What are your specialities?

[Ldr]

(09-17-2019, 06:43 PM)Mikebert Wrote: A couple of observations. Generations are not typically 20 years long. If you look at the first three S&H saecula (1435-1746) they average 25.9 years in length. Back at the old site a couple of us extended the cycle back to the mid-9th century (period 851-1435 covering 23 turnings), for which the average length was 25.4 years.

To show an 80 year cycle you need to obtain cyclical data going back several centuries. The data presented in chapter 4 is over too short of a period. I would suggest you employ marital age + 1 as a proxy for maternal age. I believe there is English data going back centuries.

I'm not willing to use marital statistics, as marriage was an institution regulated by church and religion. Marriage is basically based on human biology, or it at least tries to uphold some of the morale inside families,  but still, it is not something I feel comfortable relying on. I'd like to have all the sources as clear as possible. I know I've used marriage statistics in the theory to convey the low oxytocin levels of the 1970s, but those statistics are very precise and show exactly the moment when the divorce boom begins and ends, and for whom.

You should note that the 80 year cycle is highly consistent with the Strauss-Howe generational theory's generations all the way to the year 1700. Beyond that the generations become suddenly longer in the generational theory. But this same phenomenon of longer cycles can be observed with other animals as well, as the cycles can sometimes break a little bit, but then resume. Environmental factors like distance are most likely at work here, but in any case, this is well within the boundaries of the generational hormone theory.

On the other hand, the 80 year cycle is highly compatible with the group aggression (=wars) that is measured by the statistic below. X marks an ending of a 4th turning, blue line is the theoretical vasopressin hormone cycle with the highers point being the transition from a 4th turning to a 1st turning.

Btw, where did you place The Anarchy (1133-1153) on your medieval generational cycle?

[Eric the Green]

(09-14-2019, 07:40 AM)Ldr Wrote:

(09-14-2019, 05:37 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-13-2019, 05:31 AM)Ldr Wrote: Any more questions about this theory? It is good to read critique, as answering questions helps to sharpen the arguments.

Did you have medical statistics showing higher and lower levels of these two hormones in the generations?

It's hard to see how that would follow; what would explain how millions of people would have the same hormone levels, when that is an individual matter within each person's body?

Also, the generational theory is based on lots of biographical information about people in various generations. The explanations they provide do have some merit; I didn't see good reasons that you presented for not accepting them.

Thank you for the good questions, Eric.

Direct oxytocin and vasopressin measurements have been inaccurate until recent years due to technical difficulties (the molecules are so tiny and often attached to other molecules). This is why I'm using breastfeeding, paternal age, parenting time and alcohol usage statistics (chapter 4), and they all correlate with the Strauss-Howe generational theory and obviously also the hormone level chart   in chapter 4.7 of the generational hormone theory. What this also means is that Strauss & Howe could have written the same books about cyclical lemming populations.   They show the same cyclical behavioral variances in parenting and family unity during their own generational cycle.

It works the same way as with lemmings and voles for example: each generation has their own size of areas in hypothalamus that control the hormone secretion, and for Gen X those areas were underdeveloped and for Gen Z they are maximum in size and efficiency. Of course there are some individual differences, just like with menstrual cycles and the amount of hormones that are flowing through a woman's body, so nobody is 100% identical. But generations have their own average levels of hormones, so the behavioral traits of a generation gravitate towards their generational center.

The reason why I didn't agree or disagree with your statements is because you were correct in your observations, but incorrect how they would be the explanation for generational behavior. If you can demonstrate causality beyond the Strauss-Howe generational theory, then please do, I'm all for it, I'm not saying that you're wrong. But if you can't, you should consider that those are your best guesses, and guesses are either right or wrong. This means that they can be 100% wrong unless you can explain why similar societal events in other times have totally different end results.

The generational hormone theory explains everything in a relatively simple manner, and in a way that is extremely similar to other species. The generational hormone theory also explains why a generation is 20 years in length. And it's incredibly difficult to see how a generational cycle could hold it's coherence of a 80 year cycle for centuries, unless there is a "biological backbone". Just look at this chart from the medieval England, the red lines mark the ending of a 4th turning (and a peak in vasopressin levels, which promotes aggressive group behavior), starting from 2030 - 1950 - 1870 - 1790 - 1710 - 1630 - 1550 and the graph shows 1470 - 1390 - 1310 - 1230 - 1150.

It's easy to see that 3/3 of the peaks in sociopolitical unstability occurred during the 4th turnings, so the 80 year cycle is incredibly accurate even in the middle ages. I think that the full hormone cycle is very close to 80 years, thus showing up even in the medieval England, as The Anarchy broke out in 1133 and ended in 1153. So basically the whole 20 years of the 12th century 4th turning was war, and it "...resulted in a widespread breakdown in law and order." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anarchy)

Keep the good questions coming!

Thanks for your ideas and your openness to questions.

My point of view is that causality in the mechanical/biological sense is no longer necessary to establish the validity of a cycle. Correspondences in time with events will do. The world does not operate on mechanical causation alone. There is not only quantum probability involved, but in the new age we recognize again the presence of life and human consciousness that is observing the supposed causation, not just mechanical events conceived on the model of our own manipulation of the world. Human factors are the main element in any valid theory of human and social behavior, not the behavior of lemmings. Hormones are a part of human functioning and consciousness though, so I agree it can be integrated into a theory of social and human behavior, and things like alcohol use and parenting practices are created by social trends and human choice, and thus so are hormone levels.

I'm not too sure about your chart. It would seem the peasant rebellion in the early 1520s was pretty substantial and deadly, although it was the start of a reformation movement trend that arguably peaked in the 1570s. I see that it only measures England though; a global chart would be better. Also, I doubt the accuracy of the death count on Mike's chart. The Taiping Rebellion may have been the most deadly until the world wars.

[Ldr]

(09-19-2019, 02:59 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: My point of view is that causality in the mechanical/biological sense is no longer necessary to establish the validity of a cycle. Correspondences in time with events will do. The world does not operate on mechanical causation alone. There is not only quantum probability involved, but in the new age we recognize again the presence of life and human consciousness that is observing the supposed causation, not just mechanical events conceived on the model of our own manipulation of the world. Human factors are the main element in any valid theory of human and social behavior, not the behavior of lemmings. Hormones are a part of human functioning and consciousness though, so I agree it can be integrated into a theory of social and human behavior, and things like alcohol use and parenting practices are created by social trends and human choice, and thus so are hormone levels.

I'm not too sure about your chart. It would seem the peasant rebellion in the early 1520s was pretty substantial and deadly, although it was the start of a reformation movement trend that arguably peaked in the 1570s. I see that it only measures England though; a global chart would be better. Also, I doubt the accuracy of the death count on Mike's chart. The Taiping Rebellion may have been the most deadly until the world wars.

Thanks Eric for your thoughts.

I agree to a degree, but are we that different from lemmings? The statistics in the generational hormone theory illustrate that breastfeeding initiation, maternal age and parenting intensity are all dictated by hormone levels, when looking at a nation as a whole. Humans think they make their own decisions. But how can one assume that this is true, as the national statistics imply that these decisions are actually made by hormone levels. And if something as personal (as when to have children or how much time to spend with them) is actually no more than an average number, what does this say about free will? Humans are controlled by their hormone levels. Their personality is defined by their hormone levels, and the generational hormone levels define the generation's personality -> thus we have the generational archetypes. Just like lemmings do, they have generational traits in behavior, it's the same.

One can talk about culture, art or politics all day, but in the end, even these preferences are largely defined by hormone levels. The culture and ideologies are already there when a generation is born. The generation either chooses to embrace the current societal norms (like the 3rd generation often does) or rebel against them (like the 1st generation tends to do). But since no individual gets to choose which generation they're born into, they are destined to go with that generation from start to end. Only extreme cases, like individuals who do not conform and/or have most of their friends from other generations, they may escape outside their generation. But this is very rare, which is why the generations have such strong traits that manifest themselves in every generation.

