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

[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.