What are your specialities?

[pbrower2a]

(09-29-2019, 03:27 PM)beechnut79 Wrote:

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

It could appear as reason or morality just as easily. Sometimes those coincide. When feeling, reason, and morality coincide, then momentous change is nigh.

3T thought promotes economic inequality as the essence of wealth-creation, but in a 4T people start to question whether extreme inequality is more likely to lead to a violent revolution or to some super-prosperity that only a few can enjoy. Who wants to live in a country on the brink of a violent revolution? Happy societies do not have violent revolutions.  

At some point people might start asking "what about our children?" Extreme inequality usually comes with severe danger of hunger and in an order that generally holds the lives of its victims in contempt. 

The current President seems unable to have either a coherent or honest conversation with anyone, and he is no bridge-builder. If he is an Idealist he exemplifies the worst, someone who exploits people severely and expects to be seen as a benefactor. He lacks empathy and imagination; if he 'creates' a reality-television show someone must cause him to think that the program is wonderful... and Trump's idea. (I "fired" The Apprentice quickly with my remote control).  He cannot see legitimacy of thought, morals, or feeling on the Other Side, so his policies toward the Other Side are basically "F--- you!") He cannot recognize the legitimacy of others' feelings or sensibilities. He would mock me for Asperger's syndrome. 

America will need an honest conversation. Tribalism that seems to have slipped in on little cats' feet has become a political tiger. Tribalism does us no good. We will need to address the severe poverty of many communities, including the most isolated parts of the Mountain South. We need to address AGW for the sake of Humanity as a whole. We will need vision beyond the next quarterly report; it is arguable that some once-significant corporations have gone under for committing to a trend that was damned at the time. Trump is obviously wrong for this role.

The Saeculum is troublesome, but I can imagine far worse, as in a society that goes off in a way that becomes increasingly inhuman and destructive over time. Those of us who live reasonably-long lives get to see everything.

[Ldr]

(09-29-2019, 08:15 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The Saeculum is troublesome, but I can imagine far worse, as in a society that goes off in a way that becomes increasingly inhuman and destructive over time. Those of us who live reasonably-long lives get to see everything.

It's not the society. It's the humans who create and sustain the society. The society does not sustain itself, this is a pure fantasy, and a pretty dangerous one. This is also the biggest flaw of the social dynamic theory that the Strauss-Howe generational theory heavily relies on. It's foolish to think that one knows who societal phenomenon are created, if one doesn't even understand his own motives. And we don't, there is not a single human being on this planet who truly understands his own psyche. If there is someone, please tell me who it is.

This is why I never believed in the reasoning of the Strauss-Howe generational theory. I never take commonly repeated truths as truths, since if everybody seems to agree on something but no one can prove it, the explanations are probably false. There may be a grain of truth in all the explanations, which makes them sound appealing and thus socially acceptable explanations, but they are not the root cause. (This is the reason why I never believe in the explanations that pollution and chemical cause the decreasing testosterone and sperm levels, which have been observed for decades now. Testosterone levels have been low during past era's, this is nothing new, so the explanations are on very shaky ground, and nobody can show any real proof that the explanations are correct. Pollution and chemicals are the witches of the 21st century, a nice tale that everyone can believe in and point their finger at. A scapegoat)

People don't even understand what empathy is at its roots, but they still use the word repeatedly. And how could they, since the science isn't settled yet. Science is just scratching the surface of the human psyche, but humans think they understand societal events and how they are formed. This is an illusion, and I think the generational dynamics fall into this category of an illusion.

[pbrower2a]

(10-05-2019, 11:26 AM)Ldr Wrote:

(09-29-2019, 08:15 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The Saeculum is troublesome, but I can imagine far worse, as in a society that goes off in a way that becomes increasingly inhuman and destructive over time. Those of us who live reasonably-long lives get to see everything.

It's not the society. It's the humans who create and sustain the society. The society does not sustain itself, this is a pure fantasy, and a pretty dangerous one. This is also the biggest flaw of the social dynamic theory that the Strauss-Howe generational theory heavily relies on. It's foolish to think that one knows who societal phenomenon are created, if one doesn't even understand his own motives. And we don't, there is not a single human being on this planet who truly understands his own psyche. If there is someone, please tell me who it is.

Do people create the society or does the society take over the role? The generational mechanism may itself prevent ossification of a culture and class relationships and keep things from getting hopeless.   

