Name people who were anomalies for their generation

[Teejay]

Many others who and I have done research into turnings and generations in various societies across the world. Argue that not all the world is on the same saeculum as us. Some of us have lived in some of these societies and can be considered ‘on the ground’ observers. I consider myself as an ‘on ground’ observer for Australia and can argue that our generations are 5-6 years younger than North America’s.

Therefore; when you encounter a public figure from a society which does not have the same saeculum as ours, you need to consider how they fit archetypically wise with their society.
For example; Ali Khamenei (1939), Alexander Lukashenko (1954) and Vladimir Putin (1952) have very Reactive personalities. However, they are all members of their society’s Reactive generations, which were born roughly from the late 1930s to late 1950s (roughly). Going back into the histories of these regions, it explains why both Lenin and Stalin had personalities consistent with that of members of a Reactive generation, well they were members of their societies Reactive generation. The same went for Ataturk (1981), Khrushchev (1894) and an contemporary example Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (1956) having Civic personalities, well they were members of their societies Civic Generations. To give another example; South Africa Trevor Noah seems to have an adaptive personality, well South Africans born from say the early 1970s to early 1990s, belong to an Adaptive generation which grew up in a Crisis. Also, you need to account for turning and generation boundaries in societies, even those on roughly the same saeculum as ours.

However; every generation is composed of people of every archetype, however one archetype dominates each generation. But you need to know what a particular society's generational lineup is like as well.

[AspieMillennial]

(11-19-2019, 01:45 AM)Teejay Wrote: Many others who and I have done research into turnings and generations in various societies across the world. Argue that not all the world is on the same saeculum as us. Some of us have lived in some of these societies and can be considered ‘on the ground’ observers. I consider myself as an ‘on ground’ observer for Australia and can argue that our generations are 5-6 years younger than North America’s.

Therefore; when you encounter a public figure from a society which does not have the same saeculum as ours, you need to consider how they fit archetypically wise with their society.
For example; Ali Khamenei (1939), Alexander Lukashenko (1954) and Vladimir Putin (1952) have very Reactive personalities. However, they are all members of their society’s Reactive generations, which were born roughly from the late 1930s to late 1950s (roughly). Going back into the histories of these regions, it explains why both Lenin and Stalin had personalities consistent with that of members of a Reactive generation, well they were members of their societies Reactive generation. The same went for Ataturk (1981), Khrushchev (1894) and an contemporary example Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (1956) having Civic personalities, well they were members of their societies Civic Generations. To give another example; South Africa Trevor Noah seems to have an adaptive personality, well South Africans born from say the early 1970s to early 1990s, belong to an Adaptive generation which grew up in a Crisis. Also, you need to account for turning and generation boundaries in societies, even those on roughly the same saeculum as ours.

However; every generation is composed of people of every archetype, however one archetype dominates each generation. But you need to know what a particular society's generational lineup is like as well.

Since every generation has people of every archetype, what would cause someone to fall outside of their archetype like someone born in 1979 in the USA that was like a prophet in personality and views?

[Hintergrund]

(11-19-2019, 03:57 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote:

(11-19-2019, 01:45 AM)Teejay Wrote: Many others who and I have done research into turnings and generations in various societies across the world. Argue that not all the world is on the same saeculum as us. Some of us have lived in some of these societies and can be considered ‘on the ground’ observers. I consider myself as an ‘on ground’ observer for Australia and can argue that our generations are 5-6 years younger than North America’s.

Therefore; when you encounter a public figure from a society which does not have the same saeculum as ours, you need to consider how they fit archetypically wise with their society.
For example; Ali Khamenei (1939), Alexander Lukashenko (1954) and Vladimir Putin (1952) have very Reactive personalities. However, they are all members of their society’s Reactive generations, which were born roughly from the late 1930s to late 1950s (roughly). Going back into the histories of these regions, it explains why both Lenin and Stalin had personalities consistent with that of members of a Reactive generation, well they were members of their societies Reactive generation. The same went for Ataturk (1981), Khrushchev (1894) and an contemporary example Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (1956) having Civic personalities, well they were members of their societies Civic Generations.  To give another example; South Africa Trevor Noah seems to have an adaptive personality, well South Africans born from say the early 1970s to early 1990s, belong to an Adaptive generation which grew up in a Crisis. Also, you need to account for turning and generation boundaries in societies, even those on roughly the same saeculum as ours.

