
I recently posted a list of patterns to look for among the living generations in the current social era, based on Strauss & Howe generational theory. I wanted to take a closer look at some of the items on that list in a series of posts, and I’ll start with one under that most talked about of generations – the Millennials.

The item in particular is the second one in the Crisis era box – “look for the Millennial generation to enforce, among peers, a code of good conduct.” You can see this happening in that ubiquitous phenomenon that is defining the times – social media.

If they are to enforce a good code of conduct, then it will not have been they who formulated it. A Civic generation without the influence of older generations could act much like the leaders of the French Revolution -- seeing demons to expunge from society... the corrupt, the old-fashioned, the parasitical, and those of suspect loyalty. That is not to say that the ancien regime deserved to continue.

 That's a great point. The Civic generation is getting its code from the Idealist generation that raised them. In the case of blue-staters the code is respect for the environment for social diversity. In the case of red-staters it is respect for the military and for "traditional" America (that is, 60-years ago America).

[pbrower2a]

Also worth remembering -- if the secular leadership is angry, cynical, amoral Reactive leadership, Civic young adults can serve that leadership wi8th competence and loyalty because such is what passes for moral leadership. Even if that leadership is... NAZIS!

[beechnut79]

(06-10-2018, 01:34 PM)sbarrera Wrote:

(06-09-2018, 07:12 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(06-08-2018, 05:26 PM)sbarrera Wrote: I will now post my look at one of the items on the list of "what to look for in the generations" that started this thread. This is how Millennials enforce a code of good conduct - ie, how they are recreating an expectation for social norms.

http://stevebarrera.com/millennials-as-c...ial-media/
<<
I recently posted a list of patterns to look for among the living generations in the current social era, based on Strauss & Howe generational theory. I wanted to take a closer look at some of the items on that list in a series of posts, and I’ll start with one under that most talked about of generations – the Millennials.

The item in particular is the second one in the Crisis era box – “look for the Millennial generation to enforce, among peers, a code of good conduct.” You can see this happening in that ubiquitous phenomenon that is defining the times – social media.

If they are to enforce a good code of conduct, then it will not have been they who formulated it. A Civic generation without the influence of older generations could act much like the leaders of the French Revolution -- seeing demons to expunge from society... the corrupt, the old-fashioned, the parasitical, and those of suspect loyalty. That is not to say that the ancien regime deserved to continue.

 That's a great point. The Civic generation is getting its code from the Idealist generation that raised them. In the case of blue-staters the code is respect for the environment for social diversity. In the case of red-staters it is respect for the military and for "traditional" America (that is, 60-years ago America).

But in that "traditional" America there were, for the most part, no stores open on Sunday. Don't believe we have returned to that meme anywhere even in red America, Chick-Fil-A notwithstanding.

I seriously doubt though that the Millennials will make like the last generation of its archetype, the GIs, and return us to the days of the Organization Man/Suzy Homemaker lifestyle. Someone here mentioned nostalgia for the days of Mom and Pop shops on Main Street. For said return to happen many would have to be willing to sacrifice some of their conveniences.

[beechnut79]

(06-09-2018, 07:12 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(06-08-2018, 05:26 PM)sbarrera Wrote: I will now post my look at one of the items on the list of "what to look for in the generations" that started this thread. This is how Millennials enforce a code of good conduct - ie, how they are recreating an expectation for social norms.

http://stevebarrera.com/millennials-as-c...ial-media/
<<
I recently posted a list of patterns to look for among the living generations in the current social era, based on Strauss & Howe generational theory. I wanted to take a closer look at some of the items on that list in a series of posts, and I’ll start with one under that most talked about of generations – the Millennials.

The item in particular is the second one in the Crisis era box – “look for the Millennial generation to enforce, among peers, a code of good conduct.” You can see this happening in that ubiquitous phenomenon that is defining the times – social media.

If they are to enforce a good code of conduct, then it will not have been they who formulated it. A Civic generation without the influence of older generations could act much like the leaders of the French Revolution -- seeing demons to expunge from society... the corrupt, the old-fashioned, the parasitical, and those of suspect loyalty. That is not to say that the ancien regime deserved to continue.

Quote:The rise of social media is part of the story of the maturation of the Internet, which first came into the public eye at a time when computer networks were the province of a small minority of socially outcast nerds. As adoption grew through the “you’ve got mail” era and into the dawn of today’s tech giants like Amazon and Google, going online became more and more mainstream.

I also notice the expansion of the computer from a means of command-and-control in businesses (when they did calculation and data-storage) into tools for far more -- like creative activity, education. and entertainment. By now when we have data it has typically gone through a computer, so "computer data" is redundant. Paradoxically the computer has given through its modernity more access to, of all things, antiquity.

Quote:Then, just around the start of the Crisis in 2008, came a new kind of computer that made being online essentially effortless – the smartphone. With it came an explosion of participation on Internet sites designed to promote social networking and interaction. Now, ten years later, what we call social media platforms dominate as a source of information and news.

Miniaturization! I have several reader devices (no smart-phone) yet -- I am astonished that smart-phones aren't built into everything by now. I have dedicated one to use as an input for music into my stereo system. It sits in a cigar box that I effectively use for storage and holding it up.  Something of such general use getting a very limited range of use? No. The musical range is from the late-medieval era to about thirty years ago. You can guess what genre of music that is.

OK, Palestrina is not Shostakovich.

Quote:The term “media” refers to an era’s primary means of mass communication. Adding the qualifier “social” suggests that a socializing role has been added to that of communicating, and perhaps that control of mass communication has been transferred from media elites (who are now mistrusted) to society at large.

