Flavors of 4Ts

[SomeGuy]

Mike, 

You're trying to be clever again, it doesn't suit you.

Let's just have a nice conversation about something we both like talking about, instead.

Quote:It should be clear than the 1688 date refers to the Glorious Revolution, and I stated the 1926 date was the general strike.  It should be obvious that the 1801 date refers to the 1798-1803 period considered by Tilly to be a revolutionary period in Britain.

Hmm, I'm sorry, you're doing that thing where you are mapping your theories onto S & H terms again.  So, you have some sort of indicator of for violence/political turmoil/what-have-you, and you're measuring from peak to peak as one saeculum?  Am I reading that right?

Quote:Where do you get his idea? Do you have a reference for the idea that there was a 4T than ended in 1871? 

It appears you are making the mistake of assuming (without evidence) that the turnings mapped out by S&H (which I pointed out have LOTs of empirical support) map into turnings elsewhere at the same times.  The problem for this is for Britain (the closest analog to the US cycle) there is NO evidence for a turning structure contemporaneous with the one in America after the GR (when America was still essentially an extension of Britain).  We just had a discussion about facts and now you seem to be treating your opinion as fact. J

Please don't put words in my mouth, especially when I am here and you can just ask me.  No, I went from around the end of WWII, when a dramatic 4T looking thing happened that realigned the political structures, I counted back about 80 years, and I saw a similar thing, likewise going back to the Revolutionary Wars.  I am using it as a working hypothesis.  It may or may not be feasible, and I asked you if you were working under a different one.  At no point did I assert it as a fact, nor deride you for not considering it likewise.

Like I said, this sort of thing doesn't suit you.

Quote:Precisely.  I think there is a 4T there, I can cite S&H for support, but I cannot make a positive case for one being there based on the definition of a 4T. So, I did not include it.

Here’s the issue.  I think there is something to this S&H generational cycle thing.  It is one thing to post all sorts of unsupported speculation on an online forum.  I’ve done my share of this. It’s another thing to submit a paper to a peer-reviewed journal making these sorts of claims.  My first paper introduced the idea of generational cycles driven by a demographic mechanism.  Basically, times of below-trend price level would see less famine and hardship and less unrest than periods of above trend price level which would show the opposite.  The former period would be non-social moments (i.e. Highs and Unravelings) and the later would be social moments (Awakenings and Crises).  It was ripped to pieces and rejected.  I then went in with another manuscript that was returned needing major revisions.  I made these and the changes made were so great it was considered a new paper, it was reviewed a second time, I addressed the comments and it was published.  The stuff of mine I referenced is in the peer-reviewed literature, and so is a valid reference.

Thanks.  I will take a look at that. Is this "definition of a 4T" contained in the paper you linked to?