I'm a sceptic that the 4th Turning started in 2008

[Tim Randal Walker]

I have to make a correction. I meant the book RenGen by Patricia Martin.

[pbrower2a]

The ultimate fault of the Boom Awakening was that some Selves became all-important and others became insignificant. Thus the MBA culture that became so much a part of the bureaucratic elite in America, an elite that became increasingly exclusive in deciding who could live the Good Life and who could not. Membership in that elite became, with few exceptions, the means of getting any semblance of prosperity in America. The pattern has unfolded in the non-profit sector, even in colleges and universities, in which academic deans (one a zone for cast-off tenured faculty who could no neither teaching nor research) were pushed; such people have begun to take on executive roles and compensation. Are clergy next?

Note well that the bureaucratic elites depend upon satisfying the will of the tycoons by adopting their semi-feudal ideology. Sybaritic indulgence for the elites is no longer a mere objective of the economic order; it is the objective. OK, so there are some highly-successful professionals and entertainers... but even they are at the mercy of the elites. Just look at Colin Kaepernick. (Pro athletes are entertainers in the sense that a film star, a stand-up comedian, or a concert pianist is an entertainer).

Donald Trump may be one of the shallowest figures in American history except for lone-wolf (Billy the Kid), small-pack (James-Younger) and gangland criminals... there is rarely much substance to a criminal; he operates on primitive, undeveloped drives that he never contemplated. Self esteem is worthless if there is nothing worthy of esteem. Walt Whitman's celebration of Self is pointless if there is nothing to celebrate. OK, there might not be huge personalities behind scientists, engineers, and most entrepreneurs, but most of those let their achievements do the talking. Thomas Edison and Roy Kroc didn't seem to expose much of themselves.

Not all of the bad stuff going on in this 4T results from the degeneracy of the 3T. Some of it began in the Boom Awakening.

[RadianMay]

After reading parts of chapter 10 of TFT, I’ve become more sceptical of the assumption that 4T really started in 2008. S&H writes that the initial catalyst causes increase of demand of institutions, and these new institutions are created in response to the catalyst. By the time the climax comes around, these new institutions are put to the test. This implies these institutions are already mostly intact by the time the climax rolls around.

If the interpretation that 2008 economic crisis is the catalyst and 2020 pandemic is the climax, I just don’t see how new institutions and “civic order” were created after 2008, and how they are put the test right now. From what I see, we seem to be scrambling to create new institutions right now, as well as creating a somewhat new “post Covid” civic order, instead of putting our already new civic order to the test.

It really seems that the post 2008 response was more 3T than 4T.

[Einzige]

It really has been a looooooooong Unraveling, hasn't it? Almost like a Megaunraveling.

[Ragnarök_62]

(07-30-2020, 07:02 PM)Einzige Wrote: It really has been a looooooooong Unraveling, hasn't it? Almost like a Megaunraveling.

Yes, it is.  According to history, all empires collapse.  The US empire is no exception.

[RadianMay]

(07-30-2020, 07:02 PM)Einzige Wrote: It really has been a looooooooong Unraveling, hasn't it? Almost like a Megaunraveling.

Perhaps. I’ve given the thought that this Crisis might have started in 2017 perhaps with Trump’s rise to presidency. That could have been the event that passed “the point of no return” and caused all this covid mess right now. 


S&H have also mentioned that to start the fourth turning, Boomers must have fully entered elderhood. Perhaps this has been delayed? Even S&H predicted that Boomers would retire later, seeing retirement having negative consequences compared to past generations (such as the GI and Slients, most notably). From what I’ve read, elderhood is characterised with supreme leadership, which hasn’t really happened until Trump came into office. You could interpret Obama’s term as an “extension” of 3T.

[Einzige]

And it doesn't stop there - if I'm right, things aren't going to get better, structurally, for almost a century.

[Mikebert]

(07-30-2020, 07:29 PM)RadianMay Wrote: Perhaps. I’ve given the thought that this Crisis might have started in 2017 perhaps with Trump’s rise to presidency. That could have been the event that passed “the point of no return” and caused all this covid mess right now.

I think you are right.This clearly invalidates S&H's generational cycle scheme because a 2017 4T start does not dovetail with the start of GenZ (the new Artists) in the late 1990's as seems to be the consensus among members of that generation.