You should note that hormones define every action and reaction. Once you start to think about this sentence and how profoundly it defines individual actions, only then can one appreciate the power of hormones. Hormones are the reason why people are addicted to social media, games/gambling, sex, food, tobacco, drugs, shopping, fame, power... Without hormones, there would be virtually no addiction. So, since pretty much everyone is more or less addicted to something, now you start to see the power of hormones in daily life.

But that is just the beginning. Hormones also influence thoughts on an unconscious level. The decisions individuals rationalize are only mere afterthoughts of the decisions the unconscious has already made, and the unconscious is affected by hormones. There is no way to separate them, no way to make a decision without the hormones influencing the decision first before the conscious thought. In addition, dream are also affected by hormone levels. Dreams are where the unconscious goes through memories and possible future events. Even though science does not understand what happens during sleeping, it is clear that hormone levels are at play even at this moment. So if one thinks that he controls his hormone levels, think again, as it is actually the hormone levels that are controlling your every single 1) action, 2) reaction, 3) thought and 4) dream.

If lemmings could talk, I'm sure neither they would agree that it's actually hormones that are largely making the decisions instead of them consciously making them. Humans have language and culture, which is nice, but how does that elevate humanity to a higher level, freeing us from our hormones? Especially group decisions are made by one single person, which makes the social hormones oxytocin and vasopressin even more important. This is exactly what Jung, a master of understanding the archetypes, tried to explain to all humanity in his books. We're still controlled by our very basic instincts. Humans still kill, still have all the bad emotions from envy to rage, still get addicted to all kinds of bad behavior and still think that were somehow uniquely separate from the rest of nature. Jung understood this all, and tried to warn humanity, but it seems that those warnings have largely gone unnoticed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5ezIfoUGBQ

I really don't want to sound like an alarmist, but since Jung had an incredibly deep view into the human psyche, and he saw pretty much no improvement in it for the better during his lifetime, which spanned both world wars (and he tried to warn about them coming), which brings up this question: has anything in the human psyche or self-control become better since Jung dies in 1962? Is the current human population any better than it was a 100 years ago? I see little reason to claim that today is any different from 100 years ago as far as human psyche goes, as every single positive and negative element is still there. There is no less hate, envy, fear, prejudice or hunger for power/dominance. Times change and generations cycle, but the human nature does not, and the reason is that hormones are (still) in control.

I would like to conclude this post with one question: If all Western populations still thought that witches are behind bad economic times, would they be hunted? The answer is yes, look at anti-Semitism. And then look at Africa, where witch hunts still occur. When you look at the documents tof 21st century witch hunts you will understand that it's still about one thing: scapegoating. Something goes wrong, like the crops are bad or a child is acting strangely, a scapegoat must be found. To this day, there are still professional witch hunters in Tanzania. These individuals appeal to the instincts of scapegoating, finding blame in someone who is an unwanted person, and that is often an old widow living alone in the outskirts of a village. This is happening in 2019. But how does this differ from a populist who blames the immigrants for economic and social troubles? It doesn't. And when oxytocin and vasopressin levels are high -> scapegoating/populism is what appeals to humans.


(ps. As for the Taiping Rebellion, most of the deaths were attributed to plague and famine, and the Max Roser chart doesn't take those into account, as they were indirect consequences, not intended deaths caused by group aggression.)

[pbrower2a]

(09-20-2019, 02:26 AM)Ldr Wrote:

(09-19-2019, 02:59 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: My point of view is that causality in the mechanical/biological sense is no longer necessary to establish the validity of a cycle. Correspondences in time with events will do. The world does not operate on mechanical causation alone. There is not only quantum probability involved, but in the new age we recognize again the presence of life and human consciousness that is observing the supposed causation, not just mechanical events conceived on the model of our own manipulation of the world. Human factors are the main element in any valid theory of human and social behavior, not the behavior of lemmings. Hormones are a part of human functioning and consciousness though, so I agree it can be integrated into a theory of social and human behavior, and things like alcohol use and parenting practices are created by social trends and human choice, and thus so are hormone levels.

I'm not too sure about your chart. It would seem the peasant rebellion in the early 1520s was pretty substantial and deadly, although it was the start of a reformation movement trend that arguably peaked in the 1570s. I see that it only measures England though; a global chart would be better. Also, I doubt the accuracy of the death count on Mike's chart. The Taiping Rebellion may have been the most deadly until the world wars.

Thanks Eric for your thoughts.

I agree to a degree, but what makes humans much different from lemmings? The statistics in the generational hormone theory illustrate that breastfeeding initiation, maternal age and parenting intensity are all dictated by hormone levels, when looking at a nation as a whole. Humans think they make their own decisions. But how can one assume that this is true, as the national statistics imply that these decisions are actually made by hormone levels. And if something as personal (as when to have children or how much time to spend with them) is actually no more than an average number, what does this say about free will? Humans are controlled by their hormone levels. Their personality is defined by their hormone levels, and the generational hormone levels define the generation's personality -> thus we have the generational archetypes. Just like lemmings do.

Intelligence, size, position in the food chain makes us much less like lemmings than those make us more like... dogs. 

Are hormones cause or effect of the times?  

Quote:One can talk about culture, art or politics all day, but in the end, even these preferences are largely defined by hormone levels. The culture and ideologies are already there when a generation is born. The generation either chooses to embrace the current societal norms (like the 3rd generation often does) or rebel against them (like the 1st generation tends to do). But since no individual gets to choose which generation they're born into, they are destined to go with that generation from start to end. Only extreme cases, like individuals who do not conform and/or have most of their friends from other generations, they may escape outside their generation. But this is very rare, which is why the generations have such strong traits that manifest themselves in every generation.

Would hormones tell us why we elected in turn Bill Clinton, Dubya, Obama, and (sort of) Trump as President? Would hormones explain why I disparage disco and praise long, introspective or contrapuntally-masterful pieces of music? 

The big definition of me relates to Asperger's syndrome which I fault for much that has gone wrong in my life. 

Quote:You should note that hormones define every action and reaction. Once you start to think about this sentence and how profoundly it defines individual actions, only then can one appreciate the power of hormones. Hormones are the reason why people are addicted to social media, games/gambling, sex, food, tobacco, drugs, shopping, fame, power... Without hormones, there would be virtually no addiction. So, since pretty much everyone is more or less addicted to something, now you start to see the power of hormones in daily life.

Link? That is a strong statement. Maybe if people had no trace of addictive behavior they would be without motivation. 

Quote:But that is just the beginning. Hormones also influence thoughts on an unconscious level. The decisions individuals rationalize are only mere afterthoughts of the decisions the unconscious has already made, and the unconscious is affected by hormones. There is no way to separate them, no way to make a decision without the hormones influencing the decision first before the conscious thought. In addition, dream are also affected by hormone levels. Dreams are where the unconscious goes through memories and possible future events. Even though science does not understand what happens during sleeping, it is clear that hormone levels are at play even at this moment. So if one thinks that he controls his hormone levels, think again, as it is actually the hormone levels that are controlling your every single 1) action, 2) reaction, 3) thought and 4) dream.

Having been introduced to the wonderful effects of a C-PAP machine that is not overt therapy through hormones (it gives me a higher quality of sleep and makes me more refreshed after a shorter time of sleep) I can tell you that the quality of sleep makes a big difference in life. So does that change hormone levels or content?

Quote:If lemmings could talk, I'm sure neither they would agree that it's actually hormones that are largely making the decisions instead of them consciously making them. Humans have language and culture, which is nice, but how does that elevate humanity to a higher level, freeing us from our hormones? Especially group decisions are made by one single person, which makes the social hormones oxytocin and vasopressin even more important. This is exactly what Jung, a master of understanding the archetypes, tried to explain to all humanity in his books. We're still controlled by our very basic instincts. Humans still kill, still have all the bad emotions from envy to rage, still get addicted to all kinds of bad behavior and still think that were somehow uniquely separate from the rest of nature. Jung understood this all, and tried to warn humanity, but it seems that those warnings have largely gone unnoticed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5ezIfoUGBQ

Lemmings do not talk, and they are the sorts of animals that have cause to avoid this:

Quote:I really don't want to sound like an alarmist, but since Jung had an incredibly deep view into the human psyche, and he saw pretty much no improvement in it for the better during his lifetime, which spanned both world wars (and he tried to warn about them coming), which brings up this question: has anything in the human psyche or self-control become better since Jung dies in 1962? Is the current human population any better than it was a 100 years ago? I see little reason to claim that today is any different from 100 years ago as far as human psyche goes, as every single positive and negative element is still there. There is no less hate, envy, fear, prejudice or hunger for power/dominance. Times change and generations cycle, but the human nature does not, and the reason is that hormones are (still) in control.

