What do you believe is the actual length of a saeculum?

[Warren Dew]

(08-11-2019, 01:42 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(08-11-2019, 08:12 AM)Ghost Wrote: A saeculum starting in 1940 won't work because that's when WWII was going on.

1940-1945: 4T
1945-1963: 1T
1963-1980: 2T
1980-2008: 3T
2008-2030: 4T again

In that example I am using John Xenakis's crisis war concept in which saecula are based on crisis wars. WW II is a crisis war. I am assuming that another one starts around 2030. Here I am dating the crisis from beginning of one Crisis War to beginning of the next Crisis War. So your scheme is appropriate except for the 2008-2030 turning which would NOT be a Crisis because the crisis war doesn't begin until 2030.

John still considers the fourth turning to end with the end of the crisis war, not to begin with the beginning of the crisis war.  In the case of a 2030-2035 crisis war, the crisis period could extend from 2008-2035.  The issue with the dates would be that the fourth turning ending in 1945 would have begun earlier, probably in 1929.

[Mikebert]

(08-12-2019, 10:04 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(08-11-2019, 01:42 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(08-11-2019, 08:12 AM)Ghost Wrote: A saeculum starting in 1940 won't work because that's when WWII was going on.

1940-1945: 4T
1945-1963: 1T
1963-1980: 2T
1980-2008: 3T
2008-2030: 4T again

In that example I am using John Xenakis's crisis war concept in which saecula are based on crisis wars. WW II is a crisis war. I am assuming that another one starts around 2030. Here I am dating the crisis from beginning of one Crisis War to beginning of the next Crisis War. So your scheme is appropriate except for the 2008-2030 turning which would NOT be a Crisis because the crisis war doesn't begin until 2030.

John still considers the fourth turning to end with the end of the crisis war, not to begin with the beginning of the crisis war.  In the case of a 2030-2035 crisis war, the crisis period could extend from 2008-2035.  The issue with the dates would be that the fourth turning ending in 1945 would have begun earlier, probably in 1929.

Yes I know. S&H considers the saeculum to end at the end of the 4T. But one can, in principle,  date saeculae (i.e periods containing 1 each of all types of turning) using other turning dates as well.  

My understanding of GD is that the crisis war is the key.  There is no crisis without the crisis war, so if we had a crisis war starting in 2030, the crisis would start in 2030. If the GWOT were considered a crisis war then the crisis would start in 2001 and continue until the Patriot Act, the AUMF and other enabling legislation is repealed, and so on.

[jleagans]

72 years, with each turning and generational cohort covering 18 years.  18 is our clearest demarcation of childhood to adulthood, with 18x4=72.

[Ghost]

(01-23-2020, 07:12 PM)jleagans Wrote: 72 years, with each turning and generational cohort covering 18 years.  18 is our clearest demarcation of childhood to adulthood, with 18x4=72.

I remember having a thread where I argued about 72-year saeculums. However, it received a lot of criticism on here.

It actually does make a lot of sense and I can see how it works. The 1996 cutoff for Millennials seems very similar to the 1924 cutoff for the GI Generation, with 1997-1999 and 1925-1927 as being years that are mostly seen as the later generation despite having some sources occasionally lumping them with the previous generation. (for 97-99, it would be Homelanders, and for 25-27, it would be the Silents). 1924-1927 also have the same Chinese zodiac animals as 1996-1999 (1924 and 1996 are rat years, 1925 and 1997 are ox years, 1926 and 1998 are tiger years, 1927 and 1999 are rabbit years).

1925 and 1928 are both very good starting points for Silents, similar to how 1997 and 2000 are both very good starting points for Generation Z/Homelanders.

[Eric the Green]

(08-13-2019, 10:59 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

(08-12-2019, 10:04 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(08-11-2019, 01:42 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(08-11-2019, 08:12 AM)Ghost Wrote: A saeculum starting in 1940 won't work because that's when WWII was going on.

1940-1945: 4T
1945-1963: 1T
1963-1980: 2T
1980-2008: 3T
2008-2030: 4T again

In that example I am using John Xenakis's crisis war concept in which saecula are based on crisis wars. WW II is a crisis war. I am assuming that another one starts around 2030. Here I am dating the crisis from beginning of one Crisis War to beginning of the next Crisis War. So your scheme is appropriate except for the 2008-2030 turning which would NOT be a Crisis because the crisis war doesn't begin until 2030.

John still considers the fourth turning to end with the end of the crisis war, not to begin with the beginning of the crisis war.  In the case of a 2030-2035 crisis war, the crisis period could extend from 2008-2035.  The issue with the dates would be that the fourth turning ending in 1945 would have begun earlier, probably in 1929.

