Was 911 & the Cultural Aftermath/Change in National Mood Part of This Crisis Period?

[tg63]

(06-12-2018, 06:36 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(06-05-2018, 12:14 PM)tg63 Wrote: To the original question, I don't think it was, although it seemed to start some embers glowing (in particular I'm thinking of the willingness to pass the Patriot Act & the mood change to accept more a more authoritarian role of government).

I read somewhere that the leadership generation is critical to establishing/cementing a transition or not. So, looking at the Boomer age ranges (I think I got the math correct) ...

2001: 41-58 (1943-1960)
1930: 48-70 (1860-1882)
1860: 39-68 (1792-1821)
1773: 50-72 (1701-1723)
1675: 58-87 (1588-1617)

In particular, the top of the age range when a 4T hit the previous four times ranged from 68-87. This marks the removal of the Silents from active roles in society. A max age of 58 equates to a heck of a lot of silents still actively in leadership positions across society. So no, I don't see how 2001 could have been part of the crisis.W

Well look at your younger ages, they range from 39-58.  So 2001 (age 41) 2008 (age 48) or 2016 (age 56) would fit by this criterion. When I first came to T4T in 2000 I had two 4T indicators, one based on the stock market and one on the economy. The first suggests 2001, the second 2008. The tie breaker is a third indicator based on political cycles. It is not consistent with 2001, it might be consistent with 2008, but only if a Democrat wins in 2020. If Trump wins in 2020 and a Republican succeeds him, it will point to 2016. In other words 

"Reply Hazy, Ask Again Later"

It's frickin' 2018, the 4T could be almost over...or not. It's very frustrating.  It's becoming clear that we are not going to know the start date of the 4T until well after it is over. If nothing else big happens, one might then figure Nomad has the timing right. But if nothing else happens then that invalidates the stock market indicator that suggest 2001. If that happens then the collapse of all the cycles and the absence of a clear-cut crisis this time like we had for the last three 4Ts makes it hard to believe that a generational cycle exists.

Fair points. 

One of the takeaways for me is that, no matter how it's sliced & diced, the sample size for this "science" we call generational theory (at least as positioned by S&H), is ridiculously small (i.e. 4 or 5 cycles). With so many variables in play, positioning this with such specificity (as some have tried to do) is IMHO a fool's errand. 

Don't get me wrong, I still think there's still tons of merit in continuing to assess & work through the theory. I just don't see how it can be that prescriptive.