Quote:This is why I never believed in the reasoning of the Strauss-Howe generational theory. I never take commonly repeated truths as truths, since if everybody seems to agree on something but no one can prove it, the explanations are probably false. There may be a grain of truth in all the explanations, which makes them sound appealing and thus socially acceptable explanations, but they are not the root cause. (This is the reason why I never believe in the explanations that pollution and chemical cause the decreasing testosterone and sperm levels, which have been observed for decades now. Testosterone levels have been low during past era's, this is nothing new, so the explanations are on very shaky ground, and nobody can show any real proof that the explanations are correct. Pollution and chemicals are the witches of the 21st century, a nice tale that everyone can believe in and point their finger at. A scapegoat)

Experiences can shatter myths, and some things that are shown true by experience can be the foundation of deeper knowledge. Consider that one of the first things that ancient civilizations were good at doing was building. Carpenters and stonemasons learned from mistakes, often fatal for themselves (construction accidents) or others (building collapses) some basic realities about the material world Three legs makes a stable tripod and two legs needs some support to prevent an easy fall. Two nails are enough to keep an object fixed to another, and one is inadequate for keeping something in position. Another is record-keeping, which is the source of writing and arithmetic. Euclid used such knowledge as the foundation of mathematics up to algebra, and created a system of logical reasoning useful to this day. Example: Abraham Lincoln wanted to know the mathematical basis of reality, so he borrowed Euclid's Elements from a library. He took it seriously.   

Quote:People don't even understand what empathy is at its roots, but they still use the word repeatedly. And how could they, since the science isn't settled yet. Science is just scratching the surface of the human psyche, but humans think they understand societal events and how they are formed. This is an illusion, and I think the generational dynamics fall into this category of an illusion.

Sociopaths completely lack empathy or (as sadists) relish its antithesis. Narcissistic people have little and seem fine with that themselves so long as others toe the line, which is good for them living off others' productivity as managers and impresarios. 

Human kindness keeps a society from spiraling off into a world in which every person is predator or prey. Knowledge of the human psyche has such severe limits that science cannot reduce its complexity. Great literature remains relevant in understanding such. Neither psychology nor psychiatry can explain everything. Truth be told, we are nasty predators by nature, about on par with our alleged Best Friend, the dog. Most animals with the cunning, power, speed, agility, strength, voracity, keen senses, sharp teeth, sharp claws, and great bite force are supremely dangerous. The dog is simply more predictable than animals similarly lethal such as bears and Big Cats. Dogs are good reason to not be a burglar. They are just above us in the food chain. 

Human behavior is the wildest and most unpredictable in the world. Psychiatry and psychology cannot explain everything, and even Freud turned to literature to get much of the reality that he expressed about human behavior. We used to rely heavily upon theologians to explain things... but to get the fullest understanding of human nature one needs to rely upon literature. To this date, if there were one person that I would rely upon for understanding of the non-physical world it would be Shakespeare. More even than Freud.

[Ldr]

(10-06-2019, 11:11 AM)pbrower2 Wrote: Do people create the society or does the society take over the role? The generational mechanism may itself prevent ossification of a culture and class relationships and keep things from getting hopeless.

It's the generations and their average hormone levels that create the social mood, and the social mood largely dictates the direction of a society, as the leaders are trying to navigate the social currents to gain popularity. But this is nothing special, as many other species also have the same situation in their societies, and their leaders too must exhibit understanding towards the in-group, for example empathy is required from chimp leaders or they're removed from that position.

[tg63]

(10-05-2019, 11:26 AM)Ldr Wrote: ... This is why I never believed in the reasoning of the Strauss-Howe generational theory. ...

Just curious (and if you've addressed this elsewhere I apologize) ... if you don't believe the theory why do you post in this forum?

[Eric the Green]

(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.

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.

Where did you get the idea that prophet generations are right wing? Not so. Core boomers have a left-wing voting record by all accounts. They spurred the movements of the 2T. The late boomers (Xer-cuspers and early Xers) are more right wing. In general, Xers got less right wing in midlife, and Boomers more so. But they are still both about evenly divided.

GIs were liberal on economic issues, but they got more conservative as they defended the war in Vietnam. Silents were liberal in youth when they spurred the civil rights and consumer/womens' movements. They have become much more conservative through the 3T in their insecurity, libertarianism and opposition to taxes. In general people get more conservative as they age, and these days that is also a fear of the increasing ethnic and religious diversity of our society. This is affecting every generation except millennials, since they are the diverse ones.

Missionaries and other prophets spearheaded left-wing progressive movements, but also religious right movements. W. J. Bryan exemplified both. Theirs was the social gospel. Transcendentalist prophets were the motive force behind the movement against slavery, and were radicals in the 1860s. Unless they were southerners; then the reverse was true.

Whether voting is based on reasoning or emotions differs depending on the person. Right wing voting is based on emotions such as fear and greed, as well as ideologies and dogmas to which they are attached, while left wing voting is based on consideration of facts and needs, plus ideals to which they are dedicated. Left-wing voting is also based on emotional fears of what might happen if the right-wing rules, like poverty, war, pollution and discrimination. There is much fear there among left-wingers, but it's quite justified.