Yes I know. S&H considers the saeculum to end at the end of the 4T. But one can, in principle,  date saeculae (i.e periods containing 1 each of all types of turning) using other turning dates as well.  

My understanding of GD is that the crisis war is the key.  There is no crisis without the crisis war, so if we had a crisis war starting in 2030, the crisis would start in 2030. If the GWOT were considered a crisis war then the crisis would start in 2001 and continue until the Patriot Act, the AUMF and other enabling legislation is repealed, and so on.

I don't know what GD means, but the Great Depression was the start of a 4T. The Crisis War can come at the beginning or end of a crisis, and is not strictly identical with the Crisis. I think I agree with Bob (imagine that) that we may be entering a different age when wars are not such automatic occurrences during 4T periods. On the basis of the empirical past record alone though, the odds that a great war will occur during a 4T are high. The War on Terror is not such a "great war" because it has not consumed the affairs of the nation but has been a remote and small scale affair, but such foreign war as happens in the remainder of this 4T will likely continue to be a part of it or related to it. In that case the "war" will have extended across two turnings. WWII as a continuation of WWI, which it was, is a precedent for this pattern.

The Uranus Return has corresponded to the American crisis climax so far, as S&H has defined it, even though S&H have no inclination to consider planetary cycles. This goes back to 1608, one year after Jamestown was established, when the colony was on the brink of extinction. But we came through that crisis. The next one mostly occurred in the motherland but was also fought in the colonies, and was a key event in American history because Britain and the colonies made a big switch from royalism to a parliamentary system. That was in King William's War, and the Return was in 1692 (also the Salem Witch Trial date). The Uranus Return also refers to Uranus' return to its position at the Declaration of Independence, which was also the 2nd Return since Jamestown. It next returned to that position within days of the attack on Ft. Sumpter that started the Civil War. S&H identified D-Day as the next crisis climax in 1944, again within days of the Uranus Return. According to that measure, Uranus will Return to the same degree in 2027.

It's possible that the saecula have been a bit shorter than the 84-year Uranus Cycle in modern times, although in medieval and renaissance times before the British colonies existed it was longer. It's also true that a half-return of Neptune is 82 years, and this will happen just 2 years from now in 2022, and that the first Pluto Return ever will also happen in 2022. The three outer planets are all on a similar time clock, but the outer two have a slightly shorter schedule for their partial half or one-third returns. That means the crisis era could be increasingly stretched out in the centuries to come, and the returns might become less momentous centuries from now because it comes in two such strokes. The USA as we know it may not even exist then, of course, and may not even emerge intact from the current 4T.

Some astrologers use the sidereal "star" or "constellation" zodiac rather than the tropical "seasonal" zodiac, and I'm not sure how that affects the Uranus Return dates. This difference is due to the approx. 25000-year pole shift cycle. For example Mars is now in tropical Sagittarius, but is in now the sidereal constellation of Scorpio as seen in the sky. About every 72 years, the tropical vernal equinox 0 Aries point retreats another degree and is now in about 5 degrees sidereal Pisces. If there is such a thing as "the same place in space," then sidereal may be more accurate as a measure of a planetary return. I find this hard to figure, myself. It's confusing to me what dates the sidereal returns would be. Does it bring on the 4T sooner than tropical astrologers like me expect, or later? If I understand this, it could delay the Returns, since a planet will travel a bit longer to reach its sidereal return degree. That is counter to history though, since the last Crisis Return came sooner, since the Depression and the start of WWII came sooner than D-Day.

The tropical zodiac has much to recommend it, since for example in its current cycle Neptune first crossed the 0 Aries tropical vernal equinox point on April 13, 1861, the exact day when Ft. Sumpter surrendered. The next such ingress (and start of the next Neptune cycle through the tropical zodiac), will happen on March 30, 2025. The final ingress could also be significant on Jan.26, 2026.

As I have said, the Uranus-Pluto cycle is affecting the saeculum, because it signals some kind of great awakening, but this can be secular or sacred. It marks a time of the birth (conjunction) or (climax) of a revolutionary cycle. You may have seen my article on this:
http://philosopherswheel.com/thethreerevolutions.html

Since the conjunction in 1966, within orb about 1963 to 1969, and for some periods during 1962 and 1970, signaled the events that started the 2T-Awakening in the sixties, and since the opposition is due in 2047 (about 2043 to 2050), it may affect the timing of the end of the 4T, if we are going to have a 1T of a decent length. In that case, the 4T would have to end no later than 2029 as Mr. Howe has proposed. This will be the first time that one 2T will be the fulfillment and climax of the one before, as indicated by its correspondence with this Uranus-Pluto cycle.

