Glad you are feeling better Bob. Well I finally have a workable model for the S&H cycle. I submitted it for publication in Cliodynamics Journal, got it back from the reviewers, who accepted it with revisions, I made the revisions and sent it back and now am awaiting final decision.
Basically there are three cyclical phenomenon. One is the political stress index (PSI) invented by Jack Goldstone, which is mostly a function of economic inequality. This cycle affects the demand for a political restructuring, i.e. a 4T.
Another is the social contagion model, proposed by Peter Turchin, which says that radical ideologies can act as infective agents, and spread though the population like an epidemic. Turchin created a model that works on the principle that when naïve people (uninfected) contact radicals (infected) they have a chance of becoming radicalized (becoming infected). Radicals can, after a period of time, recover from the radicalization and become moderates (this is analogous to infected people recovering from the disease). The present of moderates in the population exerts a suppressive effect on radicalization (analogous to herd immunity). The level of radicalization (as forecast by the model) affects the demand for a social moment, either a 2T or a 4T.
Finally there is the S&H model. It asserts that you can't have a social moment without a political moment. But you can't have a political moment (defined exactly as a social moment except political) until a dominant generation comes to power (this is a more precise representation of the idea of the generational constellation that needs to be in place).
So you can have a period like 1919, when radicalization predicted by the social contagion model peaked, indicating maximum demand for a social moment (either a 2T or a 4T). Furthermore economic inequality had peaked in 1916 (and would peak at a slightly higher level in 1929) making PSI high (and going higher). So there was demand for a 4T specifically. The country was in a revolutionary moment, and then--the country decided that what they wanted was a "Return to Normalcy". WTF? Why did this happen? Because a recessive generation was in power and you need a political moment* to create a social moment (this is the core of S&H's contribution).
Now generations by themselves are not enough. In 1801, the Hero generation who had come of age in during the Revolution (e.g. Jefferson and Madison and their contemporaries) came to power following what Jefferson called "The Revolution of 1800". Political scientists agree with Jefferson that the 1801-1816 period was revolutionary. Nobody else does. Why? Well PSI had been falling for two decades in 1801, so there was no support for a 4T (not surprising we had just had one). The level of radicalization was also low (the peak would not be until around 1830), so there was no demand for a 2T. With no demand for either a 2T or a 4T, the political moment created by the Revolutionary Hero generation coming to power created neither, S&H record the entire era (and large portions of the non-political moments before and after) as a very long 1T, associated with a 30-year-long Transcendental generation. In other words, Jefferson's "revolution" was a snooze-fest. Many T4Ters have thought S&H got that huge generation wrong. They didn't. It worked out that way because of the way the other cycles turned out.
There is more than one cycle at work here. This is why it has been so confusing. Once you add in the social milieu in which the generations are acting, it all falls into place.
*That is the right generation(s) in place.
Basically there are three cyclical phenomenon. One is the political stress index (PSI) invented by Jack Goldstone, which is mostly a function of economic inequality. This cycle affects the demand for a political restructuring, i.e. a 4T.
Another is the social contagion model, proposed by Peter Turchin, which says that radical ideologies can act as infective agents, and spread though the population like an epidemic. Turchin created a model that works on the principle that when naïve people (uninfected) contact radicals (infected) they have a chance of becoming radicalized (becoming infected). Radicals can, after a period of time, recover from the radicalization and become moderates (this is analogous to infected people recovering from the disease). The present of moderates in the population exerts a suppressive effect on radicalization (analogous to herd immunity). The level of radicalization (as forecast by the model) affects the demand for a social moment, either a 2T or a 4T.
Finally there is the S&H model. It asserts that you can't have a social moment without a political moment. But you can't have a political moment (defined exactly as a social moment except political) until a dominant generation comes to power (this is a more precise representation of the idea of the generational constellation that needs to be in place).
So you can have a period like 1919, when radicalization predicted by the social contagion model peaked, indicating maximum demand for a social moment (either a 2T or a 4T). Furthermore economic inequality had peaked in 1916 (and would peak at a slightly higher level in 1929) making PSI high (and going higher). So there was demand for a 4T specifically. The country was in a revolutionary moment, and then--the country decided that what they wanted was a "Return to Normalcy". WTF? Why did this happen? Because a recessive generation was in power and you need a political moment* to create a social moment (this is the core of S&H's contribution).
Now generations by themselves are not enough. In 1801, the Hero generation who had come of age in during the Revolution (e.g. Jefferson and Madison and their contemporaries) came to power following what Jefferson called "The Revolution of 1800". Political scientists agree with Jefferson that the 1801-1816 period was revolutionary. Nobody else does. Why? Well PSI had been falling for two decades in 1801, so there was no support for a 4T (not surprising we had just had one). The level of radicalization was also low (the peak would not be until around 1830), so there was no demand for a 2T. With no demand for either a 2T or a 4T, the political moment created by the Revolutionary Hero generation coming to power created neither, S&H record the entire era (and large portions of the non-political moments before and after) as a very long 1T, associated with a 30-year-long Transcendental generation. In other words, Jefferson's "revolution" was a snooze-fest. Many T4Ters have thought S&H got that huge generation wrong. They didn't. It worked out that way because of the way the other cycles turned out.
There is more than one cycle at work here. This is why it has been so confusing. Once you add in the social milieu in which the generations are acting, it all falls into place.
*That is the right generation(s) in place.