Where you went wrong is to equate the left and right wings, and just say their voting is based on the same hormone levels. The problem is that this does not tell us why someone would vote for the left or the right. It just says that emotions and hormones may drive them. Especially in 4Ts emotions run higher, but which direction they drive people depends on factors other than hormones. Single explanations always fail. It is a mark of insecurity on your part to attribute everything to one factor. Life is more complicated and less easily explained than you say. And it's impossible to attribute different hormones to whole different generations. People's bodies are too different to do that. I don't see that you have cited scientific research and actual measurements of people of different ages on this, and I don't think any has been conducted, and I doubt that it could be. But your theory would depend on this, since it's a physical and verifiable theory. And I detect cynicism in your reasoning too, which is a false basis for ideas. Civilization is not built on cynicism, but can be destroyed by it.

Since human behavior is driven by emotions, what would you say is the hormone that is driving your theory?

[Eric the Green]

(10-05-2019, 11:26 AM)Ldr Wrote:

(09-29-2019, 08:15 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The Saeculum is troublesome, but I can imagine far worse, as in a society that goes off in a way that becomes increasingly inhuman and destructive over time. Those of us who live reasonably-long lives get to see everything.

It's not the society. It's the humans who create and sustain the society. The society does not sustain itself, this is a pure fantasy, and a pretty dangerous one. This is also the biggest flaw of the social dynamic theory that the Strauss-Howe generational theory heavily relies on. It's foolish to think that one knows (HOW) societal phenomenon are created, if one doesn't even understand his own motives. And we don't, there is not a single human being on this planet who truly understands his own psyche. If there is someone, please tell me who it is.

This is why I never believed in the reasoning of the Strauss-Howe generational theory. I never take commonly repeated truths as truths, since if everybody seems to agree on something but no one can prove it, the explanations are probably false. There may be a grain of truth in all the explanations, which makes them sound appealing and thus socially acceptable explanations, but they are not the root cause. (This is the reason why I never believe in the explanations that pollution and chemical cause the decreasing testosterone and sperm levels, which have been observed for decades now. Testosterone levels have been low during past era's, this is nothing new, so the explanations are on very shaky ground, and nobody can show any real proof that the explanations are correct. Pollution and chemicals are the witches of the 21st century, a nice tale that everyone can believe in and point their finger at. A scapegoat)

People don't even understand what empathy is at its roots, but they still use the word repeatedly. And how could they, since the science isn't settled yet. Science is just scratching the surface of the human psyche, but humans think they understand societal events and how they are formed. This is an illusion, and I think the generational dynamics fall into this category of an illusion.

Socrates understood that he was considered the wisest man in Greece, and considered that the reason is was so wise, is that he knew that he knew nothing. Pretty good, wouldn't you agree?


Pollution and chemicals have harmful effects which have been proven. When coal is dumped into rivers, as it is in West Virginia, disease increases. The problem with the people of West Virginia, apparently, is that pollution has so ruined their minds, that they can't put things together enough to vote out the Republicans who cause their pollution and their disease. Some kind of hormone must be driving them to vote on the basis of fear of diversity and religious fanaticism, and fear of what their bosses might do to them if they vote against them, rather than on their own real interests. The same thing is happening in other places like Louisiana. These people are just willfully stupid and ignorant, and they pay the price, and keep on being stupid and ignorant anyway. Climate change is a fact, and denying it is denying science. And the very people who deny it the most, those who live in the South near the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico, and in the agricultural heartlands further north and west of those coasts, are suffering the worst effects. And they go on denying it. About 40-45% of Americans, we must conclude, are just really, really stupid. What hormone could explain the astoundingly-high level of willful stupidity in red flyover states, pray tell?

It's true that we can't understand society unless we understand humans. There is some understanding of this, but it is limited in Western society by materialism and physicalism, and also by religious dogmas prevalent in The West as well. One can only understand the psyche by observing and exploring the psyche, not by looking at its outward manifestations seen through the senses by other people, or by what your preacher screams at you. If we want to understand ourselves, then we had better put down our microscopes and our bibles and look within. The Eastern sages know far more about the human psyche than Western scientists, but there is wisdom in the repressed esoteric hermetic and occult traditions of The West.

The Strauss and Howe theory is based on this tradition, although they don't always admit it, and it's not solely based on it. More than on sociology, their ideas are based on their studies of people and their biographies. This isn't a study of the human psyche, but it's a study of what people thought and what they did. They also know history. 