However, a Uranus-Pluto conjunction can happen during a 1T, as happened in circa 2011. The next opposition marked the end of the revolution 4T, according to S&H, in 1792-94, and the conjunction in 1850 was during the S&H 3T, but which I and others claim was the time around when the civil war 4T started (circa 1850). The 1901 opposition also happened during the previous 2T. In that case, a momentous Neptune-Pluto alignment also happened during that 2T, in 1892, extending its influence from about 1886 to 1898.

[Eric the Green]

(01-23-2020, 08:30 PM)Ghost Wrote:

(01-23-2020, 07:12 PM)jleagans Wrote: 72 years, with each turning and generational cohort covering 18 years.  18 is our clearest demarcation of childhood to adulthood, with 18x4=72.

I remember having a thread where I argued about 72-year saeculums. However, it received a lot of criticism on here.

It actually does make a lot of sense and I can see how it works. The 1996 cutoff for Millennials seems very similar to the 1924 cutoff for the GI Generation, with 1997-1999 and 1925-1927 as being years that are mostly seen as the later generation despite having some sources occasionally lumping them with the previous generation. (for 97-99, it would be Homelanders, and for 25-27, it would be the Silents). 1924-1927 also have the same Chinese zodiac animals as 1996-1999 (1924 and 1996 are rat years, 1925 and 1997 are ox years, 1926 and 1998 are tiger years, 1927 and 1999 are rabbit years).

1925 and 1928 are both very good starting points for Silents, similar to how 1997 and 2000 are both very good starting points for Generation Z/Homelanders.

The Pew generation dates are not based on generational characteristics. Using those, Gen Z probably starts around 2003. Be that as it may, the saeculum if anything should be getting longer, according to what the saeculum is based upon. That is the average length of a human lifetime. That is much more than 72 years, now, and has been getting longer (although not in the USA under Trump). A lot of 72-year old folks today are just getting started! S&H defined the archetypal length of the saeculum in T4T as 84 years, based on the length of a human life and 21-year generations.

It could be claimed that generations are shorter because young people now come of age sooner, such as at 18. They propose a 5-turning cycle, extending the human life length to 90. I haven't been convinced of this yet though.

[Ghost]

(01-23-2020, 09:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-23-2020, 08:30 PM)Ghost Wrote:

(01-23-2020, 07:12 PM)jleagans Wrote: 72 years, with each turning and generational cohort covering 18 years.  18 is our clearest demarcation of childhood to adulthood, with 18x4=72.

I remember having a thread where I argued about 72-year saeculums. However, it received a lot of criticism on here.

It actually does make a lot of sense and I can see how it works. The 1996 cutoff for Millennials seems very similar to the 1924 cutoff for the GI Generation, with 1997-1999 and 1925-1927 as being years that are mostly seen as the later generation despite having some sources occasionally lumping them with the previous generation. (for 97-99, it would be Homelanders, and for 25-27, it would be the Silents). 1924-1927 also have the same Chinese zodiac animals as 1996-1999 (1924 and 1996 are rat years, 1925 and 1997 are ox years, 1926 and 1998 are tiger years, 1927 and 1999 are rabbit years).

1925 and 1928 are both very good starting points for Silents, similar to how 1997 and 2000 are both very good starting points for Generation Z/Homelanders.

The Pew generation dates are not based on generational characteristics. Using those, Gen Z probably starts around 2003. Be that as it may, the saeculum if anything should be getting longer, according to what the saeculum is based upon. That is the average length of a human lifetime. That is much more than 72 years, now, and has been getting longer (although not in the USA under Trump). A lot of 72-year old folks today are just getting started! S&H defined the archetypal length of the saeculum in T4T as 84 years.

Do you agree with this breakdown (Using the years 1981-2003)?

1981-1984: Columbine Generation (those in high school during the Columbine shootings)

1985-1990: Recession Generation (those affected the most by the Recession)

1991-1995: Electropop Generation (the stereotypical electropop fanbase)
*Margin of error: People born as late as 1998 may fall under this category, considering that they were the last to be at high school before electropop completely fizzled out (early or mid 2013). I think that 1998 borns are similar to 1986 and 1977 borns in this matter; 1986 borns being the last to be at high school before teen pop fizzled out (early or mid 2001) and 1977 borns being the last to be at high school before glam metal fizzled out (early or mid 1992). However, we are only focusing on the "average Joe" electropop audience.

1996-1999: Gamergate Generation (the stereotypical young far right and far left people)

2000-2003: Activist Generation (those in high school during the Parkland shootings as well as the stereotypical attendees of the September 2019 climate strikes)
*Margin of error: "Activist Generation" could be pushed as far back as 1997 because Hunter Pollack, a Parkland activist, was born in 1997.