However; every generation is composed of people of every archetype, however one archetype dominates each generation. But you need to know what a particular society's generational lineup is like as well.

Since every generation has people of every archetype, what would cause someone to fall outside of their archetype like  someone born in 1979 in the USA that was like a prophet in personality and views?

Possible explanation: Their parents also were exceptions. Or they grew up in a different country.

[David Horn]

(11-20-2019, 02:56 AM)Hintergrund Wrote:

(11-19-2019, 03:57 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote: Since every generation has people of every archetype, what would cause someone to fall outside of their archetype like  someone born in 1979 in the USA that was like a prophet in personality and views?

Possible explanation: Their parents also were exceptions. Or they grew up in a different country.

There are more mundane alternatives too. Any family can be subject to illness. Any town, to natural disaster. Likewise, unexpected good fortune has the opposite effect. Life has plenty of randomness just living through it.

[Ghost]

(11-19-2019, 03:57 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote:

(11-19-2019, 01:45 AM)Teejay Wrote: Many others who and I have done research into turnings and generations in various societies across the world. Argue that not all the world is on the same saeculum as us. Some of us have lived in some of these societies and can be considered ‘on the ground’ observers. I consider myself as an ‘on ground’ observer for Australia and can argue that our generations are 5-6 years younger than North America’s.

Therefore; when you encounter a public figure from a society which does not have the same saeculum as ours, you need to consider how they fit archetypically wise with their society.
For example; Ali Khamenei (1939), Alexander Lukashenko (1954) and Vladimir Putin (1952) have very Reactive personalities. However, they are all members of their society’s Reactive generations, which were born roughly from the late 1930s to late 1950s (roughly). Going back into the histories of these regions, it explains why both Lenin and Stalin had personalities consistent with that of members of a Reactive generation, well they were members of their societies Reactive generation. The same went for Ataturk (1981), Khrushchev (1894) and an contemporary example Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (1956) having Civic personalities, well they were members of their societies Civic Generations.  To give another example; South Africa Trevor Noah seems to have an adaptive personality, well South Africans born from say the early 1970s to early 1990s, belong to an Adaptive generation which grew up in a Crisis. Also, you need to account for turning and generation boundaries in societies, even those on roughly the same saeculum as ours.

However; every generation is composed of people of every archetype, however one archetype dominates each generation. But you need to know what a particular society's generational lineup is like as well.

Since every generation has people of every archetype, what would cause someone to fall outside of their archetype like  someone born in 1979 in the USA that was like a prophet in personality and views?

It's extremely unlikely that an American born in 1979 will have similar experiences to a German born in 1979.

[ResidentArtist]

I'm torn on whether Martin Luther King Jr. could be considered an anomaly. He was born in the Silent Generation right as the Great Depression was getting started, but seems like he fits more with the Prophet archetype in terms of being a 2T religious awakening leader. He would fit in well with the likes of Martin Luther and George Whitfield in that regard. "I Have a Dream" is also a very idealistic speech to give. But at the same time, I'm also not sure how unusual it is for Artists to pursue careers in religious work.

[David Horn]

(11-21-2019, 07:08 PM)ResidentArtist Wrote: I'm torn on whether Martin Luther King Jr. could be considered an anomaly. He was born in the Silent Generation right as the Great Depression was getting started, but seems like he fits more with the Prophet archetype in terms of being a 2T religious awakening leader. He would fit in well with the likes of Martin Luther and George Whitfield in that regard. "I Have a Dream" is also a very idealistic speech to give. But at the same time, I'm also not sure how unusual it is for Artists to pursue careers in religious work.

The term Avant Gard exists because some people are just ahead of the pack from day one.  For those wearing the Prophet archetype out of season, most tend to be Cassandras.  MLK was a true exception to that, although he didn't live to see his work fulfilled.  It's still a work in progress, but one fully recognized as much more than just aspirational. It's a must, and the Millennials, Homelanders and their children seem destined to complete the mission.