Rather than just a sociological statistical study, they used their esoteric knowledge of archetypes to see patterns and cycles in the behavior of individuals and the moods of history. It does not provide details of predicted events, but mainly just the prediction of a general mood that was due in society starting in about 2005-2008 and extending to the mid or late 2020s. It appears that Howe favored a later date than Strauss, to which I agree. This fourth turning has come about since the great recession, and now our country is in danger of losing its foundations because of the Republican Party and whom it is backing. The inequality produced by the 3T mood and philosophy of trickle-down economics is hurting the people and caused the great recession. This winter-like season, the metaphor they use for a 4th turning, is also a literal coming of winter due to climate change, which is becoming a crisis during this 4T, and will continue to be for some decades to come. But now it requires a big change in society and in industry and a green new deal, in this 4T era. We either face these crises in the 2020s, or America dies. That's what a 4T implies. It is a struggle for survival of the country, and it has always been so. Historical correlations to cycles work, and are important to heed.

Their other prediction was about the nature of the millennial generation, for which they coined the name. Their prediction seems fulfilled to me. Millennials are collegeal networkers and are tech and science friendly. That is what they predicted. They are also more willing to respond to the collective needs of society, while boomers and Xers were more about individual fulfillment and dedication to ideals, including spiritual ones (Boomers), and financial security and advancement, practical skill and risk-taking (Xers). And of course, Xers are cynics. And so are some millennials.

[beechnut79]

(10-06-2019, 01:54 PM)Ldr Wrote:

(10-06-2019, 11:11 AM)pbrower2 Wrote: Do people create the society or does the society take over the role? The generational mechanism may itself prevent ossification of a culture and class relationships and keep things from getting hopeless.

It's the generations and their average hormone levels that create the social mood, and the social mood largely dictates the direction of a society, as the leaders are trying to navigate the social currents to gain popularity. But this is nothing special, as many other species also have the same situation in their societies, and their leaders too must exhibit understanding towards the in-group, for example empathy is required from chimp leaders or they're removed from that position.Whi

While browsing the web earlier today I came across this catchy little ditty of alphabet soup and it brought back memories of when the whole thing of Type A personalities, those who have a compulsive need to make every day count, first came into vogue around the middle of the 1980s with the whole Yuppie phenomenon. Are their personal relationships away from their primary occupations more intense and passionate, or are spouses/lovers/friends of these Type As the neglected ones that they don't have time for? Could there also be some brooding and jealousy happening in these relationships as well? I do know that there has been a history of separation and divorce over workaholism.  Do Type Bs, on the other hand, often need to be given the extra shot of energy they need to start their engines? And is there a hormonal connection to all of this?
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_q...ter+type+a

[Eric the Green]

(09-26-2019, 06:14 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: 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.

I'm not quite with you there. Populism is not national. That is nationalism and maybe xenophobia, whereas populism solely means power to the people, anywhere and everywhere. It is indeed elevating the common man against extant elites. Xenophobic demagogues are not populists. Populism includes everyone, including the elites, because we are all part of the population. But it means that the rich and powerful should have limits on their control, which should be widely distributed. Organization is needed for society to work. But populism insists that the leaders be responsible to those they are leading, and that anyone can rise to be a leader if they have the needed skills to lead.

The mixup today in the use of the word populism, as I have explained, is the appeal of demagogues today (and there are many today in the Trump/Putin mold) to the basest emotions of the people, to make them scapegoat groups other than their own for their own problems. To call "populism" merely an appeal to the basest instincts of certain non-elite elements among the people, implies that these people do not have the capacity to support their own interests and those of society. I consider abuse of that term in that way as an insult to the people. Appealing to "the people" can, at least in theory, be made to "the better angels of their nature" and to their highest ideals, as well as to their base fears and prejudices.

Humanism is good as far as it goes, to the extent that it values humans and respects the rights and value of humans. It is limited, however, to the extent that these rights and values are not also extended to non-humans, or if humans are seen as the highest beings. No, there are higher beings, whether that be God, angels, ancestors, or the society and planet as a whole rather than just individuals. There are the beings in what we call Nature, the animals, plants and the mineral world, and these have rights too. So, I am not a humanist, because humans are not the end and measure of all things.

But to the extent that "humanism" impels us to seek justice, freedom, creativity and rights for all humans, regardless of race, color, religion or class, etc., , and liberation from limiting and oppressive religious, scientific, political, or economic authority, then I'm all for these expressions of "humanism."

[Ldr]

(10-08-2019, 11:19 AM)tg63 Wrote:

(10-05-2019, 11:26 AM)Ldr Wrote: ... This is why I never believed in the reasoning of the Strauss-Howe generational theory. ...