I don't see this as a problem since I found that their generational concept was invalid around 2002 when I tried to employ it to see how it predicted their historical generations. It works reasonably for the 20th century cycle, and no where else. Application is simple. Phases of life are 22 years long. Simply find the first year in which each generation fills each phase of life to the maximum extent. This is the constellation year. It is when the next generation starts getting born. A few years after that the new turning begins. The problem was the start of new generations did not match up with the constellation years like its supposed to.

Just because their generational model was invalid did not mean their cycle did not exist, it just meant the constellation model didn't explain the cycle. Later on, after having read about generational imprinting (a different theory for how generations form) I came up with a simple rule that explained most of the turnings (though not the the 19th century ones) using generations.

This approach makes predictions for turning starts and for this 4T is has it start either around 2002 or around 2007, depending on when you start the model. The model works by having you start with a 4T that you assume happened over a particular period. You type in the start and finish dates and all the subsequent turnings are predicted. If you start with a Revolutionary 4T dated 1773-1787 you get a 4T over 2002-2022. If you start with a Depression+WW II 4T dated 1929-46 you get 2002-2022. Neither dating fits with observations so I think the idea that the cycle is based on generations is pretty much discredited.

[TeacherinExile]

(07-31-2020, 02:17 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(07-30-2020, 07:29 PM)RadianMay Wrote: Perhaps. I’ve given the thought that this Crisis might have started in 2017 perhaps with Trump’s rise to presidency. That could have been the event that passed “the point of no return” and caused all this covid mess right now.

I think you are right.This clearly invalidates S&H's generational cycle scheme because a 2017 4T start does not dovetail with the start of GenZ (the new Artists) in the late 1990's as seems to be the consensus among members of that generation.

I don't see this as a problem since I found that their generational concept was invalid around 2002 when I tried to employ it to see how it predicted their historical generations. It works reasonably for the 20th century cycle, and no where else. Application is simple. Phases of life are 22 years long. Simply find the first year in which each generation fills each phase of life to the maximum extent. This is the constellation year. It is when the next generation starts getting born. A few years after that the new turning begins. The problem was the start of new generations did not match up with the constellation years like its supposed to.

Just because their generational model was invalid did not mean their cycle did not exist, it just meant the constellation model didn't explain the cycle. Later on, after having read about generational imprinting (a different theory for how generations form) I came up with a simple rule that explained most of the turnings (though not the the 19th century ones) using generations.

This approach makes predictions for turning starts and for this 4T is has it start either around 2002 or around 2007, depending on when you start the model. The model works by having you start with a 4T that you assume happened over a particular period. You type in the start and finish dates and all the subsequent turnings are predicted. If you start with a Revolutionary 4T dated 1773-1787 you get a 4T over 2002-2022. If you start with a Depression+WW II 4T dated 1929-46 you get 2002-2022. Neither dating fits with observations so I think the idea that the cycle is based on generations is pretty much discredited.

Mikebert:

So I have a question for you, and I pose it with all due respect because I have read your posts over the years with more than a little interest, and assign them more credence than most, not that you need my seal of approval: Why are you here on this forum, if you believe as I (almost) do, that S&H theory is “discredited”?

[Bob Butler 54]

As I see it, the old crisis hit its peak in the 1940s.  The high was primarily in the 1950s.  The heart of the awakening took place in the 1960s.  Is it surprising if these turnings were somewhat quick, that something had to stretch long?

Also, nukes and insurgent conflicts lead major powers to not enter crisis wars.  With that, the probability of a trigger coming along during the right generational configuration gets low.  That is another reason why the 3T mood stuck for a while longer.  There was just no trigger leading to the regeneracy and crisis war.  I was wondering before COVID what would happen if we went through a S&H crisis generational alignment without a trigger occurring.  COVID was an act of nature.  There is not much way of scheduling those.  I don't know that the next time the crisis configuration rolls along if there will be a trigger.  They are now rare enough that one may not hit in the right time.

Now we might see soft triggers.  A few bridges might fall down, leading us to take action on that issue.  Global warming might become extreme enough to become more noticeable, triggering that issue to move beyond its back burner state.  I know awakenings supposedly don't call for triggers and are not supposed to be transformational, but I get the feeling that the prophets might see real problems and yell about them.  After all, that is what prophets do.  If awakenings in the Information Age call for political protest and major transformational change through legislation as the 1960s did, something similar may happen in our future.  Another short high might be unsurprising too.