Human nature has changed little since antiquity, which explains why ancient Greek literature and the teachings of Moses, Confucius, and the Buddha remain relevant. To be sure there are cycles, and such a work as Sinclair Lewis' Babbitt makes far more sense in a 3T than in other times, and why such a Broadway musical as How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying has far more relevance in a 1T (when people of modest talent can get ahead in bureaucratic organizations) than in a 3T when the pretext of easy success by following formulas is absurd. Don't get me wrong: it is humorous, and the music is peppy.  How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying will be well suited to the stage when the 1T is underway. 
 

Quote:I would like to conclude this post with one question: If all Western populations still thought that witches are behind bad economic times, would they be hunted? The answer is yes, look at anti-Semitism. And then look at Africa, where witch hunts still occur. When you look at the documents of 21st century witch hunts you will understand that it's still about one thing: scapegoating. Something goes wrong, like the crops are bad or a child is acting strangely, a scapegoat must be found. To this day, there are still professional witch hunters in Tanzania. These individuals appeal to the instincts of scapegoating, finding blame in someone who is an unwanted person, and that is often an old widow living alone in the outskirts of a village. This is happening in 2019. But how does this differ from a populist who blames the immigrants for economic and social troubles? It doesn't. And when oxytocin and vasopressin levels are high -> scapegoating/populism is what appeals to humans.

OK -- Nazi antisemitism was a figurative witch-hunt, and it saw the Jews as the equivalent of witches irrespective of gender, age, or social role.  

Quote:(ps. As for the Taiping Rebellion, most of the deaths were attributed to plague and famine, and the Max Roser chart doesn't take those into account, as they were indirect consequences, not intended deaths caused by group aggression.)

Plagues and famines are most likely when the social order is weak and often lead to the breakdown of society.

[Ldr]

(09-20-2019, 03:44 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Are hormones cause or effect of the times?  

Would hormones tell us why we elected in turn Bill Clinton, Dubya, Obama, and (sort of) Trump as President? Would hormones explain why I disparage disco and praise long, introspective or contrapuntally-masterful pieces of music? 

Quote:Hormones are the reason why people are addicted to social media, games/gambling, sex, food, tobacco, drugs, shopping, fame, power... Without hormones, there would be virtually no addiction. So, since pretty much everyone is more or less addicted to something, now you start to see the power of hormones in daily life.

Link? That is a strong statement. Maybe if people had no trace of addictive behavior they would be without motivation.

You're absolutely correct that without addiction there would be no motivation! It's the two sides of the same coin. Humans crave dopamine, and dopamine is basically at the root of all addictions. People are addicted to different things, but what is common is that they all release dopamine. Addiction is about feeling good, and hormones decide when you feel good and what your mood is. https://www.helpguide.org/harvard/how-ad...-brain.htm This is also why getting rid of addiction is so hard: addiction is rooted in biology, even though it manifests in psychology. The best way to get rid of an addiction is to replace it with some other activity that brings a good feeling, because that takes the power of addiction away when a new way to produce dopamine is found.

I'm linking humans to lemmings since it seems that we make the biggest decisions in our lives from mating to childcare largely dictated by hormone levels. And belonging to a generation only increases this effect, as others in our generation largely behave in the same manner. So hormones work from inside us and also outside, as we get influences from the society and our friends and spouses. But thinking that humans are biologically and mentally something entirely different from other animals is foolish, and Jung understood that foolishness, and he also saw that the foolishness drove humanity into two world wars. Not much has changed since those days, only the lower oxytocin and vasopressin levels have kept things relatively peaceful this far.

So hormones are the cause, not the effect. If you can point me to even one study, where hormones are permanently changed for an individual or a group of people due to societal change/dynamics, please do. But I don't think you're going to find such a study. I think there are huge misconceptions about this matter, as there are studies saying that "soy lowers testosterone" or "chocolate increases dopamine levels". Sure, why not, but for how long? 30 minutes? 2 hours? These headlines are catchy, but they largely mislead the public to believe that hormone base levels are something that can be changed for good. So talking about soyboys etc. is hugely misinformed, although we like to have someone to blame for the societal events that are happening. And you guessed it, I'm going to once again refer to the witch hunts, as when science wasn't around to give us even misleading information, that information was generated from religious texts and folklore, sometimes from thin air.


And yes, hormones largely explain what kind of music we like to listen to. This is a big equation, but preferred music styles do reflect one's personality, and this personality is largely defined by hormones (explaining why in puberty most often changes one's music preferences). Parenting and life events define personality also (a subject which there are thousands of books and studies about, so maybe not a discussion for this time), but most of the recent studies imply that genetics is the thing that ultimately decides the personality. If the personality doesn't fit a family/society, we see rebelling, like what the boomers did. But the millennials fit nicely to the liberal globalistic world, so they didn't have to rebel, although now they don't understand what good nationalism could bring to the table. I hate to talk about recent generations too much, since it seems that it always side-rails a conversation and everyone has an opinion, but lets hope that doesn't happen this time.

Generational hormone levels absolutely have a huge impact on the presidential races. Just look at chapter 4.2.1 in the generational hormone theory's webpage, as it shows how generations have voted. It seems that the birth cohorts from 1965-1975 (lowest oxytocin levels) have almost always voted more to the right than left. And on the other hand, birth cohorts from 1975-> have voted left, splitting a latter part of Gen X (the xennials) to voting very differently than the first half of Gen X. Hormones are obviously not the only deciding factor when voting, but it seems that the average voting behavior follows generational oxytocin levels like chapter 4 presents.

[Mikebert]

(09-18-2019, 11:53 AM)Ldr Wrote:

(09-17-2019, 06:43 PM)Mikebert Wrote: A couple of observations. Generations are not typically 20 years long. If you look at the first three S&H saecula (1435-1746) they average 25.9 years in length. Back at the old site a couple of us extended the cycle back to the mid-9th century (period 851-1435 covering 23 turnings), for which the average length was 25.4 years.

To show an 80 year cycle you need to obtain cyclical data going back several centuries. The data presented in chapter 4 is over too short of a period. I would suggest you employ marital age + 1 as a proxy for maternal age. I believe there is English data going back centuries.

I'm not willing to use marital statistics, as marriage was an institution regulated by church and religion. Marriage is basically based on human biology, or it at least tries to uphold some of the morale inside families,  but still, it is not something I feel comfortable relying on. I'd like to have all the sources as clear as possible. I know I've used marriage statistics in the theory to convey the low oxytocin levels of the 1970s, but those statistics are very precise and show exactly the moment when the divorce boom begins and ends, and for whom.

You should note that the 80 year cycle is highly consistent with the Strauss-Howe generational theory's generations all the way to the year 1700. Beyond that the generations become suddenly longer in the generational theory. But this same phenomenon of longer cycles can be observed with other animals as well, as the cycles can sometimes break a little bit, but then resume. Environmental factors like distance are most likely at work here, but in any case, this is well within the boundaries of the generational hormone theory.

On the other hand, the 80 year cycle is highly compatible with the group aggression (=wars) that is measured by the statistic below. X marks an ending of a 4th turning, blue line is the theoretical vasopressin hormone cycle with the highers point being the transition from a 4th turning to a 1st turning.

Btw, where did you place The Anarchy (1133-1153) on your medieval generational cycle?

It straddled a 3T and 4T.   The war cycles shown  in your figure are the fifty-year war cycles first identified by Quincy Wright (1942). They do not really correspond to 80 year cycles. 

As for the assumed oxytocin connection I do not see where this relation has been established since we don't have data about its levels before recent times. Where did you get this cycle idea from? I did not see any references to the thesis aside from your own work.