Just curious (and if you've addressed this elsewhere I apologize) ... if you don't believe the theory why do you post in this forum?

That's a good question, and I have a specific answer to it. I believe that the historical observations by Strauss & Howe about the generational traits and the cycle as a whole are accurate. But I do not believe in the "social dynamics" explanations about how the generations are formed and why the cycle keeps on turning. It just doesn't work, as it is virtually impossible for the events they describe to happen because of generations "reacting" to other generations and societal events, especially as the cycle is so precise while spanning several centuries.

That's why I took the historical observations as a starting point, and built a biological explanation for the generational theory, tossing away the "social dynamics" explanations, as they weren't convincing enough. It is the varying hormone levels that create the generational traits, and also the dynamics of the turnings. And the statistics support this idea in chapter 4 of the generational hormone theory's webpage. In addition, many cyclical mammal species have the same cycle, as the hypothalamus that secretes hormones is common with the rest of the animal world.

To give you an example, the nurturing intensity goes around in a 80 year cycle. But the science basically says that good parenting results in good parenting skills for the child, and bad parenting leads to bad parenting skills for the child. This is just one example of how the "social dynamics" theory is incorrect in its assumptions. If one tries to explain that the nurturing intensity is higher because of societal events, wrong again. The nurturing intensity was low in the 1970's, and started to go up since then, but was the 1980's or 2000's somehow a more dangerous time, explaining the higher nurturing intensity? Not really. Was the social mood different? Yes, but trying to explain the changes to the social mood through generational societal interactions falls flat, because none of it can be explained with any real accuracy. What I'm getting at is that all of the "social dynamic" explanations of the Strauss-Howe generational theory are very easy to shoot down with basic science.

But when looking at the generational archetypes is very important, because they are the ones who create the history, and they are created by hormone levels. It's just like with the other cyclical animal populations, their different generations behave different according to the position of the cycle. It's actually quite simple when you think about it, but as human societies are infinitely more complex, the manifestations are also different. But when it comes to parenting and breastfeeding, the manifestations are the same in humans and other animals.

[Ldr]

(10-08-2019, 05:58 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Single explanations always fail. It is a mark of insecurity on your part to attribute everything to one factor...

And it's impossible to attribute different hormones to whole different generations. People's bodies are too different to do that.

I don't see that you have cited scientific research and actual measurements of people of different ages on this, and I don't think any has been conducted, and I doubt that it could be. But your theory would depend on this, since it's a physical and verifiable theory. And I detect cynicism in your reasoning too, which is a false basis for ideas. Civilization is not built on cynicism, but can be destroyed by it.

Since human behavior is driven by emotions, what would you say is the hormone that is driving your theory?

Well, there are the Russian studies on voles and lemmings that quite directly confirm my theory, as those species have verified cyclical generational hormone levels, and those levels coincide with the Strauss-Howe generational theory's generation and their traits. The hypothalamus is very similar among humans and other animal species, so there is no limitation why humans wouldn't have the same generational cycle, especially since this hormone cycle coincides with the Strauss-Howe generational theory's premises. So I do not understand how "attributing everything to one factor" is a mark of insecurity, as this "one factor" is driving the generational cycles in other animals than humans.

This is why attributing average hormone levels to whole generations isn't impossible in any way. Look at the evidence in chapter 4. How else would you explain that breastfeeding & average paternal age & nurturing intensity go hand in hand with the Strauss-Howe generational theory? Especially since breastfeeding is a biological mechanism. And the alcohol consumption drops as the oxytocin levels go high. Are you saying these a coincidences? That it's a coincidence that I read a historical theory and then all the biological stats in several Western countries just happen to support the hormone theory, including other cyclical species like lemmings, voles and snowshoe hares? Do those species also have social dynamics and societal events that drive the social mood and their hormone levels? I'm being a little sarcastic here, but in good spirits only, since I'm just trying to explain how all of this being a mere coincidence is just impossible.

Human behavior is driven by emotions, and emotions are driven by hormone levels. Hormone levels are driven by hypothalamus, and different generations have different structures (efficiency) in hypothalamus, just like with other animals. For example, other animals also have empathy and altruism, just to name a few more "advanced" emotions that were previously thought to be uniquely human. The hormones in play are (at least) oxytocin, vasopressin and cortisol.

I really don't understand how you can detect cynicism in my words. It's mostly only science I'm referring to and then building upon that evidence. You say that civilizations based on cynicism will fail, but I would say that civilizations based on scientific ignorance will definitely fail harder.  But seriously speaking, I'm a bit worried if the societal levels of oxytocin and the more aggressive variant vasopressin are going higher. The societal tensions are already high, politicians have formed tight camps, fake news and propaganda is on the rise, and so is the willingness to accept this propaganda. It's not like CNN and Fox News are forcing people to watch their propaganda! People choose to watch these networks, as they like what they hear. The hosts on those channels allow inaccuracies/lies to be stated without interruption, and this is clear evidence of high oxytocin & vasopressin levels, as described in chapter 2 of the generational hormone theory.