[Eric the Green]

(07-31-2020, 02:17 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(07-30-2020, 07:29 PM)RadianMay Wrote: Perhaps. I’ve given the thought that this Crisis might have started in 2017 perhaps with Trump’s rise to presidency. That could have been the event that passed “the point of no return” and caused all this covid mess right now.

I think you are right.This clearly invalidates S&H's generational cycle scheme because a 2017 4T start does not dovetail with the start of GenZ (the new Artists) in the late 1990's as seems to be the consensus among members of that generation.

I don't see this as a problem since I found that their generational concept was invalid around 2002 when I tried to employ it to see how it predicted their historical generations. It works reasonably for the 20th century cycle, and no where else. Application is simple. Phases of life are 22 years long. Simply find the first year in which each generation fills each phase of life to the maximum extent. This is the constellation year. It is when the next generation starts getting born. A few years after that the new turning begins. The problem was the start of new generations did not match up with the constellation years like its supposed to.

Just because their generational model was invalid did not mean their cycle did not exist, it just meant the constellation model didn't explain the cycle. Later on, after having read about generational imprinting (a different theory for how generations form) I came up with a simple rule that explained most of the turnings (though not the the 19th century ones) using generations.

This approach makes predictions for turning starts and for this 4T is has it start either around 2002 or around 2007, depending on when you start the model. The model works by having you start with a 4T that you assume happened over a particular period. You type in the start and finish dates and all the subsequent turnings are predicted. If you start with a Revolutionary 4T dated 1773-1787 you get a 4T over 2002-2022. If you start with a Depression+WW II 4T dated 1929-46 you get 2002-2022. Neither dating fits with observations so I think the idea that the cycle is based on generations is pretty much discredited.

The authors in The Fourth Turning defined the length of a generation archetypally as 21 years, not 22. That's a small difference, but it adds up over time. And according to their schedule, it's been more like 20, which is even more difference. Add to that their civil war anomaly, which they admit, and there's more. And then they make the pre-modern and early modern generations longer (as well as the Transcendental Generation).

So the cycle is not set in stone in its length. It varies depending on events and our stage of development. Pre-industrial and Pre-Enlightenment era generations were longer. Now in the post-modern, Mr. Howe has decided that the 4T we are in began in 2008 and will end in 2029, so the cycle is approaching the archetypal length again, this time almost 83 years (assuming the 2008 4T start date is late in the year and the 1946 start is early in the year). And the 4T turning length is slated to be the length of an archetypal generation, 21 years.

(and of course I point out that 21 years times 4 is the length of a Uranus cycle, which philosopher/astrologer Dane Rudhyar says gets its meaning because it's the typical length of a human life, the same reason S&H give for why a saeculum cycle exists).

In your dates in your last paragraph you are using a 73-year length for the cycle and 18+ years for a generation. But that's not the length S&H use, so you can't use an 18-year generation length to discredit a theory that uses a 21-year length.

In the past you have stated the theory failed because Obama's election did not start a 12-year period of one-party rule. That's true, it did not. However, Obama's election in 2008 provided us with immediate solutions to the financial crisis (as did Secretary Paulsen's actions under Bush in late 2008), so the USA was ready to respond to the crisis right away, unlike in 1929 when we had to wait 4 years.

So no time was provided for the American people to realize that the Reaganomics paradigm (based on the Coolidge/Hoover/McKinley one) had failed, and the Tea Party emerged right away to scuttle the new paradigm on Nov.2, 2010. And this allowed the cult-leader Trump to defeat a weak Democratic candidate in 2016. But IF Biden is elected and succeeded by vice-president or secretary of state Susan Rice in 2024, or by Mitch Landrieu, then we will have our 12-year Democratic Party reign after all, and it will extend a few years into the succeeding 1T like Truman did. Still a big IF though. If Kamala Harris is nominated in 2024 for example, then the Biden Democratic Party reign will only last 4 years and your 12-year + Party reign proving the cycle will not happen.

[RadianMay]

(07-31-2020, 03:12 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The authors in The Fourth Turning defined the length of a generation archetypally as 21 years, not 22. That's a small difference, but it adds up over time. And according to their schedule, it's been more like 20, which is even more difference. Add to that their civil war anomaly, which they admit, and there's more. And then they make the pre-modern and early modern generations longer (as well as the Transcendental Generation).