[Ghost]

(01-23-2020, 09:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-23-2020, 08:30 PM)Ghost Wrote:

(01-23-2020, 07:12 PM)jleagans Wrote: 72 years, with each turning and generational cohort covering 18 years.  18 is our clearest demarcation of childhood to adulthood, with 18x4=72.

I remember having a thread where I argued about 72-year saeculums. However, it received a lot of criticism on here.

It actually does make a lot of sense and I can see how it works. The 1996 cutoff for Millennials seems very similar to the 1924 cutoff for the GI Generation, with 1997-1999 and 1925-1927 as being years that are mostly seen as the later generation despite having some sources occasionally lumping them with the previous generation. (for 97-99, it would be Homelanders, and for 25-27, it would be the Silents). 1924-1927 also have the same Chinese zodiac animals as 1996-1999 (1924 and 1996 are rat years, 1925 and 1997 are ox years, 1926 and 1998 are tiger years, 1927 and 1999 are rabbit years).

1925 and 1928 are both very good starting points for Silents, similar to how 1997 and 2000 are both very good starting points for Generation Z/Homelanders.

The Pew generation dates are not based on generational characteristics. Using those, Gen Z probably starts around 2003. Be that as it may, the saeculum if anything should be getting longer, according to what the saeculum is based upon. That is the average length of a human lifetime. That is much more than 72 years, now, and has been getting longer (although not in the USA under Trump). A lot of 72-year old folks today are just getting started! S&H defined the archetypal length of the saeculum in T4T as 84 years, based on the length of a human life and 21-year generations.

It could be claimed that generations are shorter because young people now come of age sooner, such as at 18. They propose a 5-turning cycle, extending the human life length to 90. I haven't been convinced of this yet though.

I think that it's closer to something like 22 years, considering that more and more people are going to college (22 seems to be the average length of nostalgia cycles, and 22 is when you get your Bachelor's degree). I believe that one person talked about the four seasons of life, with 22 years representing each season. However, I think that 72 is the average life length worldwide.

I feel like there should be microgenerations (12 years) and macrogenerations (21 years).

For 1997-1999, their 70's born equivalents are most likely 1976-1978, and their 80's born equivalents are most likely 1985-1987.

[Eric the Green]

(01-23-2020, 10:36 PM)Ghost Wrote:

(01-23-2020, 09:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-23-2020, 08:30 PM)Ghost Wrote:

(01-23-2020, 07:12 PM)jleagans Wrote: 72 years, with each turning and generational cohort covering 18 years.  18 is our clearest demarcation of childhood to adulthood, with 18x4=72.

I remember having a thread where I argued about 72-year saeculums. However, it received a lot of criticism on here.

It actually does make a lot of sense and I can see how it works. The 1996 cutoff for Millennials seems very similar to the 1924 cutoff for the GI Generation, with 1997-1999 and 1925-1927 as being years that are mostly seen as the later generation despite having some sources occasionally lumping them with the previous generation. (for 97-99, it would be Homelanders, and for 25-27, it would be the Silents). 1924-1927 also have the same Chinese zodiac animals as 1996-1999 (1924 and 1996 are rat years, 1925 and 1997 are ox years, 1926 and 1998 are tiger years, 1927 and 1999 are rabbit years).

1925 and 1928 are both very good starting points for Silents, similar to how 1997 and 2000 are both very good starting points for Generation Z/Homelanders.

The Pew generation dates are not based on generational characteristics. Using those, Gen Z probably starts around 2003. Be that as it may, the saeculum if anything should be getting longer, according to what the saeculum is based upon. That is the average length of a human lifetime. That is much more than 72 years, now, and has been getting longer (although not in the USA under Trump). A lot of 72-year old folks today are just getting started! S&H defined the archetypal length of the saeculum in T4T as 84 years, based on the length of a human life and 21-year generations.

It could be claimed that generations are shorter because young people now come of age sooner, such as at 18. They propose a 5-turning cycle, extending the human life length to 90. I haven't been convinced of this yet though.

I think that it's closer to something like 22 years, considering that more and more people are going to college (22 seems to be the average length of nostalgia cycles, and 22 is when you get your Bachelor's degree). I believe that one person talked about the four seasons of life, with 22 years representing each season. However, I think that 72 is the average life length worldwide.

I feel like there should be microgenerations (12 years) and macrogenerations (21 years).

For 1997-1999, their 70's born equivalents are most likely 1976-1978, and their 80's born equivalents are most likely 1985-1987.

I think there are sub generations. They are portions of the 21-year generations, and vary in length, but less than 12 years. 22-year generations may happen too; the length varies a bit. And there are transitional cusps between generations too.