[Ldr]

Mikebert,

Look at the casualties and you will see that the vast majority has occurred close to the ending of 4th turnings. And then look at the scale, it's logarithmic, which enforces the fact that during 4th and 1st turnings, when vasopressin levels are high, group violence is much more prevalent than during 2nd and 3rd turnings, especially in the Western nations/areas of influence. Thirty Years' War and WW2 are totally in their own class, and both were solely caused by Western nations. Obviously that chart could be nitpicked to death (no pun intended), which is not very fruitful for this discussion. What I'm trying to say is that sociopolitical instabilities and group violence are higher during 4th and 1st turnings, and this goes back to the Anarchy of 1133-1153, fitting in a 4th turning almost like clockwork.

You can see the data from past centuries in the Strauss-Howe generational theory, as they list for example how intense childcare is during each turning, all the way to the middle ages. Therefore, if you believe Strauss & Howe's historical findings, then you can believe that the obtained stats from the 20th century (chapter 4) apply to the other centuries as well, as oxytocin levels dictate the intensity of childcare.

But how did I get the cyclical idea? Look at the chart below from The Fourth Turning. When nurture is 'underprotective', that is when oxytocin levels are very low. And when nurture is 'overprotective', that's when oxytocin levels are very high. The same goes for lemmings and voles too. The yellow line represents oxytocin levels, and is basically the same as is in the theory's chapter 4.7. (And once the oxytocin levels go higher during 3rd/4th turning, alcohol consumption drops, and these things can even manifest as laws like it did during the prohibition era, once the public opinion/majority turned against substance use.)

Now look at the yellow oxytocin level line in the generational hormone cycle. It's basically the same:

This is how I got the cycle idea: reading The 4th Turning book, mostly believing in the charts that Strauss & Howe presented, as they clearly understood the trends of history. I never believed the explanations that somehow millions of people could create a social dynamic of precise 80 year cycles that always work the same way, and continuously for at least five centuries... It's next to impossible.

But if the Strauss-Howe generational theory is actually based on a biology, one that can be proven, then Strauss & Howe's theory could go from a theory to reality. This is how I understood that hormone levels of oxytocin and vasopressin are involved, as they are the paramount social hormones in humans, and in other animals as well. I researched these two social hormones and found out that their levels are in control of the social mood: hormones control an individual's mood, thus especially social hormones control the social mood (when in sync). But not only that, the levels of oxytocin and vasopressin also control territorial behavior, in-group and out-group dynamics, xenophobia, flattening/increasing social hierarchy, group aggression, and much more that is directly connected the the Strauss-Howe generational theory!

After all this I found out that two Russian studies (on lemmings and voles) have direct proof that these mentioned social hormones oxytocin and vasopressin have vastly different generational levels during their population cycles, that are in sync, and that these levels heavily correlate with the Strauss-Howe generational theory, which was quite an amazing coincidence. There are numerous biological clocks in nature, and moose populations for instance have a nearly 40 year cycle, and I really don't believe that their generational cycle is a "social dynamics" thingy either.   What I'm getting at here is that what are the chances of creating a generational oxytocin & vasopressin hormone theory based on the Strauss-Howe generational theory, only to find that the cyclical animal populations have the same generational hormone cycle of oxytocin and vasopressin? I would say the chances are close to 0%, but what do you think?

(Lemming and vole cycles are about 4 years in length, so basically the only difference is that the human cycle is 20 times longer, 80 years. But then again, human lifespan is more than 20 times compared to those small mammals.)

What I'm going to say next may be controversial, but in the light of biology and history backing up the generational hormone theory as an explanation for the Strauss-Howe generational theory, I'll state the following. Strauss & Howe found the generational hormone cycle, but they did not understand it's roots, as almost no real knowledge of oxytocin and vasopressin was available during the 20th century. They had to come up with an explanation for the cycle, and that is when they generated the social dynamics theory. Unfortunately, this is also the weak point of their theory, as it is based on nothing but assumptions. They interviewed many generations, but if one is asked "why don't you drink alcohol", do they respond "I have high levels of oxytocin" or "generational group pressure is why I don't drink"? No, they come up with the usual explanations of "I don't want a hangover", "I value my health", "drunk people are social rejects", "my parents drank so I don't want to", or some other generally acceptable reason. They cannot know what they basically don't understand, as hormone levels impact every single action, reaction and thought an individual has, and thus generational hormone levels impact the actions, reactions and thoughts each generation has. Strauss & Howe recorded the events that surfaced during each 80 year cycle, but they couldn't see the underlying current that generated the generations and moved the cycle forward.

I believe that the cyclical hormone levels is what creates the generational archetypes. Lemmings and voles also have generational archetypes, as each of their generations acts and reacts in a similar way to how the previous generation with the same hormone levels did, 4 years before, as their cycle is about 4 years.  So it's not like humans are the only species with generational cycles, but since humans are social animals, the effects of generationally varying social hormone levels cause strong tides in our societies when compared to the rest of the animal world.

[Eric the Green]

(09-20-2019, 02:26 AM)Ldr Wrote:

(09-19-2019, 02:59 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: My point of view is that causality in the mechanical/biological sense is no longer necessary to establish the validity of a cycle. Correspondences in time with events will do. The world does not operate on mechanical causation alone. There is not only quantum probability involved, but in the new age we recognize again the presence of life and human consciousness that is observing the supposed causation, not just mechanical events conceived on the model of our own manipulation of the world. Human factors are the main element in any valid theory of human and social behavior, not the behavior of lemmings. Hormones are a part of human functioning and consciousness though, so I agree it can be integrated into a theory of social and human behavior, and things like alcohol use and parenting practices are created by social trends and human choice, and thus so are hormone levels.

I'm not too sure about your chart. It would seem the peasant rebellion in the early 1520s was pretty substantial and deadly, although it was the start of a reformation movement trend that arguably peaked in the 1570s. I see that it only measures England though; a global chart would be better. Also, I doubt the accuracy of the death count on Mike's chart. The Taiping Rebellion may have been the most deadly until the world wars.

Thanks Eric for your thoughts.

I agree to a degree, but are we that different from lemmings? The statistics in the generational hormone theory illustrate that breastfeeding initiation, maternal age and parenting intensity are all dictated by hormone levels, when looking at a nation as a whole. Humans think they make their own decisions. But how can one assume that this is true, as the national statistics imply that these decisions are actually made by hormone levels. And if something as personal (as when to have children or how much time to spend with them) is actually no more than an average number, what does this say about free will? Humans are controlled by their hormone levels. Their personality is defined by their hormone levels, and the generational hormone levels define the generation's personality -> thus we have the generational archetypes. Just like lemmings do, they have generational traits in behavior, it's the same.

One can talk about culture, art or politics all day, but in the end, even these preferences are largely defined by hormone levels. The culture and ideologies are already there when a generation is born. The generation either chooses to embrace the current societal norms (like the 3rd generation often does) or rebel against them (like the 1st generation tends to do). But since no individual gets to choose which generation they're born into, they are destined to go with that generation from start to end. Only extreme cases, like individuals who do not conform and/or have most of their friends from other generations, they may escape outside their generation. But this is very rare, which is why the generations have such strong traits that manifest themselves in every generation.

You should note that hormones define every action and reaction. Once you start to think about this sentence and how profoundly it defines individual actions, only then can one appreciate the power of hormones. Hormones are the reason why people are addicted to social media, games/gambling, sex, food, tobacco, drugs, shopping, fame, power... Without hormones, there would be virtually no addiction. So, since pretty much everyone is more or less addicted to something, now you start to see the power of hormones in daily life.

But that is just the beginning. Hormones also influence thoughts on an unconscious level. The decisions individuals rationalize are only mere afterthoughts of the decisions the unconscious has already made, and the unconscious is affected by hormones. There is no way to separate them, no way to make a decision without the hormones influencing the decision first before the conscious thought. In addition, dream are also affected by hormone levels. Dreams are where the unconscious goes through memories and possible future events. Even though science does not understand what happens during sleeping, it is clear that hormone levels are at play even at this moment. So if one thinks that he controls his hormone levels, think again, as it is actually the hormone levels that are controlling your every single 1) action, 2) reaction, 3) thought and 4) dream.