So the cycle is not set in stone in its length. It varies depending on events and our stage of development. Pre-industrial and Pre-Enlightenment era generations were longer. Now in the post-modern, Mr. Howe has decided that the 4T we are in began in 2008 and will end in 2029, so the cycle is approaching the archetypal length again, this time almost 83 years (assuming the 2008 4T start date is late in the year and the 1946 start is early in the year). And the 4T turning length is slated to be the length of an archetypal generation, 21 years.

The problem I have now with the cycle is whether each stage of development is really 21 years long anymore. More and more young people are going to college, and thus becoming reliant on older generations for longer in their lives. In the past, you were clearly a “young adult” in your early twenties, most people married young and got a permanent job. Now it’s clearly the opposite, and with the newer generations being reliant on older ones for longer, with a clear extension of childhood. At least from my observations, most college age kids do seem to think, act, and identify as children rather than adults. Many college graduates are similar.

S&H also stated that 1T and 2Ts tend to have children growing up faster than in 3Ts and 4Ts, as evidenced by the average age of marriage. Does this mean 1Ts and 2Ts tend to be shorter than 3Ts if that is the case? However this doesn’t take into account the other generations that cause the turnings.

[Eric the Green]

(08-01-2020, 07:30 AM)RadianMay Wrote:

(07-31-2020, 03:12 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The authors in The Fourth Turning defined the length of a generation archetypally as 21 years, not 22. That's a small difference, but it adds up over time. And according to their schedule, it's been more like 20, which is even more difference. Add to that their civil war anomaly, which they admit, and there's more. And then they make the pre-modern and early modern generations longer (as well as the Transcendental Generation).

So the cycle is not set in stone in its length. It varies depending on events and our stage of development. Pre-industrial and Pre-Enlightenment era generations were longer. Now in the post-modern, Mr. Howe has decided that the 4T we are in began in 2008 and will end in 2029, so the cycle is approaching the archetypal length again, this time almost 83 years (assuming the 2008 4T start date is late in the year and the 1946 start is early in the year). And the 4T turning length is slated to be the length of an archetypal generation, 21 years.

The problem I have now with the cycle is whether each stage of development is really 21 years long anymore. More and more young people are going to college, and thus becoming reliant on older generations for longer in their lives. In the past, you were clearly a “young adult” in your early twenties, most people married young and got a permanent job. Now it’s clearly the opposite, and with the newer generations being reliant on older ones for longer, with a clear extension of childhood. At least from my observations, most college age kids do seem to think, act, and identify as children rather than adults. Many college graduates are similar.

S&H also stated that 1T and 2Ts tend to have children growing up faster than in 3Ts and 4Ts, as evidenced by the average age of marriage. Does this mean 1Ts and 2Ts tend to be shorter than 3Ts if that is the case? However this doesn’t take into account the other generations that cause the turnings.

That's an interesting idea. Perhaps so.

The saeculum was about 80 years for the great power saeculum, and the first two turnings of our saeculum and the previous 4T were shorter than the recent 3T.

Reaganomics has put the USA back into the 18th century as far as governing philosophy is concerned. So with more people poor again, and the middle class declining, children can't as easily go on their own as soon as they used to do.

[Eric the Green]

(07-30-2020, 06:59 PM)RadianMay Wrote: After reading parts of chapter 10 of TFT, I’ve become more sceptical of the assumption that 4T really started in 2008. S&H writes that the initial catalyst causes increase of demand of institutions, and these new institutions are created in response to the catalyst. By the time the climax comes around, these new institutions are put to the test. This implies these institutions are already mostly intact by the time the climax rolls around.

If the interpretation that 2008 economic crisis is the catalyst and 2020 pandemic is the climax, I just don’t see how new institutions and “civic order” were created after 2008, and how they are put the test right now. From what I see, we seem to be scrambling to create new institutions right now, as well as creating a somewhat new “post Covid” civic order, instead of putting our already new civic order to the test.

It really seems that the post 2008 response was more 3T than 4T.