[Eric the Green]

(01-23-2020, 10:09 PM)Ghost Wrote:

(01-23-2020, 09:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-23-2020, 08:30 PM)Ghost Wrote:

(01-23-2020, 07:12 PM)jleagans Wrote: 72 years, with each turning and generational cohort covering 18 years.  18 is our clearest demarcation of childhood to adulthood, with 18x4=72.

I remember having a thread where I argued about 72-year saeculums. However, it received a lot of criticism on here.

It actually does make a lot of sense and I can see how it works. The 1996 cutoff for Millennials seems very similar to the 1924 cutoff for the GI Generation, with 1997-1999 and 1925-1927 as being years that are mostly seen as the later generation despite having some sources occasionally lumping them with the previous generation. (for 97-99, it would be Homelanders, and for 25-27, it would be the Silents). 1924-1927 also have the same Chinese zodiac animals as 1996-1999 (1924 and 1996 are rat years, 1925 and 1997 are ox years, 1926 and 1998 are tiger years, 1927 and 1999 are rabbit years).

1925 and 1928 are both very good starting points for Silents, similar to how 1997 and 2000 are both very good starting points for Generation Z/Homelanders.

The Pew generation dates are not based on generational characteristics. Using those, Gen Z probably starts around 2003. Be that as it may, the saeculum if anything should be getting longer, according to what the saeculum is based upon. That is the average length of a human lifetime. That is much more than 72 years, now, and has been getting longer (although not in the USA under Trump). A lot of 72-year old folks today are just getting started! S&H defined the archetypal length of the saeculum in T4T as 84 years.

Do you agree with this breakdown (Using the years 1981-2003)?

1981-1984: Columbine Generation (those in high school during the Columbine shootings)

1985-1990: Recession Generation (those affected the most by the Recession)

1991-1995: Electropop Generation (the stereotypical electropop fanbase)
*Margin of error: People born as late as 1998 may fall under this category, considering that they were the last to be at high school before electropop completely fizzled out (early or mid 2013). I think that 1998 borns are similar to 1986 and 1977 borns in this matter; 1986 borns being the last to be at high school before teen pop fizzled out (early or mid 2001) and 1977 borns being the last to be at high school before glam metal fizzled out (early or mid 1992). However, we are only focusing on the "average Joe" electropop audience.

1996-1999: Gamergate Generation (the stereotypical young far right and far left people)

2000-2003: Activist Generation (those in high school during the Parkland shootings as well as the stereotypical attendees of the September 2019 climate strikes)
*Margin of error: "Activist Generation" could be pushed as far back as 1997 because Hunter Pollack, a Parkland activist, was born in 1997.

Maybe; I don't know. It seems plausible and perhaps correct. But I doubt that a single event can cause a defining response by only one sub-generation. There are a lot of events and family conditions that define a generational group, and there are a lot of traits that characterize one. 

The recession has affected millennials the most, but I think it affected the whole generation. I am skeptical that electropop defined a generation. There are a lot of styles going on in pop at any time, and I don't think any one style predominates these days. I thought the 2012-2013 period was the best in pop music since at least the early 1980s, but I would not define the best songs of those years as just "electropop." It could be defined as part at least of the heyday of the solo girl artist. But perhaps you know more about today's youth and music styles than I do.

[Ghost]

(01-24-2020, 12:24 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-23-2020, 10:09 PM)Ghost Wrote:

(01-23-2020, 09:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-23-2020, 08:30 PM)Ghost Wrote:

(01-23-2020, 07:12 PM)jleagans Wrote: 72 years, with each turning and generational cohort covering 18 years.  18 is our clearest demarcation of childhood to adulthood, with 18x4=72.

I remember having a thread where I argued about 72-year saeculums. However, it received a lot of criticism on here.

It actually does make a lot of sense and I can see how it works. The 1996 cutoff for Millennials seems very similar to the 1924 cutoff for the GI Generation, with 1997-1999 and 1925-1927 as being years that are mostly seen as the later generation despite having some sources occasionally lumping them with the previous generation. (for 97-99, it would be Homelanders, and for 25-27, it would be the Silents). 1924-1927 also have the same Chinese zodiac animals as 1996-1999 (1924 and 1996 are rat years, 1925 and 1997 are ox years, 1926 and 1998 are tiger years, 1927 and 1999 are rabbit years).

1925 and 1928 are both very good starting points for Silents, similar to how 1997 and 2000 are both very good starting points for Generation Z/Homelanders.

The Pew generation dates are not based on generational characteristics. Using those, Gen Z probably starts around 2003. Be that as it may, the saeculum if anything should be getting longer, according to what the saeculum is based upon. That is the average length of a human lifetime. That is much more than 72 years, now, and has been getting longer (although not in the USA under Trump). A lot of 72-year old folks today are just getting started! S&H defined the archetypal length of the saeculum in T4T as 84 years.