[Hintergrund]

(11-20-2019, 06:38 PM)Ghost Wrote:

(11-19-2019, 03:57 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote:

(11-19-2019, 01:45 AM)Teejay Wrote: Many others who and I have done research into turnings and generations in various societies across the world. Argue that not all the world is on the same saeculum as us. Some of us have lived in some of these societies and can be considered ‘on the ground’ observers. I consider myself as an ‘on ground’ observer for Australia and can argue that our generations are 5-6 years younger than North America’s.

Therefore; when you encounter a public figure from a society which does not have the same saeculum as ours, you need to consider how they fit archetypically wise with their society.
For example; Ali Khamenei (1939), Alexander Lukashenko (1954) and Vladimir Putin (1952) have very Reactive personalities. However, they are all members of their society’s Reactive generations, which were born roughly from the late 1930s to late 1950s (roughly). Going back into the histories of these regions, it explains why both Lenin and Stalin had personalities consistent with that of members of a Reactive generation, well they were members of their societies Reactive generation. The same went for Ataturk (1981), Khrushchev (1894) and an contemporary example Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (1956) having Civic personalities, well they were members of their societies Civic Generations.  To give another example; South Africa Trevor Noah seems to have an adaptive personality, well South Africans born from say the early 1970s to early 1990s, belong to an Adaptive generation which grew up in a Crisis. Also, you need to account for turning and generation boundaries in societies, even those on roughly the same saeculum as ours.

However; every generation is composed of people of every archetype, however one archetype dominates each generation. But you need to know what a particular society's generational lineup is like as well.

Since every generation has people of every archetype, what would cause someone to fall outside of their archetype like  someone born in 1979 in the USA that was like a prophet in personality and views?

It's extremely unlikely that an American born in 1979 will have similar experiences to a German born in 1979.

They watched the same movies and TV series, played with the same toys and games, ate the same junkfood, were afraid of Chernobyl/WW3/no pensions for them... they may have more things in common than things not in common.

[Ghost]

(10-24-2018, 11:40 PM)Teejay Wrote:

(03-04-2017, 04:31 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(03-02-2017, 02:58 AM)disasterzone Wrote: For the GI Generation, Betty Freidan 

For Xer Anderson Cooper. 


Any other examples come to mind?

Van Jones seems to have escaped the cynicism of the X Generation. I'm sure there's others too, like Kirsten Gillibrand. But they may be typical nomads in other ways.

Perhaps David Bowie was a prophet who was like an Xer ahead of his time.

I am assuming that the Generation 68' (European Boomers) had their first cohort in 1947. David Bowie born in the first cohort of this generation.

The latest and most used year for the starting date of Baby Boomers is 1946 because that was the start of the rise in the birth rates after WWII.

I have seen dates as early as 1937 being used because it is the first year after birth rates hit its lowest point in 1936. Probably an unrelated reason, but 1937 borns were also the first to start elementary school after Pearl Harbor.

[Ghost]

(11-26-2019, 08:43 AM)Hintergrund Wrote:

(11-20-2019, 06:38 PM)Ghost Wrote:

(11-19-2019, 03:57 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote:

(11-19-2019, 01:45 AM)Teejay Wrote: Many others who and I have done research into turnings and generations in various societies across the world. Argue that not all the world is on the same saeculum as us. Some of us have lived in some of these societies and can be considered ‘on the ground’ observers. I consider myself as an ‘on ground’ observer for Australia and can argue that our generations are 5-6 years younger than North America’s.

Therefore; when you encounter a public figure from a society which does not have the same saeculum as ours, you need to consider how they fit archetypically wise with their society.
For example; Ali Khamenei (1939), Alexander Lukashenko (1954) and Vladimir Putin (1952) have very Reactive personalities. However, they are all members of their society’s Reactive generations, which were born roughly from the late 1930s to late 1950s (roughly). Going back into the histories of these regions, it explains why both Lenin and Stalin had personalities consistent with that of members of a Reactive generation, well they were members of their societies Reactive generation. The same went for Ataturk (1981), Khrushchev (1894) and an contemporary example Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (1956) having Civic personalities, well they were members of their societies Civic Generations.  To give another example; South Africa Trevor Noah seems to have an adaptive personality, well South Africans born from say the early 1970s to early 1990s, belong to an Adaptive generation which grew up in a Crisis. Also, you need to account for turning and generation boundaries in societies, even those on roughly the same saeculum as ours.

