(02-03-2017, 03:50 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:(02-03-2017, 03:36 PM)Mikebert Wrote:(02-03-2017, 03:15 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: A dominant generation is one that exercises an independent role during their first social movement, a role which they then carry on into midlife. A recessive generation is one that play a dependent role (either child or midlife) during their first social moment, and compensates for that in the next.
Consequently, dominant generations end up exerting influence in the public sphere (rhetoric and values, technology and institutions), whereas recessive generations compensate for their dependent role by exerting a commensurately greater influence on the private world of human relationships.
Ok. Now why are some generations dominant and others not?
Because social moments occur in relatively set intervals?
No I want an answer to the question. Why DO social moments occur at relative set intervals? This is what the S&H model is supposed to explain. Are you saying S&H claim some exogenous factor causes generations to happen? That wasn't my reading, my understanding is that the process is endogenous.
For cryin out loud. The gave a mantra that explains their model. Did you miss that?