Do you agree with this breakdown (Using the years 1981-2003)?

1981-1984: Columbine Generation (those in high school during the Columbine shootings)

1985-1990: Recession Generation (those affected the most by the Recession)

1991-1995: Electropop Generation (the stereotypical electropop fanbase)
*Margin of error: People born as late as 1998 may fall under this category, considering that they were the last to be at high school before electropop completely fizzled out (early or mid 2013). I think that 1998 borns are similar to 1986 and 1977 borns in this matter; 1986 borns being the last to be at high school before teen pop fizzled out (early or mid 2001) and 1977 borns being the last to be at high school before glam metal fizzled out (early or mid 1992). However, we are only focusing on the "average Joe" electropop audience.

1996-1999: Gamergate Generation (the stereotypical young far right and far left people)

2000-2003: Activist Generation (those in high school during the Parkland shootings as well as the stereotypical attendees of the September 2019 climate strikes)
*Margin of error: "Activist Generation" could be pushed as far back as 1997 because Hunter Pollack, a Parkland activist, was born in 1997.

Maybe; I don't know. It seems plausible and perhaps correct. But I doubt that a single event can cause a defining response by only one sub-generation. There are a lot of events and family conditions that define a generational group, and there are a lot of traits that characterize one. 

The recession has affected millennials the most, but I think it affected the whole generation. I am skeptical that electropop defined a generation. There are a lot of styles going on in pop at any time, and I don't think any one style predominates these days. I thought the 2012-2013 period was the best in pop music since at least the early 1980s, but I would not define the best songs of those years as just "electropop." It could be defined as part at least of the heyday of the solo girl artist. But perhaps you know more about today's youth and music styles than I do.

The Columbine shootings, the Recession, Gamergate, and the Parkland shootings were all events that undeniably had a very high magnitude (but at the same time weren't 9/11).

[Eric the Green]

(01-24-2020, 08:56 AM)Ghost Wrote:

(01-24-2020, 12:24 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-23-2020, 10:09 PM)Ghost Wrote:

(01-23-2020, 09:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-23-2020, 08:30 PM)Ghost Wrote: I remember having a thread where I argued about 72-year saeculums. However, it received a lot of criticism on here.

It actually does make a lot of sense and I can see how it works. The 1996 cutoff for Millennials seems very similar to the 1924 cutoff for the GI Generation, with 1997-1999 and 1925-1927 as being years that are mostly seen as the later generation despite having some sources occasionally lumping them with the previous generation. (for 97-99, it would be Homelanders, and for 25-27, it would be the Silents). 1924-1927 also have the same Chinese zodiac animals as 1996-1999 (1924 and 1996 are rat years, 1925 and 1997 are ox years, 1926 and 1998 are tiger years, 1927 and 1999 are rabbit years).

1925 and 1928 are both very good starting points for Silents, similar to how 1997 and 2000 are both very good starting points for Generation Z/Homelanders.

The Pew generation dates are not based on generational characteristics. Using those, Gen Z probably starts around 2003. Be that as it may, the saeculum if anything should be getting longer, according to what the saeculum is based upon. That is the average length of a human lifetime. That is much more than 72 years, now, and has been getting longer (although not in the USA under Trump). A lot of 72-year old folks today are just getting started! S&H defined the archetypal length of the saeculum in T4T as 84 years.

Do you agree with this breakdown (Using the years 1981-2003)?

1981-1984: Columbine Generation (those in high school during the Columbine shootings)

1985-1990: Recession Generation (those affected the most by the Recession)

1991-1995: Electropop Generation (the stereotypical electropop fanbase)
*Margin of error: People born as late as 1998 may fall under this category, considering that they were the last to be at high school before electropop completely fizzled out (early or mid 2013). I think that 1998 borns are similar to 1986 and 1977 borns in this matter; 1986 borns being the last to be at high school before teen pop fizzled out (early or mid 2001) and 1977 borns being the last to be at high school before glam metal fizzled out (early or mid 1992). However, we are only focusing on the "average Joe" electropop audience.

1996-1999: Gamergate Generation (the stereotypical young far right and far left people)

2000-2003: Activist Generation (those in high school during the Parkland shootings as well as the stereotypical attendees of the September 2019 climate strikes)
*Margin of error: "Activist Generation" could be pushed as far back as 1997 because Hunter Pollack, a Parkland activist, was born in 1997.

Maybe; I don't know. It seems plausible and perhaps correct. But I doubt that a single event can cause a defining response by only one sub-generation. There are a lot of events and family conditions that define a generational group, and there are a lot of traits that characterize one. 