However; every generation is composed of people of every archetype, however one archetype dominates each generation. But you need to know what a particular society's generational lineup is like as well.

Since every generation has people of every archetype, what would cause someone to fall outside of their archetype like  someone born in 1979 in the USA that was like a prophet in personality and views?

It's extremely unlikely that an American born in 1979 will have similar experiences to a German born in 1979.

They watched the same movies and TV series, played with the same toys and games, ate the same junkfood, were afraid of Chernobyl/WW3/no pensions for them... they may have more things in common than things not in common.

You're correct about that, but I don't think that German politics are/were similar to American politics.

[Captain Genet]

Karl Marx - did he have any distinctly Transcendental traits? He didn't advocate for going back to nature or for expressing emotion freely.

S&H said there wasn't any Civic generation between Transcendentals and Missionaries. Maybe in America, but in Britain and Europe there was. I propose "Victorials" as the name for this tentative generation. Karl Marx was a Victorial with his industrialization fetish. His theory of scientific development of society has a similar feel to one proposed by Herbert Spencer

[pbrower2a]

(11-22-2019, 09:10 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(11-21-2019, 07:08 PM)ResidentArtist Wrote: I'm torn on whether Martin Luther King Jr. could be considered an anomaly. He was born in the Silent Generation right as the Great Depression was getting started, but seems like he fits more with the Prophet archetype in terms of being a 2T religious awakening leader. He would fit in well with the likes of Martin Luther and George Whitfield in that regard. "I Have a Dream" is also a very idealistic speech to give. But at the same time, I'm also not sure how unusual it is for Artists to pursue careers in religious work.

The term Avant Gard exists because some people are just ahead of the pack from day one.  For those wearing the Prophet archetype out of season, most tend to be Cassandras.  MLK was a true exception to that, although he didn't live to see his work fulfilled.  It's still a work in progress, but one fully recognized as much more than just aspirational. It's a must, and the Millennials, Homelanders and their children seem destined to complete the mission.

If he can be shown to have some GI-like traits, like mathematical precision in speaking and a tendency to promote conformity as well as Boomer traits... well, that is par for the Silent Generation.

[galaxy]

(11-21-2019, 07:08 PM)ResidentArtist Wrote: I'm torn on whether Martin Luther King Jr. could be considered an anomaly. He was born in the Silent Generation right as the Great Depression was getting started, but seems like he fits more with the Prophet archetype in terms of being a 2T religious awakening leader. He would fit in well with the likes of Martin Luther and George Whitfield in that regard. "I Have a Dream" is also a very idealistic speech to give. But at the same time, I'm also not sure how unusual it is for Artists to pursue careers in religious work.

S&H went into this in Generations. While MLK was pretty idealistic, the role he played in history is right in line with his generation. Artists find, as time passes, that, though they themselves were born "ten years too early or ten years too late," they can begin to direct the passions and steer the crusades of the young Prophets. The phrase "don't trust anyone over 30," associated with Boomers and the 20th century 2T, was coined by a Silent (Jack Weinberg, born 1940). Leading an idealistic movement of young people while being older than most of them, as MLK did, is a very Artist thing to do.

[pbrower2a]

Two to add: Rachel Carson and Jack Kerouac, definitely misfits of the GI Generation.

It is likely best that we forget the garden-variety criminals. Many of them had big problems in childhood, like growing up in extremely dysfunctional families (abuse, neglect), getting exposed to too much environmental lead, or having head injuries resulting from some accident (let us say getting kicked in the head by a horse). They may be dullards who think that they can do crime better than some schmuck on a TV drama and simply make different mistakes.

Or, as with mobsters, they come from criminal cultures in which becoming a mobster is a possibility.