If lemmings could talk, I'm sure neither they would agree that it's actually hormones that are largely making the decisions instead of them consciously making them. Humans have language and culture, which is nice, but how does that elevate humanity to a higher level, freeing us from our hormones? Especially group decisions are made by one single person, which makes the social hormones oxytocin and vasopressin even more important. This is exactly what Jung, a master of understanding the archetypes, tried to explain to all humanity in his books. We're still controlled by our very basic instincts. Humans still kill, still have all the bad emotions from envy to rage, still get addicted to all kinds of bad behavior and still think that were somehow uniquely separate from the rest of nature. Jung understood this all, and tried to warn humanity, but it seems that those warnings have largely gone unnoticed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5ezIfoUGBQ

I really don't want to sound like an alarmist, but since Jung had an incredibly deep view into the human psyche, and he saw pretty much no improvement in it for the better during his lifetime, which spanned both world wars (and he tried to warn about them coming), which brings up this question: has anything in the human psyche or self-control become better since Jung dies in 1962? Is the current human population any better than it was a 100 years ago? I see little reason to claim that today is any different from 100 years ago as far as human psyche goes, as every single positive and negative element is still there. There is no less hate, envy, fear, prejudice or hunger for power/dominance. Times change and generations cycle, but the human nature does not, and the reason is that hormones are (still) in control.

I would like to conclude this post with one question: If all Western populations still thought that witches are behind bad economic times, would they be hunted? The answer is yes, look at anti-Semitism. And then look at Africa, where witch hunts still occur. When you look at the documents tof 21st century witch hunts you will understand that it's still about one thing: scapegoating. Something goes wrong, like the crops are bad or a child is acting strangely, a scapegoat must be found. To this day, there are still professional witch hunters in Tanzania. These individuals appeal to the instincts of scapegoating, finding blame in someone who is an unwanted person, and that is often an old widow living alone in the outskirts of a village. This is happening in 2019. But how does this differ from a populist who blames the immigrants for economic and social troubles? It doesn't. And when oxytocin and vasopressin levels are high -> scapegoating/populism is what appeals to humans.


(ps. As for the Taiping Rebellion, most of the deaths were attributed to plague and famine, and the Max Roser chart doesn't take those into account, as they were indirect consequences, not intended deaths caused by group aggression.)

I had the impression from historians that these were war deaths, either people fighting or people caught in the crossfire.

You seem interesting, but apt to jump to conclusions and narrow down causes. Hormones the cause of everything human and animal? I don't even think scientists would agree with such a one-cause interpretation. It's wise to consider, in my considered opinion, that life is too variable and variegated to be narrowed down to simple explanations. Jung certainly did not do this, and did not attribute human behavior to hormones. You are quoting someone there who valued and used the hermetic tradition, including astrology and alchemy and Platonic philosophy.

I can't see concluding from the fact that progress moves in fits and starts, and that the arc of history is long, that hormones are in control. There's no QED there.

And again, NO, right-wing fear-mongers are not "populists." No. Populists are those who wish to restore and advance more political and economic power to the people, rather than a small elite. That has nothing to do with racist and ethnic scapegoating.

The spiritual practices such as meditation and Buddhism zero in on the cause of suffering, which is called by various names, including addiction; which is just an insufficient level of consciousness. It may be a daunting task, but rather than just submit to the rule of hormones and give up, the project of humanity is to rule over them through expanding consciousness. That is what the sixties Awakening was all about, but people in America and elsewhere often tend to forget 2T Awakenings and their lessons, and that is the principle reason for the lack of progress that you see.

[Ldr]

(09-23-2019, 11:07 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Hormones the cause of everything human and animal? I don't even think scientists would agree with such a one-cause interpretation... Jung certainly did not do this, and did not attribute human behavior to hormones.

I can't see concluding from the fact that progress moves in fits and starts, and that the arc of history is long, that hormones are in control. There's no QED there.

And again, NO, right-wing fear-mongers are not "populists." No. Populists are those who wish to restore and advance more political and economic power to the people, rather than a small elite. That has nothing to do with racist and ethnic scapegoating.

I'll answer your three points in order.

1. I'll say this again: hormones influence/control every single action, reaction, thought and dream. I'm not saying that they cause everything, not at all, but they influence everything ('control' might sound a bit too harsh). Since testosterone is probably the best know hormone, I'll use that a a basic example for both mental and physical effects. If you have two very similar individuals, say twins, but the other has high  and the other low testosterone levels, which one is more likely to be more sexually active and have more muscle mass? It is obviously the one with the higher testosterone levels. This is not always the case, as hormone levels do not dictate ones life, but the probability is set in the hormone levels you're given through biology. Now zoom your view out to the whole population, and you will see the individual differences are ironed out, and the generation with higher testosterone levels is likely to be more sexually active and have more muscle mass.

Do you now see my point of generational hormone levels influencing generational behavior, thus traits, perhaps even the archetypes, which are defined by distinctive behavioral patterns? Humans are not the only species to have a history defined by cyclical hormones. Look at the animal cycles and remember that they too have generations with distinctive behavioral patterns, and one could call those archetypes also.

(As for Jung, had almost no knowledge of hormones since he passed away in 1962. Jung understood and often said that nobody understands the human psyche, not even him, and this situation hasn't really changed during the past 60 years. But Jung understood that man is not in control of himself or his motives, and this is very clear from his writings, which is why he was very pessimistic about the future. You should see his last interviews where he talks about these issues, and nothing of what he says contradicts the generational hormone theory. In fact, much of it correlates with the generational hormone theory, as Jung understood the power of the unconscious, a part of the human psyche that is still poorly understood to this day. I'm sure Jung was open to all venues of information, since science provided/provides so few truths about the human psyche, but he did not cling to any one explanation too much, as he fully understood the deficiencies of his own knowledge, as did the Greek philosophers.)


2 & 3. If you doubt that hormone levels can be seen in historical group behavior, I suggest you read at least the chapter 2 of the generational hormone theory. Like with testosterone hormone levels, if you expose the two men to sexual images, which one is more likely to respond to them? It's the one with higher testosterone levels. Now think of historical times when average oxytocin and vasopressin levels are high. These are the times when xenophobia and other populist tactics are more likely to gather votes than when the hormone levels are low. It's quite simple, you just have to go from individuals to larger groups (which irons out the individual differences) and then see what the hormone levels are.

The fact is that not all populist leaders use these tactics to appeal to these instinctual feelings of heightened xenophobia, anti-Semitism, territoriality, lower social hierarchy and other aspects that higher oxytocin and vasopressin hormone levels bring with them. But during 4th turnings there is a possibility for this, including the populist aspect of "restore and advance more political and economic power to the people", since those hormone levels are at their highest point during this particular turning. This can be achieved during other turnings also, but 4th turning is when large populations are instinctively primed for this sort of messaging without them even realizing it. Just like if a high testosterone individual is addicted to sex, he does not think "I'm doing this because I have high levels of testosterone", but instead the sexual thought are more prevalent and strong in his/hers mind, thus likely leading to this kind of behavior.

[Eric the Green]

Those candidates who offer to "restore and advance more political and economic power to the people" cannot be lumped together in any way or have the same term applied to them as those politicians who "use tactics to appeal to these instinctual feelings of heightened xenophobia, anti-Semitism, territoriality, lower social hierarchy and other aspects that higher oxytocin and vasopressin hormone levels bring." These are not the same politicians. The former are populists; the latter are demagogues. It is important to keep that straight, even if you attribute a lot of human behavior and desire to hormone levels. If that is so, then the desire for justice and equal opportunity for all is caused by some other hormone condition than the fear of those who are different.

But best of luck with your theory; like many theories, it may contain some grain or aspect of truth.

[pbrower2a]

(09-14-2019, 02:46 AM)Ldr Wrote: You're rationalizing the reasons for the events.

