(09-24-2016, 09:52 AM)Einzige Wrote: By the way, what did Marc Lamb prognosticate?
Well looky here. In response to my question as the the origin of the term Homelander, folks here posted a thread preserved at Generational Dynamics
http://generationaldynamics.com/tftarchi...-00018.htm
Here is a post of mine (Post#448 at 10-21-2001 02:17 PM by Mikebert
I'll take a stab at what I believe to be the basic thrust of Marc's argument.
Strauss and Howe posit that history creates generations and generations create history. S&H show turnings that are closely aligned with generations that are being born. A long generation has a long turning, a short generation a short turning. This observation shows the idea that history (turnings) creates generations. Generations precede turnings by 2-5 years since history doesn't start to affect a generation until they reach the earliest age at which they can remember anything.
S&H also say that generations create history. That is, generations create turnings. Obviously, it is not the generation being born that created the associated turning. Rather is the the "constellation" of adult generations that creates the turning.
Marc points out that the generational mix currently in power contains far too many Silents for it to be the beginning of the Crisis. He is absolutely right. There are far too many Silents in power right now for a Crisis to begin if the S&H model is correct.
Now Stonewall points our that S&H have the Crisis beginning in 2005 and so 76 years is consistent with their model. No it isn't. A 76 year cycle means a 19 year phase of life, which implies that elderhood begins at age 57, which simply doesn't jive with the common experience of today. S&H developed their model with a 22 year phase of life that has elderhood beginning at age 66, which makes much more sense. S&H advanced the idea that 2005 is the beginning of the next turning to hedge their bets. They know from their work in T4T that turnings are getting shorter. Suppose there really was no Civil War anomaly, generations are only 18 years long and the Crisis begins in 2001. If they stuck to their model with the standard 22 year generations they would look for the Crisis to begin in 2013 at the earliest (as they said in Generations) and be way off. By using 2005 its just four years late with 18 year gens. If Harry Dent is right and it comes in 2009, its just four years early. And if it turns out to come late next decade, that's OK since they already predicted a "Crisis of 2020" in Generations. One does not get the beginning of the Crisis in 2005 using the S&H phase-of-life based model.
Having made the theoretical point, Marc then collects some empirical data. He makes the correlation between the Palmer raids and the hysteria surrounding the 911 attack. He notes a poll that shows overwhelming support for the "3T" approach of President Bush, as evidence of a 3T mood.
In all he gives a fairly convincing argument for "It be 3T". Had I not done an extensive study of my own that suggests otherwise, I'd be in the 3T camp with Marc. But others here have not done the extensive study that I have, and yet appear to reject his hypothesis.
I wonder if perhaps he thinks this rejection has more to do with people's rejection of him (perhaps for how he expresses some of his views) than with his analysis. (I'm not sure at all about this latter, its just my interpretation). I am NOT speaking for Marc, just giving my own interpretation of where IMHO I think he might be coming from.