We are in the cold civil war turning. My theory is that the "civil war anomaly" the authors created by deleting a generation was not correct. I do think there may have been hybrid generations. But the civil war turning I propose did not start in 1860, but around 1850, and our saeculum (which Chas Donald a former poster here called "dyonesian" like ours) is in a double rhythm with the civil war saeculum. So the 1850s were a "phony 4th" or an "indian autumn" in which solutions were put off because the country was divided and stalemated. That has been our situation in the 2010s too. No institutional solutions can be implemented if the country is divided. We are in a 4T, but it is not like the last one where institutions shifted soon after the 4T began. The 4T was not an internal kind, but focused more on external enemies. Ours is a civil war saeculum where our own lifestyle and politics are the issue. The division cannot be healed, in my opinion. There is NO hope that we can progress simply by being more civil with each other. Real issues must be confronted and resistance broken. One side must win, and it must be the blue or progressive side, and no institutions will be created or solutions implemented until the blue side wins. 

The Donald Trump presidency, a crisis in itself, offers some hope that the red side will be discredited. But his cult is very steadfast and the Reaganomics dogma is tightly held by almost half of America. Half the registered voters in polls still think Trump handles the economy as well as Biden would. That means they think tax cuts and deregulation works. But trickle-down doesn't trickle. The greedy and ancient paradigm of self-reliance and individualism has to be defeated again so we can progress. I always predicted this to happen only in the 2020s, even though I predicted the 4T to start in 2008. Everything is right on schedule!

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-01-2020, 01:54 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I always predicted this to happen only in the 2020s, even though I predicted the 4T to start in 2008. Everything is right on schedule!

Regeneracy:

24 weeks, 3 days, 17 hours....   Mark!

[Mikebert]

(07-31-2020, 02:35 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote:

(07-31-2020, 02:17 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(07-30-2020, 07:29 PM)RadianMay Wrote: Perhaps. I’ve given the thought that this Crisis might have started in 2017 perhaps with Trump’s rise to presidency. That could have been the event that passed “the point of no return” and caused all this covid mess right now.

I think you are right.This clearly invalidates S&H's generational cycle scheme because a 2017 4T start does not dovetail with the start of GenZ (the new Artists) in the late 1990's as seems to be the consensus among members of that generation.

I don't see this as a problem since I found that their generational concept was invalid around 2002 when I tried to employ it to see how it predicted their historical generations. It works reasonably for the 20th century cycle, and no where else. Application is simple. Phases of life are 22 years long. Simply find the first year in which each generation fills each phase of life to the maximum extent. This is the constellation year. It is when the next generation starts getting born. A few years after that the new turning begins. The problem was the start of new generations did not match up with the constellation years like its supposed to.

Just because their generational model was invalid did not mean their cycle did not exist, it just meant the constellation model didn't explain the cycle. Later on, after having read about generational imprinting (a different theory for how generations form) I came up with a simple rule that explained most of the turnings (though not the the 19th century ones) using generations.

This approach makes predictions for turning starts and for this 4T is has it start either around 2002 or around 2007, depending on when you start the model. The model works by having you start with a 4T that you assume happened over a particular period. You type in the start and finish dates and all the subsequent turnings are predicted. If you start with a Revolutionary 4T dated 1773-1787 you get a 4T over 2002-2022. If you start with a Depression+WW II 4T dated 1929-46 you get 2002-2022. Neither dating fits with observations so I think the idea that the cycle is based on generations is pretty much discredited.

Mikebert:

So I have a question for you, and I pose it with all due respect because I have read your posts over the years with more than a little interest, and assign them more credence than most, not that you need my seal of approval: Why are you here on this forum, if you believe as I (almost) do, that S&H theory is “discredited”?

I don't think the theory that there is a four generational cycle is valid. That doesn't mean that there isn't a cyclical phenomenon going on, it's just likely not related to generations.  This is still a site about historical cycles, which are an interest of mine.

[Tim Randal Walker]

I don't know about generations, but the 4 turning cycle seems fairly well established. What you need are 2Ts and 4Ts appearing at fairly regular intervals.

The double rhythm does seem to apply to 2Ts, at least, and may be explained by an either/or mechanism.

There seems to be considerable variation in the character of different 4Ts, but if each 4T is Crisis like, it works.

BTW, the variation in 4Ts makes a proposed Mega-Saeculum seem implausible.

