01-31-2017, 10:53 PM
I really dislike it when you don't bother to respond to more than half of my post. Makes me wonder why I write it.
*world's smallest fiddle plays in the background for me*
Alright, whatever, let's go:
S & H as written by S & H defined a 4T thus. They made qualitative predictions for how such a 4T would go, thus far I am satisfied that they are on to something. Is it as formalized as Newton's Principia Mathematica? No, and I look with interest on the efforts of people like you to manage that, but I am still posting on the S & H board, not on anyone else's. I'll let it succeed or fail on its own terms.
Emphasis mine. These are YOUR indicators, YOUR tests, not S & H's. They're interesting, but the definitions of a 4T are not defined by your pet metric du jour, and as interesting as I find them, this mix-and-match thing you do where you treat what they said and what you said as being the same thing gets a little old. As I am getting tired of repeating.
Nope. The Great Depression had a severe dip in '37, the big crash for the Civil War turning didn't happen until 1873, the 1780s were characterized by serious financial troubles, etc. This is not a rule.
Suppose, suppose, suppose. Are you really trying to claim that the 4T is invalidated by hypotheticals concerning future events?
Although, outside a few cities over the last few years, these mass killings have coincided with a broad-based decline in the crime rate. Doesn't mean they aren't significant, I believe we had a discussion a few years ago labeling mass killings as a form of protest for the information-age (and effective policing era), where the primary target is actually the media response it generates.
You're right. We'll see what comes of it. We can tell the significance of it more in a few years.
Wasn't there. Reading some articles from the era I can see the similarities, but I also can't find evidence of 1968/2016 style riots afterwards, either.
And we'll have to make those judgements as they come.
I haven't read Generations, so I can't speak to predictions made there, but I reread T4T periodically, particularly the chapter "A 4T prophecy", and I continue to be impressed, and have since I first read it in 2009. So have non-T4T people I have had read it.
But you're right, it is a qualitative assessment, and I don't think they've captured everything there is. I support and will continue to support efforts to extend and refine it. That being said, I wish you would stop speaking of your own modifications and test measures as if they were part of S & H proper. There is a world of difference between "The definition of a 4T is..." and "MY definition of a 4T is..." that you have a tendency to elide.
*world's smallest fiddle plays in the background for me*
Alright, whatever, let's go:
Quote:What is a change in mood? Isn't mood in the eye of the beholder. As for the model, a theory must be supported by the facts, not the facts interpreted so as to fit the theory. How would you disprove the theory?
S & H as written by S & H defined a 4T thus. They made qualitative predictions for how such a 4T would go, thus far I am satisfied that they are on to something. Is it as formalized as Newton's Principia Mathematica? No, and I look with interest on the efforts of people like you to manage that, but I am still posting on the S & H board, not on anyone else's. I'll let it succeed or fail on its own terms.
Quote:The way I look at is, 2001 was potentially a 4T trigger until future events proved otherwise. 2001 was not a perfect fit, but turnings can be off, there is a fair bit of slop in the model. When 2008 came along it looked better, but it has since failed one of the tests. The 3 previous American 4Ts has critical election-type events near their beginnings (1174, 1860, 1932). 2008 had a number of the features of a critical election, high turnout, change in party control, and active policy-making immediately after. Confirmation of a critical election would be a third Democratic term. It didn't happen, strongly suggesting that 2008 was not a critical election.
Emphasis mine. These are YOUR indicators, YOUR tests, not S & H's. They're interesting, but the definitions of a 4T are not defined by your pet metric du jour, and as interesting as I find them, this mix-and-match thing you do where you treat what they said and what you said as being the same thing gets a little old. As I am getting tired of repeating.
Quote:If this is the only financial panic for 20 years after 2008 this would be significant.
Nope. The Great Depression had a severe dip in '37, the big crash for the Civil War turning didn't happen until 1873, the 1780s were characterized by serious financial troubles, etc. This is not a rule.
Quote:But suppose there is another one in the next 2-3 years? We had panics in 1857, 1873. 1884, 1893 and 1907 giving spacing of 9-16 years (average 12.5) so there is precedent.
So far. Suppose we get another candidate--another crisis like suggested above or something else? Why should 2008 be favored over the other two? If you say 2008 fits the generations better, isn't that fitting the facts to the theory?
Suppose, suppose, suppose. Are you really trying to claim that the 4T is invalidated by hypotheticals concerning future events?
Quote:Except these aren't big movements. They are similar in scale to the Religious Right, Divestment and Anti-nuke protests of the eighties. Nothing we have seen is remotely on the scale or intensity as the protests of the 1960's and early 1970's. There has been rising sociopolitical instability of a vastly larger scale in terms of violence. These are the rampage killings.
Although, outside a few cities over the last few years, these mass killings have coincided with a broad-based decline in the crime rate. Doesn't mean they aren't significant, I believe we had a discussion a few years ago labeling mass killings as a form of protest for the information-age (and effective policing era), where the primary target is actually the media response it generates.
Quote:A situation the Democrats had in 2009, and Republicans had in 2005.
You're right. We'll see what comes of it. We can tell the significance of it more in a few years.
Quote:The hysteria is much like that after the 1980 election. Feels about the same to me.
Wasn't there. Reading some articles from the era I can see the similarities, but I also can't find evidence of 1968/2016 style riots afterwards, either.
Quote:Exactly. But I've seen this rodeo before, after 2001, when we had the "Phoney Fourth" as Sean Love put it.
And we'll have to make those judgements as they come.
Quote:What I am getting at, is if there is something to this theory, it should be possible to predict that certain events will/will not happen as an experiment, so as the test the theory. Otherwise how can you ever validate it?
I haven't read Generations, so I can't speak to predictions made there, but I reread T4T periodically, particularly the chapter "A 4T prophecy", and I continue to be impressed, and have since I first read it in 2009. So have non-T4T people I have had read it.
But you're right, it is a qualitative assessment, and I don't think they've captured everything there is. I support and will continue to support efforts to extend and refine it. That being said, I wish you would stop speaking of your own modifications and test measures as if they were part of S & H proper. There is a world of difference between "The definition of a 4T is..." and "MY definition of a 4T is..." that you have a tendency to elide.