I do understand Strauss & Howe's claims about the social dynamics, but I don't believe the generations are the way they are because of historical events. I believe the generations are the way they are because of their biological properties.
Even though historical events you both describe have happened, it does not mean that people would change their behavior accordingly. Human behavior is notoriously difficult to change through outside influence. But hormonal changes change behavior, immediately (and permanently if the changes to hormone secretion are permanent, like in puberty, when having your first child, and in menopause/andropause).
My hypothesis says that historical events are catalyzed by the generational traits, but the historical events do not mold the behavior of generations in any meaningful way compared to the generational hormone levels. This is why the social dynamics model of the Strauss-Howe generational theory is the wrong way to explain the generations. And it's the very same thing with animal cycles: for a century biologists and others have tried to explain the animal cycles by using environmental variables (such as predators and food supply), but NONE have succeeded. But my model of generational hormone levels explains both the animal cycles AND the Strauss-Howe generational cycle. It's a win win, and no professor in biology and neurobiology so far has been able to prove me wrong on this.
I strongly believe that this is finally the true solution to the the Strauss-Howe generational theory. The cycle is real, that we agree on, but Strauss & Howe just got the explanation for it wrong. It's not the history that generates the generations, it's the generations that create the history. You have to start from the very bottom, that being human biology.
Even though historical events you both describe have happened, it does not mean that people would change their behavior accordingly. Human behavior is notoriously difficult to change through outside influence. But hormonal changes change behavior, immediately (and permanently if the changes to hormone secretion are permanent, like in puberty, when having your first child, and in menopause/andropause).
My hypothesis says that historical events are catalyzed by the generational traits, but the historical events do not mold the behavior of generations in any meaningful way compared to the generational hormone levels. This is why the social dynamics model of the Strauss-Howe generational theory is the wrong way to explain the generations. And it's the very same thing with animal cycles: for a century biologists and others have tried to explain the animal cycles by using environmental variables (such as predators and food supply), but NONE have succeeded. But my model of generational hormone levels explains both the animal cycles AND the Strauss-Howe generational cycle. It's a win win, and no professor in biology and neurobiology so far has been able to prove me wrong on this.
I strongly believe that this is finally the true solution to the the Strauss-Howe generational theory. The cycle is real, that we agree on, but Strauss & Howe just got the explanation for it wrong. It's not the history that generates the generations, it's the generations that create the history. You have to start from the very bottom, that being human biology.
Generational hormone theory: https://jannemiettinen.fi/FourthTurning/