[pbrower2a]

(08-01-2020, 07:30 AM)RadianMay Wrote:

(07-31-2020, 03:12 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The authors in The Fourth Turning defined the length of a generation archetypally as 21 years, not 22. That's a small difference, but it adds up over time. And according to their schedule, it's been more like 20, which is even more difference. Add to that their civil war anomaly, which they admit, and there's more. And then they make the pre-modern and early modern generations longer (as well as the Transcendental Generation).

So the cycle is not set in stone in its length. It varies depending on events and our stage of development. Pre-industrial and Pre-Enlightenment era generations were longer. Now in the post-modern, Mr. Howe has decided that the 4T we are in began in 2008 and will end in 2029, so the cycle is approaching the archetypal length again, this time almost 83 years (assuming the 2008 4T start date is late in the year and the 1946 start is early in the year). And the 4T turning length is slated to be the length of an archetypal generation, 21 years.

The problem I have now with the cycle is whether each stage of development is really 21 years long anymore. More and more young people are going to college, and thus becoming reliant on older generations for longer in their lives. In the past, you were clearly a “young adult” in your early twenties, most people married young and got a permanent job. Now it’s clearly the opposite, and with the newer generations being reliant on older ones for longer, with a clear extension of childhood. At least from my observations, most college age kids do seem to think, act, and identify as children rather than adults. Many college graduates are similar.

S&H also stated that 1T and 2Ts tend to have children growing up faster than in 3Ts and 4Ts, as evidenced by the average age of marriage. Does this mean 1Ts and 2Ts tend to be shorter than 3Ts if that is the case? However this doesn’t take into account the other generations that cause the turnings.

College does not delay adulthood. The typical college student already has many adult characteristics. For truly child-like characteristics, look to those who get no advanced education or even skills training. 

Growing up economically, which means that people earn enough so that they can get away from Mom and Dad? Maybe that is the choice of fitting middle-class standards typical of college students. Eight in a room is poverty, and the ruling elite of America want even more poverty as a norm because such poverty from lower real pay and higher real rents -- and of course, worse public services and higher 'user fees' so that elites can indulge themselves like sultans is exactly what our economic elites consider "the American way". It is unsustainable. 

In a 1T or a 2T growing up is mostly a matter of finding oneself (which includes determining one's cultural values). Early in a 3T, growing up means developing economic independence... sort of. Late in a 3T and in a 4T , finding oneself and developing economic independence... both are exceedingly difficult.

[TeacherinExile]

(08-02-2020, 09:21 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(07-31-2020, 02:35 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote:

(07-31-2020, 02:17 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(07-30-2020, 07:29 PM)RadianMay Wrote: Perhaps. I’ve given the thought that this Crisis might have started in 2017 perhaps with Trump’s rise to presidency. That could have been the event that passed “the point of no return” and caused all this covid mess right now.

I think you are right.This clearly invalidates S&H's generational cycle scheme because a 2017 4T start does not dovetail with the start of GenZ (the new Artists) in the late 1990's as seems to be the consensus among members of that generation.

I don't see this as a problem since I found that their generational concept was invalid around 2002 when I tried to employ it to see how it predicted their historical generations. It works reasonably for the 20th century cycle, and no where else. Application is simple. Phases of life are 22 years long. Simply find the first year in which each generation fills each phase of life to the maximum extent. This is the constellation year. It is when the next generation starts getting born. A few years after that the new turning begins. The problem was the start of new generations did not match up with the constellation years like its supposed to.

Just because their generational model was invalid did not mean their cycle did not exist, it just meant the constellation model didn't explain the cycle. Later on, after having read about generational imprinting (a different theory for how generations form) I came up with a simple rule that explained most of the turnings (though not the the 19th century ones) using generations.

This approach makes predictions for turning starts and for this 4T is has it start either around 2002 or around 2007, depending on when you start the model. The model works by having you start with a 4T that you assume happened over a particular period. You type in the start and finish dates and all the subsequent turnings are predicted. If you start with a Revolutionary 4T dated 1773-1787 you get a 4T over 2002-2022. If you start with a Depression+WW II 4T dated 1929-46 you get 2002-2022. Neither dating fits with observations so I think the idea that the cycle is based on generations is pretty much discredited.