[Einzige]

(03-19-2021, 04:16 AM)Captain Genet Wrote: Karl Marx - did he have any distinctly Transcendental traits? He didn't advocate for going back to nature or for expressing emotion freely.

S&H said there wasn't any Civic generation between Transcendentals and Missionaries. Maybe in America, but in Britain and Europe there was. I propose "Victorials" as the name for this tentative generation. Karl Marx was a Victorial with his industrialization fetish. His theory of scientific development of society has a similar feel to one proposed by Herbert Spencer

If you don't actually read Marx I can see how you might think this.

[Ghost]

Jason Earles, Jerry Trainor, John Cena, and Curtis Cregan from Hi-5 USA were all born in 1977 but are proto-Zoomerish.

[Captain Genet]

(06-01-2021, 02:13 PM)Einzige Wrote:

(03-19-2021, 04:16 AM)Captain Genet Wrote: Karl Marx - did he have any distinctly Transcendental traits? He didn't advocate for going back to nature or for expressing emotion freely.

S&H said there wasn't any Civic generation between Transcendentals and Missionaries. Maybe in America, but in Britain and Europe there was. I propose "Victorials" as the name for this tentative generation. Karl Marx was a Victorial with his industrialization fetish. His theory of scientific development of society has a similar feel to one proposed by Herbert Spencer

If you don't actually read Marx I can see how you might think this.

I've read Trotsky and I think it's mostly the same thing, but I'm open to your corrections. What distinctly Transcendental traits did Marx have?

[sbarrera]

(03-04-2017, 04:17 PM)disasterzone Wrote:

(03-02-2017, 03:39 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Timothy Leary, Rachel Carson, Oral Roberts... GI
Eleanor Roosevelt, Fulton Sheen, Bayard Rustin, Elijah Mohammed... Lost.
Charles Manson... Silent

Timothy Leary seems prophet to me. Oral Roberts seems extremely like the Silent Generation to me, especially the first half. Manson seems like a proto Xer. Do you have the same impressions?

BTW Bayard Rustin was GI.

Similar to Timothy Leary was GI Alan Watts (b. 1915), who was kind of a proto-Boomer in that his philosophy anticipated the Awakening. He has become heavily memed in our time. He made a lot of great speeches which you could find online.

[pbrower2a]

(06-26-2021, 08:10 AM)Captain Genet Wrote:

(06-01-2021, 02:13 PM)Einzige Wrote:

(03-19-2021, 04:16 AM)Captain Genet Wrote: Karl Marx - did he have any distinctly Transcendental traits? He didn't advocate for going back to nature or for expressing emotion freely.

S&H said there wasn't any Civic generation between Transcendentals and Missionaries. Maybe in America, but in Britain and Europe there was. I propose "Victorials" as the name for this tentative generation. Karl Marx was a Victorial with his industrialization fetish. His theory of scientific development of society has a similar feel to one proposed by Herbert Spencer

If you don't actually read Marx I can see how you might think this.

I've read Trotsky and I think it's mostly the same thing, but I'm open to your corrections. What distinctly Transcendental traits did Marx have?

Transform Ralph Waldo Emerson or Henry David Thoreau into the most radical socialist of the mid-nineteenth century and you have Karl Marx. Thinking far outside the political  or religious orthodoxy of the time is Idealist. So is putting a new ideological or missionary twist onto some existing political or religious orthodoxy of the time.

[Anthony '58]

(05-31-2021, 09:34 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Two to add: Rachel Carson and Jack Kerouac, definitely misfits of the GI Generation.

It is likely best that we forget the garden-variety criminals. Many of them had big problems in childhood, like growing up in extremely dysfunctional families (abuse, neglect), getting exposed to too much environmental lead, or having head injuries resulting from some accident (let us say getting kicked in the head by a horse). They may be dullards who think that they can do crime better than some schmuck on a TV drama and simply make different  mistakes.  

Or, as with mobsters, they come from criminal cultures in which becoming a mobster is a possibility.

If Jack Kerouac was a G.I. misfit - and he was - then so was William Burroughs.