09-26-2016, 06:27 AM
(09-25-2016, 01:20 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: I'm not throwing out the generational theory; I'm just not adopting your take on it, at least not all aspects of it. In particular, I don't see any real evidence for the age of leadership showing any clear trend over time, and I'm also not convinced that political leadership is all that counts.
Political leadership is a proxy for leaders in all all areas. I am unaware of existing databases of leaders in business, religion, the military, media, academia, the arts that would allow a calculation for AL. Howe has assembled a very complete database on his site and I am using it.
There is curently a project team of historians working to compile similar data for the House of Commons. From them I have obtains AL values for Britain before 1829, and by using data from Wiki on privy council members have been able to push it back and relate it to life expenctacy which I got from a paper with data going back to 800. One must work with the data that are available.
And yes you are throwing out generational theory, if you are using an approach that does not work. The generational model described by S&H does not work the way they described it. If one actual tries to use it you find this out. According to S&H what causes a turning is a turning over of generational history-creation as old generations depart their former phases of life and enter another. A new turning begins a few years after an aligned generational constellation arives. This is what *causes* a turning to happen.
Now this concept "works" for the currently living generations. But not more most historical generations. It saw this most clearly when I looked at the constellation prior to the Glorious 4T. Here are the ages of the four licing generations in 1661:
Artists . . 74-95 - 64%
Prophets 44-73 - 100%
Nomads: 14-43 - 100%
Heroes: .. 0-13 - 64%
In that year the corr adult prophet and nomad generations filled 100% of mature and rising adulthood, respectively. Heroes filled 64% of the youth phase of life and artists filled 64% of the elder phase of life. The average value of these four is 81.8%.
Now if you go to one year later to 1662, the Nomads will continue to fill 100% of the rising adult phase of life. The heroes will gain 4.5% occupation of the youth phase and the artists and prophets will each lose 4.5% from their occupulation of the phase of life they hold in the aligned constellation. Thus average occupation will be 79.5%. Evver year you move forward from 1662 will make the average value snmaller and smaller. The same is true if you move back from 1661.
This means that 1661 was the year of the aligned constellation. It was the year in which the living generations most completely fill their respective phases of life. The 4T would then start with a few years, except S&H date it 14 years later. By this time the generations have moved way out of alignment and are actually more than halfway to the NEXT aligned constellation. The 4T should be nearly halfway way over in 1675. It was this mismatch Marc Lamb noted in the generational constellation in 2001, when he noted there were too many Silents for their to be a 4T constellation. And I noted that he was right, and if I had not done my own analysis (see above) I would agree with him.
But the S&H mechanism with the constellations and phases of life does not work to create history. Nor does the interaction of phase of liver with social moments create generations (who get large groups of people imprinted into two generations) as I pointed out in my first post. This does NOT mean that the core hypothesis that history creates generations and generations create history is wrong, it simply means that it has nothing to do with phases of life and generational constellations.
You can make this theory work if you use generational imprinting by history to create the generations (this is a ccurent area with active work in political science). Generations have demonstrated to create history by a study done by our own Dave Krein. I suspect I am one of the only T4Ters who actually read his paper. So that is what I do. It is not my take on the theory. It's the existing scientific consensus "take".
