What are your specialities?

[Ldr]

(09-14-2019, 05:37 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-13-2019, 05:31 AM)Ldr Wrote: Any more questions about this theory? It is good to read critique, as answering questions helps to sharpen the arguments.

Did you have medical statistics showing higher and lower levels of these two hormones in the generations?

It's hard to see how that would follow; what would explain how millions of people would have the same hormone levels, when that is an individual matter within each person's body?

Also, the generational theory is based on lots of biographical information about people in various generations. The explanations they provide do have some merit; I didn't see good reasons that you presented for not accepting them.

Thank you for the good questions, Eric.

Direct oxytocin and vasopressin measurements have been inaccurate until recent years due to technical difficulties (the molecules are so tiny and often attached to other molecules). This is why I'm using breastfeeding, paternal age, parenting time and alcohol usage statistics (chapter 4), and they all correlate with the Strauss-Howe generational theory and obviously also the hormone level chart   in chapter 4.7 of the generational hormone theory. What this also means is that Strauss & Howe could have written the same books about cyclical lemming populations.   They show the same cyclical behavioral variances in parenting and family unity during their own generational cycle.

It works the same way as with lemmings and voles for example: each generation has their own size of areas in hypothalamus that control the hormone secretion, and for Gen X those areas were underdeveloped and for Gen Z they are maximum in size and efficiency. Of course there are some individual differences, just like with menstrual cycles and the amount of hormones that are flowing through a woman's body, so nobody is 100% identical. But generations have their own average levels of hormones, so the behavioral traits of a generation gravitate towards their generational center.

The reason why I didn't agree or disagree with your statements is because you were correct in your observations, but incorrect how they would be the explanation for generational behavior. If you can demonstrate causality beyond the Strauss-Howe generational theory, then please do, I'm all for it, I'm not saying that you're wrong. But if you can't, you should consider that those are your best guesses, and guesses are either right or wrong. This means that they can be 100% wrong unless you can explain why similar societal events in other times have totally different end results.

The generational hormone theory explains everything in a relatively simple manner, and in a way that is extremely similar to other species. The generational hormone theory also explains why a generation is 20 years in length. And it's incredibly difficult to see how a generational cycle could hold it's coherence of a 80 year cycle for centuries, unless there is a "biological backbone". Just look at this chart from the medieval England, the red lines mark the ending of a 4th turning (and a peak in vasopressin levels, which promotes aggressive group behavior), starting from 2030 - 1950 - 1870 - 1790 - 1710 - 1630 - 1550 and the graph shows 1470 - 1390 - 1310 - 1230 - 1150.

It's easy to see that 3/3 of the peaks in sociopolitical unstability occurred during the 4th turnings, so the 80 year cycle is incredibly accurate even in the middle ages. I think that the full hormone cycle is very close to 80 years, thus showing up even in the medieval England, as The Anarchy broke out in 1133 and ended in 1153. So basically the whole 20 years of the 12th century 4th turning was war, and it "...resulted in a widespread breakdown in law and order." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anarchy)

Keep the good questions coming!