You're obviously correct that marriage as an institution was socially stronger in the 1930's, but then again, it is so today compared to for example the 1980's. But why don't millennials divorce as much as boomers? I'm sure you have explanations for this too, but I'm claiming it's because millennials have higher oxytocin levels. Read the chapter 4.5 on the generational hormone theory's webpage, the address is in my signature. You will see that it's not so much what decade it is, it's the generations. Generations keep together or keep divorcing/separating as time goes by.

...and in the early 1940's. The constraints on spending on personal indulgence (rationing) prevented much of the activity associated with dating whether single or in a one-night stand. If one lived in Detroit, Indianapolis or St. Louis, then a romantic journey to Chicago was out of the question because it would more than devour gas rations for a month. Besides, many young men were overseas or at least in training camps far from lonely women in places that men felt fully comfortable. 

It is easy to see that the strictures against divorce as well as economic realities kept some otherwise-shaky marriages together. Maybe a marriage stayed together 'because of the children'   or because such would bring about the failure of a small business that had to be kept together no matter what. Divorce may have happened in Hollywood but not Holyoke. The peak time for divorce was the 1960's, when people felt economically secure enough to 'find themselves'... and they might 'find themselves' with an unsatisfying spouse who might have been frigid, in the closet, abuseive, or increasingly obnoxious. Figure that the genteel pornography of Hugh Hefner's Playboy Magazine allowed men to look at nubile young women without feelings of guilt, and.. well, at some ages women (other than the grotesquely obese) are more attractive without clothes as with them no matter how old a man is (unless he is gay, but that is a rare qualification). As women age that no longer holds true. But the divorce epidemic of the 1960's involved all generations of the time except perhaps the Lost. OK, so the older middle-aged people of the time (largely early-wave GI's) no longer had children who could have trauma from a family break-up... but younger adults did. Add to this that the old factory jobs that once supported families whose main bread-winner didn't need much education disappeared, and the economic incentive to stay married often vanished in some poor communities. 

OK, every era has effects on all generations, and the generations in place react differently depending on how they were brought up and what social roles they have at the time. Well, that is the theory, isn't it? Could it be that during the last completed Crisis Era that the adult generations of the time (Missionary, Lost, and GI) had different hormones based upon the times in which they were children? In the last Awakening Era, would not the adult generations in place (GI, Silent, and Boom) have had different hormones based upon the realities of the times in which they were children?  Or could it be that events (that include opportunities) manifest themselves in hormones? Attitudes can change abruptly in something so subtle as the perception that bottle-feeding is somehow more 'scientific' than breast-feeding. 

Quote:What you also see to fail is that not only married couples stayed together during the 1930's and 2008 economic crashes, but also the unmarried couples stayed together, with or without children. This fact negates the institution of marriage and it's social value.

It could also be that marriage has become less convenient. Husbands and wives must both work, and if she is in the publishing industry in New York City and he is a construction contractor who suddenly finds that the opportunity is in 'Vegas', then such creates marital instability. Economics is everything in our plutocratic society.

[Ldr]

(09-24-2019, 05:48 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: ...the desire for justice and equal opportunity for all is caused by some other hormone condition than the fear of those who are different.

Actually, it is not, it's both oxytocin and vasopressin that (in excess) create instinctual desire for both flatter social hierarchy and xenophobia. If one is a "leftist/multiculturalist", then excess amount of these hormones causes one to hate the xenophobic groups of people. This two-sided dynamic was an element in the US Civil War (not to be debated here how much), and it clearly is an element today in the left vs. right polarized political climate in most Western nations. It all depends on what group/team/nation/tribe/village/ you belong to. One has to also remember that this behavior is in no way unique to humans, as other animal species also discriminate on the basis of one's appearance, hence the black sheep metaphors, which also accounts for behavior. This is why in a 4th turning the social norms tighten and those are shunned who do not comply with the new norms.


Look at all the revolutions that have happened during the 4th turnings. A revolution is often driven by a hate towards someone who is seen an oppressor, be it a monarch or a democratically elected leader, which is why during a 4th turning, as the social hierarchy is flatter, these revolution and such often come about. As for UK/US, the Glorious revolution happened just as a 4th turning was about to begin (high oxytocin levels), and the American Revolutionary War and Civil War took place during 4th turnings. Chapter 3 shows that Europe has seen much of the same, as most major European revolutions have happened during the late 3rd turning or 4th turning. The generational hormone theory's hormone levels fits all of these events.

[pbrower2a]

(09-24-2019, 08:06 AM)Ldr Wrote:

(09-24-2019, 05:48 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: ...the desire for justice and equal opportunity for all is caused by some other hormone condition than the fear of those who are different.

Actually, it is not, it's both oxytocin and vasopressin that (in excess) create instinctual desire for both flatter social hierarchy and xenophobia. If one is a "leftist/multiculturalist", then excess amount of these hormones causes one to hate the xenophobic groups of people. This two-sided dynamic was an element in the US Civil War (not to be debated here how much), and it clearly is an element today in the left vs. right polarized political climate in most Western nations. It all depends on what group/team/nation/tribe/village/ you belong to. One has to also remember that this behavior is in no way unique to humans, as other animal species also discriminate on the basis of one's appearance, hence the black sheep metaphors, which also accounts for behavior. This is why in a 4th turning the social norms tighten and those are shunned who do not comply with the new norms.


Look at all the revolutions that have happened during the 4th turnings. A revolution is often driven by a hate towards someone who is seen an oppressor, be it a monarch or a democratically elected leader, which is why during a 4th turning, as the social hierarchy is flatter, these revolution and such often come about. As for UK/US, the Glorious revolution happened just as a 4th turning was about to begin (high oxytocin levels), and the American Revolutionary War and Civil War took place during 4th turnings. Chapter 3 shows that Europe has seen much of the same, as most major European revolutions have happened during the late 3rd turning or 4th turning. The generational hormone theory's hormone levels fits all of these events.

Most revolutions start in or begin a 4T in the country in question whether in America in 1776 or Germany in 1933. Revolutions are rare in healthy societies with solid economies. Economic distress makes people less patient about leaders that might get away with more in better times. Social division may result from old cultural rifts that the overall society managed to gloss over for decades only to turn into civil war (Spain in the 1930's, Yugoslavia in the 1990's). A country in which many people live for all purposes in the time of Velazquez and many others live for all practices in the time of Picasso has dangerous contradictions.  Political life is far trickier in a Crisis Era than in other times in the saeculum. Get bad economic conditions and incompetent or corrupt government, and all sorts of things are possible -- most of them bad.

Americans, even those who have no idea of the generational theory, recognize that they live in a dangerous time... and they do everything possible (in most cases) to prevent a splintering of society. To be sure, people will not be blackmailed into giving up their freedom and prosperity, let alone hope for themselves and progeny, just to get a little temporary safety. To be sure, our economic and administrative elites include some thoroughly-rotten people who would be perfectly happy to take everything and commit the rest of us to poverty and fear with only such compensation as vague promises of "pie in the sky when you die".

We do not know what this Crisis will have as its focus, let alone how it will culminate and what aftermath it will leave. It is easy to see an Abraham Lincoln or FDR as exactly what we need... but that is exactly what some Americans want the rest of us to believe about Donald Trump. (I see Trump as a near-antithesis of what we need).

[Ldr]

I totally agree, pbrower2a.

You described well why mostly the 4th turning crises are so problematic, and the reason is the heightened social tensions + (often) demands for flatter social hierarchy. Higher levels of vasopressin drive up stress, anxiety and feelings of aggression, and this is the model why 4th turning event tend to catalyze the social mood to a crisis mode. Vasopressin could also be talked about as a catalyst, but it's more of an underlying catalyst of history, highest levels lasting from middle of a 4t turning to the middle of a 1st turning.

[Eric the Green]

(09-24-2019, 08:06 AM)Ldr Wrote:

(09-24-2019, 05:48 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: ...the desire for justice and equal opportunity for all is caused by some other hormone condition than the fear of those who are different.