But it is also a means of individual communication and (thank you, YouTube!) choice. 

Quote:The socializing role is evident in the familiar features of promoting posts (“liking” and “sharing”). Popular opinions rise to the top of feeds and are seen by the most viewers. Unpopular opinions are quashed. The consensus is reinforced through the use of signal-boosting hashtags like #metoo.

There is a fault: cranky ideas often get an undeserved life.

Quote:Another form of enforcement involves calling out bad behavior. A post demonstrates a transgression of social mores, which may, unfortunately for the transgressor, be taken out of context. Then a blast of comments shames the person. In extreme cases, the person may be identified in real life – called “doxxing” – which can be ruinous.

We need some ethical consensus. I am not going to out someone for being homosexual unless that person is ferociously anti-homosexual. But let us remember that there is much bad behavior on the Internet. People thought that they could use it for accessing lewd images of children and even helpless children themselves through the Internet.  I figure that such is being crushed.

People who steal data for horrible uses are the virtual equivalents of burglars. In time they will be treated as such.

Quote:Perhaps the exemplary case in point is the store owner who posts an anti-gay sign, and then finds his or her business boycotted after a picture of the sign goes viral on social media. But how far might the phenomenon go? Blogger John Robb speculates about “weaponized social networks” and imagines their full potenital.

Discrimination of any kind unless it targets people intent on doing bad things (like theft) is not only cruel, but stupid. If I own the bakery and I have a born-again employee who refuses to frost the words "Congratulations Adam and Steve" or install a same-sex statuette, then I will insist that that employee do as much as does not offend the sensibility of that employee (basically go as far as one can go on a cake for some other purpose). But I have my limits -- no copyright or trademark violations, no praise of crime or child abuse, no pornography,  and no threats or abuse. Obviously I would not make a cake that says "Pay up or die!"

Quote:As for the people being in charge of mass communication now, the “democratization of the media” if you will – that has proven fraught with challenges. Social networks are vulnerable to infiltration, and social engineering has swayed elections. Social media sharing makes the dissemination of false information much too easy, and so the term “fake news” has come into the zeitgeist.

Democratization? No -- it is the recognition of individuality as used to be impossible in the age of mass production and mass communication. It's what still has the mass characteristics (including advertising and partisan politics that have an ethos of command with an attempt to appear as persuasion)  that causes trouble.

The mass society, a reflection of what goes with a certain stage of industrialization, that makes possible a Hitler, a Stalin, a Mao, or a Saddam Hussein. Yes, Donald Trump has resuscitated this mode of mass communication to multitudes who see nothing wrong with it. Others? Those who trivialized the effect still can turn on it by individualizing a coherent message.

So suppose that one is running for office against Donald Trump in a rural area in which farming and ranching form the core of the economy.  So if things go awry (low commodity prices and high input prices, the latter especially fuel) you can address this.

The cure for fake news is real news... the cold, unvarnished truth. That's one way to deal with liars, fools, and fanatics.

Quote:There is also the question of whose consensus is being enforced, as there are competing “red-state” and “blue-state” networks, each attempting to persuade us with their values-promoting memes. What values prevail will be evident in time. And though all of the living generations are participating in this social evolution, ultimately it will be the rising Millennial generation that defines what conduct is considered correct.
>>

The Last Act of this Crisis era will not be the consolidation of the Trump agenda.

History seems to suggest a tendency for Crisis eras to be backloaded, meaning that the bulk of the action doesn't occur until near the end of the turning. This is way many seem to think we are stuck and that we really aren't in Crisis mode. Awakenings, or 2Ts, on the other hand, tend to be more frontloaded with the bulk of the action at the beginning of the turning. This is way we had two social moments 20 years apart and then apparently 60.

[beechnut79]

(06-02-2018, 12:28 PM)sbarrera Wrote: I decided this belongs in Turnings, not Generations, because it looks at all generations in the Fourth Turning.


Years ago, well over a decade ago, I had a web site called “Generation Watch” where I blogged about current events and news stories from a generations perspective. I had a page there for news story submissions where I listed the sorts of patterns and trends to expect of each generation, in both the Third and Fourth Turnings. The text was cribbed from The Fourth Turning by Strauss and Howe.

I moved that page to another location and was thinking I would revisit the observations and apply them to the current social era – about halfway through the Fourth Turning with the climax still ahead. Here’s the link-

http://home.mindspring.com/~saecularpage...okFor.html

I would love to hear responses about what people on this forum think the authors got right or wrong, or whether or not the list I put together accurately reflects their theory.

Where it comes to the results of this 4T the jury is obviously still out. In the book even the authors couldn't accurate predict what the crisis would entail and we still don't know entirely. But on another thread I pointed out one of the things many futurists predicted that really went awry, and that was the one that modern technology would produce a world of ever increasing leisure. Still waiting for that one. Anyone really think we will ever see it?

[tg63]

(06-11-2018, 10:54 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: History seems to suggest a tendency for Crisis eras to be backloaded, meaning that the bulk of the action doesn't occur until near the end of the turning. This is way many seem to think we are stuck and that we really aren't in Crisis mode. Awakenings, or 2Ts, on the other hand, tend to be more frontloaded with the bulk of the action at the beginning of the turning. This is way we had two social moments 20 years apart and then apparently 60.

This is a good point, one which I've been thinking about lately - it seems that Awakenings are largely a product of the movements the younger generation drives (e.g. all the movements thru the 60's & early 70's). However crisis events seem to be a product of the decisions made by a new style of leadership that is chosen ... by definition the impacts of this would take longer to develop.