The social mood is currently snappy, and the youngest generation is very sensitive (just as Strauss & Howe predicted), just like individuals with high levels of oxytocin and vasopressin are predicted react, as this can lead to social sensory overload. (https://neurosciencenews.com/sensory-ove...asd-14420/) Cortisol has also been linked to violence (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...085023.htm), so high levels of cortisol would probably not be a good thing either, and since cortisol suppresses testosterone (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3880087/), Neil Howe has already inadvertently been looking at the solution to the generational theory's basic premises: https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/20...ather-was/

[Bill the Piper]

(09-26-2019, 06:14 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: 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.

The important concept here is horizon of identification:
-Egoism encompasses only one person. Everybody else is either irrelevant, useful as a tool providing pleasure, or an enemy. Only psychopaths are pure egoists, though Satanists and Randists believe in in on a theoretical level.
-Tribalism encompasses a tribe or ethnic group. Other tribes are seen in the same way the egoist sees other individuals. What is today known as populism is in fact tribalism. Bolshevism features a class-based tribalism and both radical feminism and the redpill movement feature gender-based tribalism.
-Racialism encompasses a race. It's not necessarily the same as racism since it doesn't have to involve hating other races, like egoism doesn't have to involve hating other individuals.
-Humanism encompasses the human species. It could be construed to involve disdain for other species of sophonts, when we met some in space or create them on Earth using biotech.
-Cosmic idealism encompasses all intelligent beings in the universe.

[Ldr]

I agree, Bill, but it is important to notice that all of the concepts you mentioned hold true for animals too, although humanism is obviously replaced with the correct species name.

It is a bit difficult to explain the generational hormone theory since people often associate the "higher level" cognitive functions and behaviors only to humans. But this is an illusion. Animals like lemmings have empathy. Monkeys have altruism. There isn't a single emotion that is unique to humans. And if one thinks that for example Marxism or other concepts of equal pay are somehow human inventions, they're entirely wrong, since these concepts are merely slightly more sophisticated versions of animal instincts and thought patterns:

The experiment starts at time 1:20.

Therefore it is also foolish to think that hormone levels wouldn't affect human behavior, especially if generations have the same average hormone levels, which amplifies the generational traits. And if these monkeys (or humans) had higher levels of oxytocin and vasopressin, the reactions would be even more pronounced, since those hormones promote equality (among in-groups, and I suspect those monkeys are of the same group).

[Eric the Green]

(10-09-2019, 02:51 AM)Ldr Wrote:

(10-08-2019, 05:58 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Single explanations always fail. It is a mark of insecurity on your part to attribute everything to one factor...

And it's impossible to attribute different hormones to whole different generations. People's bodies are too different to do that.

I don't see that you have cited scientific research and actual measurements of people of different ages on this, and I don't think any has been conducted, and I doubt that it could be. But your theory would depend on this, since it's a physical and verifiable theory. And I detect cynicism in your reasoning too, which is a false basis for ideas. Civilization is not built on cynicism, but can be destroyed by it.

Since human behavior is driven by emotions, what would you say is the hormone that is driving your theory?

Well, there are the Russian studies on voles and lemmings that quite directly confirm my theory, as those species have verified cyclical generational hormone levels, and those levels coincide with the Strauss-Howe generational theory's generation and their traits. The hypothalamus is very similar among humans and other animal species, so there is no limitation why humans wouldn't have the same generational cycle, especially since this hormone cycle coincides with the Strauss-Howe generational theory's premises. So I do not understand how "attributing everything to one factor" is a mark of insecurity, as this "one factor" is driving the generational cycles in other animals than humans.

This is why attributing average hormone levels to whole generations isn't impossible in any way. Look at the evidence in chapter 4. How else would you explain that breastfeeding & average paternal age & nurturing intensity go hand in hand with the Strauss-Howe generational theory? Especially since breastfeeding is a biological mechanism. And the alcohol consumption drops as the oxytocin levels go high. Are you saying these a coincidences? That it's a coincidence that I read a historical theory and then all the biological stats in several Western countries just happen to support the hormone theory, including other cyclical species like lemmings, voles and snowshoe hares? Do those species also have social dynamics and societal events that drive the social mood and their hormone levels? I'm being a little sarcastic here, but in good spirits only, since I'm just trying to explain how all of this being a mere coincidence is just impossible.

