What are your specialities?

[Eric the Green]

(10-09-2019, 02:51 AM)Ldr Wrote:

(10-08-2019, 05:58 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Single explanations always fail. It is a mark of insecurity on your part to attribute everything to one factor...

And it's impossible to attribute different hormones to whole different generations. People's bodies are too different to do that.

I don't see that you have cited scientific research and actual measurements of people of different ages on this, and I don't think any has been conducted, and I doubt that it could be. But your theory would depend on this, since it's a physical and verifiable theory. And I detect cynicism in your reasoning too, which is a false basis for ideas. Civilization is not built on cynicism, but can be destroyed by it.

Since human behavior is driven by emotions, what would you say is the hormone that is driving your theory?

Well, there are the Russian studies on voles and lemmings that quite directly confirm my theory, as those species have verified cyclical generational hormone levels, and those levels coincide with the Strauss-Howe generational theory's generation and their traits. The hypothalamus is very similar among humans and other animal species, so there is no limitation why humans wouldn't have the same generational cycle, especially since this hormone cycle coincides with the Strauss-Howe generational theory's premises. So I do not understand how "attributing everything to one factor" is a mark of insecurity, as this "one factor" is driving the generational cycles in other animals than humans.

This is why attributing average hormone levels to whole generations isn't impossible in any way. Look at the evidence in chapter 4. How else would you explain that breastfeeding & average paternal age & nurturing intensity go hand in hand with the Strauss-Howe generational theory? Especially since breastfeeding is a biological mechanism. And the alcohol consumption drops as the oxytocin levels go high. Are you saying these a coincidences? That it's a coincidence that I read a historical theory and then all the biological stats in several Western countries just happen to support the hormone theory, including other cyclical species like lemmings, voles and snowshoe hares? Do those species also have social dynamics and societal events that drive the social mood and their hormone levels? I'm being a little sarcastic here, but in good spirits only, since I'm just trying to explain how all of this being a mere coincidence is just impossible.

Human behavior is driven by emotions, and emotions are driven by hormone levels. Hormone levels are driven by hypothalamus, and different generations have different structures (efficiency) in hypothalamus, just like with other animals. For example, other animals also have empathy and altruism, just to name a few more "advanced" emotions that were previously thought to be uniquely human. The hormones in play are (at least) oxytocin, vasopressin and cortisol.

I really don't understand how you can detect cynicism in my words. It's mostly only science I'm referring to and then building upon that evidence. You say that civilizations based on cynicism will fail, but I would say that civilizations based on scientific ignorance will definitely fail harder.  But seriously speaking, I'm a bit worried if the societal levels of oxytocin and the more aggressive variant vasopressin are going higher. The societal tensions are already high, politicians have formed tight camps, fake news and propaganda is on the rise, and so is the willingness to accept this propaganda. It's not like CNN and Fox News are forcing people to watch their propaganda! People choose to watch these networks, as they like what they hear. The hosts on those channels allow inaccuracies/lies to be stated without interruption, and this is clear evidence of high oxytocin & vasopressin levels, as described in chapter 2 of the generational hormone theory.

The social mood is currently snappy, and the youngest generation is very sensitive (just as Strauss & Howe predicted), just like individuals with high levels of oxytocin and vasopressin are predicted react, as this can lead to social sensory overload. (https://neurosciencenews.com/sensory-ove...asd-14420/) Cortisol has also been linked to violence (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...085023.htm), so high levels of cortisol would probably not be a good thing either, and since cortisol suppresses testosterone (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3880087/), Neil Howe has already inadvertently been looking at the solution to the generational theory's basic premises: https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/20...ather-was/

Your own statements show cynicism, as when you discussed how hopeless and futile our society and its politics has been; somewhere earlier in this thread that the basis of your views. Just above, you have contrasted cynicism with scientific ignorance, but there is no such opposition in existence. Cynicism is not the opposite of scientific ignorance. Science can support cynicism, and so can religion, or philosophy, or myths. Cynicism is something like a belief that failure is inevitable and that ideals cannot be attained. Science contends this more often than religion, to the extent that science is physicalist and determinist, because in that worldview there is no possibility of any ideals or any act of will to attain anything, and there is no creativity. If events show increasing levels of vasopressin, that does not give you any way of creating a less aggressive society. You remain a helpless victim of circumstance, which is what physicalist determinism decrees that you are.

I don't see any studies of hormone levels in human generations that you have cited. Simply drawing conclusions from studies of lemmings is invalid. You can declare that humans are no different from animals, but that is your assumption, and if there are no studies of hormone levels in human generations, you have not proved your hypothesis. And speaking personally, at this point, I don't trust anything that a society beholden to one man who owns 40% of the country does.

My apologies if my statements sound too harsh on you. I get my ruffles up about physicalism sometimes, and about other things too. My bad, I guess. I like the advice given by a PBS youtube science commentator who ends his videos by saying, "stay curious." There's always much to learn and discover about facts and reality, through many ways of knowing. Curiosity led me to my current views on things. It leads scientists to their discoveries, and philosophers and mystics to their foundational theories of reality.