Mikebert:

So I have a question for you, and I pose it with all due respect because I have read your posts over the years with more than a little interest, and assign them more credence than most, not that you need my seal of approval: Why are you here on this forum, if you believe as I (almost) do, that S&H theory is “discredited”?

I don't think the theory that there is a four generational cycle is valid. That doesn't mean that there isn't a cyclical phenomenon going on, it's just likely not related to generations.  This is still a site about historical cycles, which are an interest of mine.

Mike, I would like to make an apology of sorts. When I asked, why are you here on this forum if you believe S&H generational theory is “discredited,” I should have posed it more generally to everyone on the forum. I had hoped the question would serve as a jumping-off point for a deeper dive into the validity of the theory. I certainly didn’t mean to imply that you don’t have the right to participate in this forum even if you dismiss the theory out of hand, which maybe you don’t.  Honestly, I’d love to see some techie wiz set up a poll to see where the members—be they posting freaks or “eavesdroppers”—currently stand as to their level of confidence in the theory, now that 23 years have passed since its publication. That might be particularly revealing as we await a new book on the subject by Neil Howe in the not-too-distant future.

[Mikebert]

(08-03-2020, 02:01 AM)TeacherinExile Wrote: Mikebert:
So I have a question for you, and I pose it with all due respect because I have read your posts over the years with more than a little interest, and assign them more credence than most, not that you need my seal of approval: Why are you here on this forum, if you believe as I (almost) do, that S&H theory is “discredited”?

I have a better response. The S&H material describes a cycle and a theory that it involved generations. We now have an an adult post-millennial generation who started being born around 1997. This pegs generation length at 18 years (1997-1925)/4 = 18. It also implies 2001 as the 4T start and that the 4T is now ending. This hasn't been the case and so the theory is rejected.  The cycle they described consists of turnings that range from 5 to 30 years in length (average length 22) that form a four-generation amalgam that ranges from 69 to 110 years (average 87). This range implies a 4T start as early as 1998 and as late as 2039.

So the cycle has not been invalidated. Such a "prediction" is so wide as to be useless, however, which is why they provided a theory that can provide tighter focus. This tighter focus is what allows us to actually test the theory against reality and so falsify it, like a good theory candidate. But that doesn't  say the cycle doesn't exist, just that its not generational in the sense they said it was.

Short answer is I am still interested in the cycle, just not the theory. But most T4T fans have been operating in this vein for years without explicitly acknowledging it.

S&H are not the pioneers in this field of historical cycles and "big history" in which I am something of an expert.  Their cycle falls into the category of "long cycles".  These are cycle with a two generation length. The saeculum is a dual long cycle construct consisting of a two pairs of dominant+recessive generations. They have come in two flavors, inner-directed and outer directed. It is structurally similar to Modelski and Thompson's Leadership cycle which consists of two "war cycles" consisting of a part of "warrior" and "pacifist" generations.  Other long cycles include the Kondratieff cycle and Klingberg's foreign policy cycle.

I wrote about these cycles in my book on Stock Cycles (these are stock market cycles that correspond to 1/2 Kondratieffs). This cycle was invalidated in 2014 by the rise of the S&P500 above the extreme limit allowed by the model.  The Kondratieff cycle implied by this cycle is still going on, but at 80+ years in length it is no longer qualifies as a long cycle, and indeed, most of people who use K-cycles go with a different cycle dating that comports with the classical fifty year length, so I believe the financial based K-cycle I was following is also invalidated. With the S&H theory being invalidated, I now believe long cycles to be  a dead end.

My interest has shifted to cliodynamics, secular cycles and specifically the America secular cycle.  I have identified what I call a capitalist crisis as a key feature of the American secular cycle which gives me dates of 1907 and 2006 as corresponding signposts in the current and the last secular cycle giving a 100-year length.  This means today is cycle-similar to around WW I (not WW II). And there are a number of parallels. (e.g. a pandemic, Red Summer. Palmer raids, immigration restriction is an issue, Southern White Man (Red) party in control of the executive). But one difference is that the stock market is way overvalued, whereas it was undervalued in 1920. So we could have a 1929-like event since we do have a market bubble.  If we got another financial panic on top of all the other issues already present this could produce  a crisis start analogous to the last one in 1929, providing a another pair of signposts (1929, 2020) this one giving a ca 90 year length. 

In either case we are talking about a longer cycle than 72 years.