Human behavior is driven by emotions, and emotions are driven by hormone levels. Hormone levels are driven by hypothalamus, and different generations have different structures (efficiency) in hypothalamus, just like with other animals. For example, other animals also have empathy and altruism, just to name a few more "advanced" emotions that were previously thought to be uniquely human. The hormones in play are (at least) oxytocin, vasopressin and cortisol.

I really don't understand how you can detect cynicism in my words. It's mostly only science I'm referring to and then building upon that evidence. You say that civilizations based on cynicism will fail, but I would say that civilizations based on scientific ignorance will definitely fail harder.  But seriously speaking, I'm a bit worried if the societal levels of oxytocin and the more aggressive variant vasopressin are going higher. The societal tensions are already high, politicians have formed tight camps, fake news and propaganda is on the rise, and so is the willingness to accept this propaganda. It's not like CNN and Fox News are forcing people to watch their propaganda! People choose to watch these networks, as they like what they hear. The hosts on those channels allow inaccuracies/lies to be stated without interruption, and this is clear evidence of high oxytocin & vasopressin levels, as described in chapter 2 of the generational hormone theory.

The social mood is currently snappy, and the youngest generation is very sensitive (just as Strauss & Howe predicted), just like individuals with high levels of oxytocin and vasopressin are predicted react, as this can lead to social sensory overload. (https://neurosciencenews.com/sensory-ove...asd-14420/) Cortisol has also been linked to violence (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...085023.htm), so high levels of cortisol would probably not be a good thing either, and since cortisol suppresses testosterone (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3880087/), Neil Howe has already inadvertently been looking at the solution to the generational theory's basic premises: https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/20...ather-was/

Your own statements show cynicism, as when you discussed how hopeless and futile our society and its politics has been; somewhere earlier in this thread that the basis of your views. Just above, you have contrasted cynicism with scientific ignorance, but there is no such opposition in existence. Cynicism is not the opposite of scientific ignorance. Science can support cynicism, and so can religion, or philosophy, or myths. Cynicism is something like a belief that failure is inevitable and that ideals cannot be attained. Science contends this more often than religion, to the extent that science is physicalist and determinist, because in that worldview there is no possibility of any ideals or any act of will to attain anything, and there is no creativity. If events show increasing levels of vasopressin, that does not give you any way of creating a less aggressive society. You remain a helpless victim of circumstance, which is what physicalist determinism decrees that you are.

I don't see any studies of hormone levels in human generations that you have cited. Simply drawing conclusions from studies of lemmings is invalid. You can declare that humans are no different from animals, but that is your assumption, and if there are no studies of hormone levels in human generations, you have not proved your hypothesis. And speaking personally, at this point, I don't trust anything that a society beholden to one man who owns 40% of the country does.

My apologies if my statements sound too harsh on you. I get my ruffles up about physicalism sometimes, and about other things too. My bad, I guess. I like the advice given by a PBS youtube science commentator who ends his videos by saying, "stay curious." There's always much to learn and discover about facts and reality, through many ways of knowing. Curiosity led me to my current views on things. It leads scientists to their discoveries, and philosophers and mystics to their foundational theories of reality.

[Ldr]

Eric, I understand why you would interpret my words as cynicism, but let me explain this once more to be more clear.

I believe that vasopressin levels are on the rise during a 4th turning, and as vasopressin is apparently an essential part of group aggression, there is a greater risk for aggression during a 4th turning. But the environment absolutely matters, just like Strauss & Howe write about the 4th turnings, and this can be compared to what it's like when puberty starts: when the surroundings a sound, there may not be many conflicts, but if the surroundings are socially fractured, the possibility of conflicts is much, much higher. I don't think this is cynicism. But to ignore the effects of hormonal activity on the group psyche would be ignorance in my mind (assuming I'm correct in the findings). I hope this clarifies things a bit. No need to apologize for sounding harsh, this forum is meant for criticism, and no theory can stand on its two feet if it can't handle criticism.

As for the generational hormone levels, there are no studies done on oxytocin and vasopressin since they've been so hard to detect reliably until recent years. But I believe that the combined stats of breastfeeding, paternal age, divorce rates and alcohol consumption show the changes to oxytocin levels. But unfortunately I have not yet come up with a way to find vasopressin levels from historical medical data, which is why the theory still mostly relies more on recorded historical events and social mood for vasopressin. You can check the chapter 6.3 for the initial findings on how to find and assess historical vasopressin levels until they're (hopefully soon) incorporated to the theory as a full chapter.

[Bill the Piper]

(10-11-2019, 09:33 AM)Ldr Wrote: I agree, Bill, but it is important to notice that all of the concepts you mentioned hold true for animals too, although humanism is obviously replaced with the correct species name.