Actually, it is not, it's both oxytocin and vasopressin that (in excess) create instinctual desire for both flatter social hierarchy and xenophobia. If one is a "leftist/multiculturalist", then excess amount of these hormones causes one to hate the xenophobic groups of people. This two-sided dynamic was an element in the US Civil War (not to be debated here how much), and it clearly is an element today in the left vs. right polarized political climate in most Western nations. It all depends on what group/team/nation/tribe/village/ you belong to. One has to also remember that this behavior is in no way unique to humans, as other animal species also discriminate on the basis of one's appearance, hence the black sheep metaphors, which also accounts for behavior. This is why in a 4th turning the social norms tighten and those are shunned who do not comply with the new norms.


Look at all the revolutions that have happened during the 4th turnings. A revolution is often driven by a hate towards someone who is seen an oppressor, be it a monarch or a democratically elected leader, which is why during a 4th turning, as the social hierarchy is flatter, these revolution and such often come about. As for UK/US, the Glorious revolution happened just as a 4th turning was about to begin (high oxytocin levels), and the American Revolutionary War and Civil War took place during 4th turnings. Chapter 3 shows that Europe has seen much of the same, as most major European revolutions have happened during the late 3rd turning or 4th turning. The generational hormone theory's hormone levels fits all of these events.

I know it's a somewhat common idea that left and right are equal, and polarization is just my group against your group. I don't agree, of course. If people are genuinely oppressed by authority, whether that be the authority of a small dominant group of rich people who keep them poor, or a president or other government overstepping democracy and suppressing freedom, or requirements to go off to fight an illegal war, then people often rise up against this injustice. If hormones are rising, likely roused into action by the soul and spirit of the people, rather than the spirit emerging from the hormones, then it is natural during 4Ts, when society is in crisis and people suffer from this oppression, for them to rise up and put those hormones and bile and emotional organs in the brain and whatever else into high gear.

But the right wing is motivated by entirely different impulses. For them, although many of them may also be suffering from economic deprivation caused by concentrated economic power, they are led astray by demagogues (who are given power by the same very small group that oppresses them) into scapegoating people who are different from them, instead of the oppressors. So as in today's right-wing, their followers are aroused by Donald Trump, Marie LePen, Bolsonaro, Morrison, Johnson, Orban, Duda, Netanyahu, Salman, Erdogen, Kim Jung Un, The Islamic State, The Taliban, or whoever, to blame people on the same economic level or lower than themselves, just because they are outsiders. Xenophobia is entirely right wing, and so is appeal to "self-reliance" as an ego-boosting slogan so their victims can blame people receiving help from the government and high taxes for their problems instead of the real culprits, which are the very demagogues and their backers who arouse their fear and prejudice.

These are entirely different folks, one on the left (genuine idealism and concern and desire to end injustice foisted upon themselves and others), and one on the right (hate and fear of other groups and blaming them for their problems). If the same hormone stirs both left and right, in your view, then it just proves that hormones explain very little about actual human behavior, besides being a source or tool of arousal into action or acting out, which comes out more often in 4Ts as I don't doubt.

But today, people tend to break faith with obvious truth, and look instead to outlandish explanations for what seems to them a chaotic and irrational world, whether this be a physical theory that denies human nature (as in this "hormone theory" case, because of skepticism about the goodness of human nature), or the maniac conspiracy theories today that enthrall some people on all sides of the political spectrum, looking for some sinister plot by some hidden group to explain everything that happens, instead of the obvious or well-proven facts.

[Eric the Green]

(09-25-2019, 12:56 AM)Ldr Wrote: I totally agree, pbrower2a.

You described well why mostly the 4th turning crises are so problematic, and the reason is the heightened social tensions + (often) demands for flatter social hierarchy. Higher levels of vasopressin drive up stress, anxiety and feelings of aggression, and this is the model why 4th turning event tend to catalyze the social mood to a crisis mode. Vasopressin could also be talked about as a catalyst, but it's more of an underlying catalyst of history, highest levels lasting from middle of a 4t turning to the middle of a 1st turning.

You make more sense in your answer to brower.

Demands for a flatter social hierarchy are left-wing, and I say entirely justified at all times, because hierarchy should be fairly flat in a just and free society. 

Demands to scapegoat, exclude and oppress people of different ethnic groups and religions is right-wing, is immoral, and is never justified.

On the political circle, the demands for flatter hierarchy is left on the libertarian grid, and lower left on the political compass. It means genuine populism, which advocates more economic and political power to the people rather than keeping it within a small group of authoritarian oppressors. The xenophobic scapegoating is equal to social conservatism, which is lower right on the libertarian grid, and at the top of the chart on the political compass, where Hitler resides. Social conservatism is exactly "my group is better and more deserving of power than your group." And that is not the same as the Marxist class struggle at all, which is lower left on the libertarian grid and left on the political compass, 90 degrees away from social conservatism and xenophobia. An economic class is not a social group or identity group, but a condition. But, as Marx said, they must unite to throw off their chains.

So these two left and right groups are not exactly 180 degrees apart, archetypally, but in a sesqui-square relation of about 135 degrees. In practice though, the xenophobic group in the USA (less so in Europe) also supports the economic right, because it dovetails with their desire to blame social programs and high taxes which chiefly benefit groups like African Americans who they blame for their problems. So for this reason, Trump's xenophobia gets 95% support from the neo-liberal economic libertarians in the Republican Party. This means in practice that the two groups left and right, at least in the USA, are more like 180 degrees apart.

[pbrower2a]

Humanism, and not populism, is the rightful objective. Humanism encompasses the whole of humanity (Alle Menschen werden Brüder), and populism can easily put the focus on one nation. To be sure, an oppressed nation has the right to seek independence. A populist ideology that serves only one nationality with a narrowed definition can easily become racist; I translate German volkisch as racist. Hitler was a populist and not a humanist, which makes all the difference in the world.

A group such as the KKK (which is now indistinguishable from Nazis, as there are now Klan groups that have adopted Nazi symbols and rhetoric -- or shared symbols and rhetoric) is clearly populist to the extent that it elevates white Christians. But there are white non-Christians (atheists, agnostics, and Jews, largely), non-white Christians, and non-white non-Christians, and plenty of people ambiguous about race religion if not both.

If by populism I mean elevating the common man against extant elites, then I am a populist. But the people that I seek to elevate include people who look much unlike me and who have very different religious traditions. To the extent that I have German origin, but in full rejection of Nazi ideology (if I am to have any decency at all I must reject Nazism on principle) I see Ashkenazi Jews as obvious brethren for shared aspects of culture to which I can easily relate*. Yiddish originated as German... and by slaughtering the Yiddish-speaking and German-speaking Jews the Nazis killed people whom they should have recognized as Germans.

Humanism is obviously incompatible with fascism, always an inhuman or anti-human ideology. Socialism? By rejecting liberty the Communists abandoned a tenet of humanism. Ba'athism, ISIS, and al-Qaeda? Fascism in Islamic garb.

As a humanist I can see much wrong in America -- anti-intellectualism and structural inequality. We are beyond the age of grave scarcity in which the personal solution to economic need is to meet a scarcity; if anything, the big profits now made largely result from creating and exploiting scarcity through monopoly and cartels or from crony capitalism. Much of our new wealth seems to come from creative activity instead of making stuff. (OK, we still need expendable items such as food and fuel, but those are not so pricey as is rent).

I see what is wrong with America, and it is wrong not only for white males in their sixties. It is wrong for practically all of us. An economic order that treats workers as expendable tools is obsolete in a time without scarcity other than through monopolization and economic concentration and the bureaucratic elites (paid very well for treating others badly). This Crisis will solve our problems or intensify those that we now have. I know what a bad end could look like without military apocalypse: a new America with a quasi-aristocratic order but a Soviet-style nomenklatura that becomes an aristocracy in all but name that offers bare survival for others with vague promises of pie-in-the-sky-when-you-die for those who comply with the desires of the Master Class and a brutal demise with worldly damnation to Hell for any sign of dissent or failure to produce on behalf of the Master Class.

*OK, Jewish culture is brainy, and maybe that is more important to me. I am intellect and little else, which is what one should expect of someone with Asperger's syndrome.