The recession has affected millennials the most, but I think it affected the whole generation. I am skeptical that electropop defined a generation. There are a lot of styles going on in pop at any time, and I don't think any one style predominates these days. I thought the 2012-2013 period was the best in pop music since at least the early 1980s, but I would not define the best songs of those years as just "electropop." It could be defined as part at least of the heyday of the solo girl artist. But perhaps you know more about today's youth and music styles than I do.

The Columbine shootings, the Recession, Gamergate, and the Parkland shootings were all events that undeniably had a very high magnitude (but at the same time weren't 9/11).

Gamergate? I don't even know what that is.

[Ghost]

(01-24-2020, 04:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-24-2020, 08:56 AM)Ghost Wrote:

(01-24-2020, 12:24 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-23-2020, 10:09 PM)Ghost Wrote:

(01-23-2020, 09:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The Pew generation dates are not based on generational characteristics. Using those, Gen Z probably starts around 2003. Be that as it may, the saeculum if anything should be getting longer, according to what the saeculum is based upon. That is the average length of a human lifetime. That is much more than 72 years, now, and has been getting longer (although not in the USA under Trump). A lot of 72-year old folks today are just getting started! S&H defined the archetypal length of the saeculum in T4T as 84 years.

Do you agree with this breakdown (Using the years 1981-2003)?

1981-1984: Columbine Generation (those in high school during the Columbine shootings)

1985-1990: Recession Generation (those affected the most by the Recession)

1991-1995: Electropop Generation (the stereotypical electropop fanbase)
*Margin of error: People born as late as 1998 may fall under this category, considering that they were the last to be at high school before electropop completely fizzled out (early or mid 2013). I think that 1998 borns are similar to 1986 and 1977 borns in this matter; 1986 borns being the last to be at high school before teen pop fizzled out (early or mid 2001) and 1977 borns being the last to be at high school before glam metal fizzled out (early or mid 1992). However, we are only focusing on the "average Joe" electropop audience.

1996-1999: Gamergate Generation (the stereotypical young far right and far left people)

2000-2003: Activist Generation (those in high school during the Parkland shootings as well as the stereotypical attendees of the September 2019 climate strikes)
*Margin of error: "Activist Generation" could be pushed as far back as 1997 because Hunter Pollack, a Parkland activist, was born in 1997.

Maybe; I don't know. It seems plausible and perhaps correct. But I doubt that a single event can cause a defining response by only one sub-generation. There are a lot of events and family conditions that define a generational group, and there are a lot of traits that characterize one. 

The recession has affected millennials the most, but I think it affected the whole generation. I am skeptical that electropop defined a generation. There are a lot of styles going on in pop at any time, and I don't think any one style predominates these days. I thought the 2012-2013 period was the best in pop music since at least the early 1980s, but I would not define the best songs of those years as just "electropop." It could be defined as part at least of the heyday of the solo girl artist. But perhaps you know more about today's youth and music styles than I do.

The Columbine shootings, the Recession, Gamergate, and the Parkland shootings were all events that undeniably had a very high magnitude (but at the same time weren't 9/11).

Gamergate? I don't even know what that is.

It's arguably the event that started the "SJW vs. Alt-right" war.

[Ghost]

(01-24-2020, 12:15 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-23-2020, 10:36 PM)Ghost Wrote:

(01-23-2020, 09:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-23-2020, 08:30 PM)Ghost Wrote:

(01-23-2020, 07:12 PM)jleagans Wrote: 72 years, with each turning and generational cohort covering 18 years.  18 is our clearest demarcation of childhood to adulthood, with 18x4=72.

I remember having a thread where I argued about 72-year saeculums. However, it received a lot of criticism on here.

It actually does make a lot of sense and I can see how it works. The 1996 cutoff for Millennials seems very similar to the 1924 cutoff for the GI Generation, with 1997-1999 and 1925-1927 as being years that are mostly seen as the later generation despite having some sources occasionally lumping them with the previous generation. (for 97-99, it would be Homelanders, and for 25-27, it would be the Silents). 1924-1927 also have the same Chinese zodiac animals as 1996-1999 (1924 and 1996 are rat years, 1925 and 1997 are ox years, 1926 and 1998 are tiger years, 1927 and 1999 are rabbit years).

1925 and 1928 are both very good starting points for Silents, similar to how 1997 and 2000 are both very good starting points for Generation Z/Homelanders.

The Pew generation dates are not based on generational characteristics. Using those, Gen Z probably starts around 2003. Be that as it may, the saeculum if anything should be getting longer, according to what the saeculum is based upon. That is the average length of a human lifetime. That is much more than 72 years, now, and has been getting longer (although not in the USA under Trump). A lot of 72-year old folks today are just getting started! S&H defined the archetypal length of the saeculum in T4T as 84 years, based on the length of a human life and 21-year generations.