I don't think so, since animals don't have the brainpower needed to grasp these concepts. They can be loyal to their pack like dogs, wolves and bonobos, but nothing more. Do you really think a dog is capable of "species solidarity" with oppressed dogs in a puppy mill?

[Ldr]

(10-20-2019, 05:23 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(10-11-2019, 09:33 AM)Ldr Wrote: I agree, Bill, but it is important to notice that all of the concepts you mentioned hold true for animals too, although humanism is obviously replaced with the correct species name.

I don't think so, since animals don't have the brainpower needed to grasp these concepts. They can be loyal to their pack like dogs, wolves and bonobos, but nothing more. Do you really think a dog is capable of "species solidarity" with oppressed dogs in a puppy mill?

Bill, concepts like altruism and empathy do not require "brainpower" in the way I believe you see it. Altruism and empathy are emotions, and animals like humans and chimpanzees have these emotions. We humans have created advanced languages to talk about these emotions and form them into concepts, but that's all, they're in no way human "inventions".

[Bill the Piper]

(10-20-2019, 05:31 AM)Ldr Wrote:

(10-20-2019, 05:23 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(10-11-2019, 09:33 AM)Ldr Wrote: I agree, Bill, but it is important to notice that all of the concepts you mentioned hold true for animals too, although humanism is obviously replaced with the correct species name.

I don't think so, since animals don't have the brainpower needed to grasp these concepts. They can be loyal to their pack like dogs, wolves and bonobos, but nothing more. Do you really think a dog is capable of "species solidarity" with oppressed dogs in a puppy mill?

Bill, concepts like altruism and empathy do not require "brainpower" in the way I believe you see it. Altruism and empathy are emotions, and animals like humans and chimpanzees have these emotions. We humans have created advanced languages to talk about these emotions and form them into concepts, but that's all, they're in no way human "inventions".

Altruism and empathy are indeed instinctive and animals are capable of them. But expanding one's horizon of identification beyond one's pack or immediate family does require abstract thinking. A dog can empathize with another whimpering dog, but it cannot conceive the idea of all dogs as a group with shared interests.

[Ldr]

Bill, do you belive wars require abstract thinking? Chimpanzees can go to war that can last for several years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War
Humans are not the only animals that are capable of assessing an another tribe in terms of size, resources and potential threat, and then making an educated decision if to go to war or not. It is a mix of emotions and rational thinking. Humans and other animals understand the feelings of other animals. Dogs even understand human emotions.

It doesn't require a brain to learn, remember, or solve puzzles, as even slime mould is capable of that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UxGrde1NDA
The decisions of a slime mould are the result of remembering and then making decisions based on new information and mixing them with the memories.

[pbrower2a]

(10-20-2019, 07:31 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(10-20-2019, 05:31 AM)Ldr Wrote:

(10-20-2019, 05:23 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(10-11-2019, 09:33 AM)Ldr Wrote: I agree, Bill, but it is important to notice that all of the concepts you mentioned hold true for animals too, although humanism is obviously replaced with the correct species name.

I don't think so, since animals don't have the brainpower needed to grasp these concepts. They can be loyal to their pack like dogs, wolves and bonobos, but nothing more. Do you really think a dog is capable of "species solidarity" with oppressed dogs in a puppy mill?

Bill, concepts like altruism and empathy do not require "brainpower" in the way I believe you see it. Altruism and empathy are emotions, and animals like humans and chimpanzees have these emotions. We humans have created advanced languages to talk about these emotions and form them into concepts, but that's all, they're in no way human "inventions".

Altruism and empathy are indeed instinctive and animals are capable of them. But expanding one's horizon of identification beyond one's pack or immediate family does require abstract thinking. A dog can empathize with another whimpering dog, but it cannot conceive the idea of all dogs as a group with shared interests.

Aside from one-on-one empathy, dogs as a group are usually thinking of prey as with lionesses in a pride. Really, there is hardly an enemy more formidable than a dog pack*. Dogs attack and kill as one giant predator, and four 80-pound dogs for all practical purposes make one 320-pound tiger. Break into a house with four rottweilers, Dobermans, or German Shepherds, and you might as well be in the tiger-infested Sundarbans in which the tigers have a taste for human flesh. (Dogs are the best reason that I can think of other than recognition of the rights of others and respect for the criminal code to not be a burglar). 

The human-canine bond recalls that a human family and a wolf pack have similar structure. Man tamed wolves because wolves could not tame us; we cannot live long on diets of raw meat and fish as can wolves, but wolves and dogs (dogs have evolved to tolerate grain in their diets) can live on a human diet. 


*the worst? -- the human-canine combination in a hunt.  Police K-9 units are particularly effective.