[Ldr]

(09-26-2019, 01:33 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: If the same hormone stirs both left and right, in your view, then it just proves that hormones explain very little about actual human behavior, besides being a source or tool of arousal into action or acting out, which comes out more often in 4Ts as I don't doubt.

Higher levels of oxytocin drive pro-social behavior. This is why the Hero generations are social (on average) as they adapt liberal values from the society in their childhood, which are produced by their predecessor generation. The Artist generations are also high oxytocin generations, but as they grow up, the world is more conservative, so they adapt (pun intended) to this environment because they have high oxytocin levels. This explains how oxytocin does not automatically define a generation on its own, but instead influences how an individual assesses others and the environment.

Anti-social generations, the Prophets and Nomads, are more independent due to lower levels of oxytocin, and this generates the basics of right-wing parties: self reliance, strength and even selfishness are valued when compared to the high oxytocin level generations.

Chapter 4.2 in the generational hormone theory explains why the Prophet generations are so right-wing and the Hero generations are so left-wing. It should be stated that political parties are formed and defined through voting behavior, which is based on emotions (that are based on hormone levels), and these emotions influence opinions, as chapter 3 shows. People think that their voting behavior is based on facts, but the reasoning that goes inside their minds is always defined by their emotions (that are based on hormone levels), from start to beginning. If you can think of even one voting preference/opinion that isn't influenced by emotions, do tell me, as I can explain why you're incorrect in that assumption. All voting behavior is based on emotions, and those emotions are largely defined by hormone levels.

[pbrower2a]

(09-29-2019, 06:43 AM)Ldr Wrote:

(09-26-2019, 01:33 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: If the same hormone stirs both left and right, in your view, then it just proves that hormones explain very little about actual human behavior, besides being a source or tool of arousal into action or acting out, which comes out more often in 4Ts as I don't doubt.

Higher levels of oxytocin drive pro-social behavior. This is why the Hero generations are social (on average) as they adapt liberal values from the society in their childhood, which are produced by their predecessor generation. The Artist generations are also high oxytocin generations, but as they grow up, the world is more conservative, so they adapt (pun intended) to this environment because they have high oxytocin levels. This explains how oxytocin does not automatically define a generation on its own, but instead influences how an individual assesses others and the environment.

Anti-social generations, the Prophets and Nomads, are more independent due to lower levels of oxytocin, and this generates the basics of right-wing parties: self reliance, strength and even selfishness are valued when compared to the high oxytocin level generations.

Now here is a problem for the assumption that oxytocin spurred the social cohesion of the last 4T: the 'anti-social' generations were the elder (Missionary) and midlife (Lost) generations during the Depression and the Second World War. The GI generation did not dominate society, especially politically, let alone in commerce and public administration. The GI generation was slow to develop even cultural influence in cinema, music, and literature. As late as the mid-1930's the leading GI figures of culture were Walt Disney, Dmitri Shostakovich, and and Leni Riefenstahl (if you want to call Triumph of the Will "culture")  

Quote:Chapter 4.2 in the generational hormone theory explains why the Prophet generations are so right-wing and the Hero generations are so left-wing. It should be stated that political parties are formed and defined through voting behavior, which is based on emotions (that are based on hormone levels), and these emotions influence opinions, as chapter 3 shows. People think that their voting behavior is based on facts, but the reasoning that goes inside their minds is always defined by their emotions (that are based on hormone levels), from start to beginning. If you can think of even one voting preference/opinion that isn't influenced by emotions, do tell me, as I can explain why you're incorrect in that assumption. All voting behavior is based on emotions, and those emotions are largely defined by hormone levels.

Prophet generations may have the cultural innovators, but they also have the rapacious plutocrats and bureaucrats. To say that the world will be much more peasant when Boomer executives are off the scene. At the extreme, I recall seeing an observation on what (mostly) Transcendental planters saw their relation with their property in human form: that slave-owners were benefactors to slaves. Boomer executives have come to resemble the nomenklatura of 'socialist' states, people who profiteered off bureaucratic positions in the ostensibly 'classless societies'. It may take another economic meltdown approaching the severity of the 1929-1932 meltdown to gut the power of shareholders and executives to buy politicians, which makes the difference between FDR and Obama.

Plutocracy sucks, but it sucks even more when a political order and corporate bureaucracies foster narcissistic behavior of those who get economic power to grab as much of the prosperity of a society as is possible.  We may have to rediscover the benefits of a society in which small business becomes the norm again... and in which the only way in which to get rich is to be a capitalist. 

I believe in capitalism to the extent that the only people who should get rich are capitalists.

[beechnut79]

(09-29-2019, 12:39 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(09-29-2019, 06:43 AM)Ldr Wrote:

(09-26-2019, 01:33 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: If the same hormone stirs both left and right, in your view, then it just proves that hormones explain very little about actual human behavior, besides being a source or tool of arousal into action or acting out, which comes out more often in 4Ts as I don't doubt.

Higher levels of oxytocin drive pro-social behavior. This is why the Hero generations are social (on average) as they adapt liberal values from the society in their childhood, which are produced by their predecessor generation. The Artist generations are also high oxytocin generations, but as they grow up, the world is more conservative, so they adapt (pun intended) to this environment because they have high oxytocin levels. This explains how oxytocin does not automatically define a generation on its own, but instead influences how an individual assesses others and the environment.

Anti-social generations, the Prophets and Nomads, are more independent due to lower levels of oxytocin, and this generates the basics of right-wing parties: self reliance, strength and even selfishness are valued when compared to the high oxytocin level generations.

Now here is a problem for the assumption that oxytocin spurred the social cohesion of the last 4T: the 'anti-social' generations were the elder (Missionary) and midlife (Lost) generations during the Depression and the Second World War. The GI generation did not dominate society, especially politically, let alone in commerce and public administration. The GI generation was slow to develop even cultural influence in cinema, music, and literature. As late as the mid-1930's the leading GI figures of culture were Walt Disney, Dmitri Shostakovich, and and Leni Riefenstahl (if you want to call Triumph of the Will "culture")  

Quote:Chapter 4.2 in the generational hormone theory explains why the Prophet generations are so right-wing and the Hero generations are so left-wing. It should be stated that political parties are formed and defined through voting behavior, which is based on emotions (that are based on hormone levels), and these emotions influence opinions, as chapter 3 shows. People think that their voting behavior is based on facts, but the reasoning that goes inside their minds is always defined by their emotions (that are based on hormone levels), from start to beginning. If you can think of even one voting preference/opinion that isn't influenced by emotions, do tell me, as I can explain why you're incorrect in that assumption. All voting behavior is based on emotions, and those emotions are largely defined by hormone levels.

Prophet generations may have the cultural innovators, but they also have the rapacious plutocrats and bureaucrats. To say that the world will be much more peasant when Boomer executives are off the scene. At the extreme, I recall seeing an observation on what (mostly) Transcendental planters saw their relation with their property in human form: that slave-owners were benefactors to slaves. Boomer executives have come to resemble the nomenklatura of 'socialist' states, people who profiteered off bureaucratic positions in the ostensibly 'classless societies'. It may take another economic meltdown approaching the severity of the 1929-1932 meltdown to gut the power of shareholders and executives to buy politicians, which makes the difference between FDR and Obama.

Plutocracy sucks, but it sucks even more when a political order and corporate bureaucracies foster narcissistic behavior of those who get economic power to grab as much of the prosperity of a society as is possible.  We may have to rediscover the benefits of a society in which small business becomes the norm again... and in which the only way in which to get rich is to be a capitalist. 

I believe in capitalism to the extent that the only people who should get rich are capitalists.

Do you feel that the time is nigh when There may be some intense emotions that are brought to the surface concerning the evils of extreme income inequality and the fact that the less fortunate among us have, by design, become much more invisible and not out in the open as much as they were once able to be? Are we in line for a point where feelings are laid bare and tears may be shed? If not the current or future President, is is not time for someone of considerable influence benefit by having an honest conversation with his or her constituency no matter how wide it may be? Do  you feel as though it may help clear the air and allow the nation and society to heal and move forward? May we also be reminded that change is not always easy, but it’s inevitable and allows us to grow; that is the beauty of the saecular transit.