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

[pbrower2a]

(06-13-2018, 01:42 PM)tg63 Wrote:

(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.

But there is a huge difference now. People are living longer and staying active later, a personally-healthy habit, if with effects that we might not yet understand from the generational effects on history. The GI Generation set the example, and the Silent and Boom generations are following it as much as possible. This is almost like saying that "70 is the new 50" or even "80 is the new 60". People with the incentive to take care of themselves are not going to let something so arbitrary as chronological age stop them from cultural, political, or economic activity. Obviously, broken-down people due to poverty and bad habits might not resist the Grim Reaper so effectively.

This may mean that we are now under a paradigm in which we typically have four or even five active adult generations, with the Civic component of public life increasingly going from elderly people (GI) to young adults (Millennial) until it is almost completely the realm of young adults. We will soon see much the same as the Silent die off or go senile in old age as the young-adult Homelander generation (start with some of the survivors of the Parkland shooting as likely members of this generation).

In most times there have typically been three well-defined generations of active adults, and one of the generational types is missing in active adulthood. Between the demise of the Gilded generation (born Reactive, but it took on a Civic character after the Civil War) and the rise of GI influence, the Civic component was extremely weak in public life. Institutions simply did not work well. Although it is hard to imagine either the Progressive or the Silent generation not slamming the Nazis and their Japanese partners in crime, it is easy to imagine either deciding not to incarcerate Japanese-Americans while the Missionary, Lost, and GI generations accepted such as a good idea. As the Missionary generation faded out of public life, so did their culture of controversy -- and American life quit asking questions that it needed to akl. Finally, the Lost, having been burned badly in the Missionary Awakening that badly neglected children was very good at protecting the children that they knew from GIs to Boomers from anti-rational religion, economic exploitation, and general neglect. As they died off or got hauled off in Joni Mitchell's "Big Yellow Taxi" to the nursing home because their kids couldn't move them about the country in corporate relocations, nobody could tell others that children need to set down roots and learn the basics instead of rediscovering the temptations of an Awakening Era. During the recent Degeneracy the fade-out of the GI generation from the levers of economic power has ensured that corporations and government agencies cannot be both effective and equitable, at least for now.

So here we are now.