It could be claimed that generations are shorter because young people now come of age sooner, such as at 18. They propose a 5-turning cycle, extending the human life length to 90. I haven't been convinced of this yet though.

I think that it's closer to something like 22 years, considering that more and more people are going to college (22 seems to be the average length of nostalgia cycles, and 22 is when you get your Bachelor's degree). I believe that one person talked about the four seasons of life, with 22 years representing each season. However, I think that 72 is the average life length worldwide.

I feel like there should be microgenerations (12 years) and macrogenerations (21 years).

For 1997-1999, their 70's born equivalents are most likely 1976-1978, and their 80's born equivalents are most likely 1985-1987.

I think there are sub generations. They are portions of the 21-year generations, and vary in length, but less than 12 years. 22-year generations may happen too; the length varies a bit. And there are transitional cusps between generations too.

Didn't the Transcendentalist Generation last for 30 years (1792-1821)?

[David Horn]

(01-24-2020, 06:13 PM)Ghost Wrote: Didn't the Transcendentalist Generation last for 30 years (1792-1821)?

I seriously doubt it. A more likely interpretation is: the advancing Industrial Age altered traditional generational archetypes and turnings. The Transcendentalists only seem to be a single unified generation of miraculous length if you discount those changes. Several alternative timelines have been proposed, but the honest answer here is probably: the Industrial Age was the first alteration of the underlying paradigm in 12,000 years. Of course things were a bit unhinged. Feel free to decide how and to what extent, but please, don't discount such an epic change.

[Ghost]

(01-24-2020, 07:33 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-24-2020, 06:13 PM)Ghost Wrote: Didn't the Transcendentalist Generation last for 30 years (1792-1821)?

I seriously doubt it.  A more likely interpretation is: the advancing Industrial Age altered traditional generational archetypes and turnings.  The Transcendentalists only seem to be a single unified generation of miraculous length if you discount those changes.  Several alternative timelines have been proposed, but the honest answer here is probably: the Industrial Age was the first alteration of the underlying paradigm in 12,000 years.  Of course things were a bit unhinged.  Feel free to decide how and to what extent, but please, don't discount such an epic change.

It seems that generations in the past could go on for approximately 25, and maybe even 30 years, whereas modern generations rarely go past 21 years (and tend to be around 15-16 years on average, like Millennials and Generation Z being widely agreed upon as 1982-1996 and 1997-2012).

[Eric the Green]

(01-24-2020, 06:00 PM)Ghost Wrote:

(01-24-2020, 04:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-24-2020, 08:56 AM)Ghost Wrote:

(01-24-2020, 12:24 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-23-2020, 10:09 PM)Ghost Wrote: Do you agree with this breakdown (Using the years 1981-2003)?

1981-1984: Columbine Generation (those in high school during the Columbine shootings)

1985-1990: Recession Generation (those affected the most by the Recession)

1991-1995: Electropop Generation (the stereotypical electropop fanbase)
*Margin of error: People born as late as 1998 may fall under this category, considering that they were the last to be at high school before electropop completely fizzled out (early or mid 2013). I think that 1998 borns are similar to 1986 and 1977 borns in this matter; 1986 borns being the last to be at high school before teen pop fizzled out (early or mid 2001) and 1977 borns being the last to be at high school before glam metal fizzled out (early or mid 1992). However, we are only focusing on the "average Joe" electropop audience.

1996-1999: Gamergate Generation (the stereotypical young far right and far left people)

2000-2003: Activist Generation (those in high school during the Parkland shootings as well as the stereotypical attendees of the September 2019 climate strikes)
*Margin of error: "Activist Generation" could be pushed as far back as 1997 because Hunter Pollack, a Parkland activist, was born in 1997.

Maybe; I don't know. It seems plausible and perhaps correct. But I doubt that a single event can cause a defining response by only one sub-generation. There are a lot of events and family conditions that define a generational group, and there are a lot of traits that characterize one. 

The recession has affected millennials the most, but I think it affected the whole generation. I am skeptical that electropop defined a generation. There are a lot of styles going on in pop at any time, and I don't think any one style predominates these days. I thought the 2012-2013 period was the best in pop music since at least the early 1980s, but I would not define the best songs of those years as just "electropop." It could be defined as part at least of the heyday of the solo girl artist. But perhaps you know more about today's youth and music styles than I do.

The Columbine shootings, the Recession, Gamergate, and the Parkland shootings were all events that undeniably had a very high magnitude (but at the same time weren't 9/11).

Gamergate? I don't even know what that is.

It's arguably the event that started the "SJW vs. Alt-right" war.

It could also be argued that this war has been going on for at least 55 years.