(02-21-2017, 01:10 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:Quote:1742-1765 -U
Note the history being created occurs in the very next turning. I now re-start the model using the Revolutionary secular crisis social moment over 1773-1789 as the seed:
1773-1789 -C
You're missing a few years in between.
I still think the turning boundaries in the CW saec look suspect.
It's a model, its not going to fit the data exactly. That's what comes out.
Of course the output during the CW saec doesn't match S&H, they have four turnings while the political cycle has six eras. The model is explicitly political (it is based on concepts of generational imprinting taken from political science) and so you would expect it to model the political cycle. The S&H is an archetypical cycle, which is something I am not even sure is an actual concept.
The reason I focus on what I call the political cycle, which is a consensus of three scholars: Elazar, Schlesinger and S&H is because the political cycle is a reasonable approximation for Turchin's fathers and sons cycle, which is an empirical cycle, like the Kondratiev price cycle. If you plot sociopolitical instability or a price index you can see the cycles in the data, they are a real thing. Archetypes aren't a real thing, they are a model for or representation of an ill-defined set of behavioral attributes and habits of thought we call personality.
If you use the political cycle to explain the sociopolitical instability data it works--the correspondence between the two is statistically significant (p < 0.032). If you do the same using the S&H turnings, it doesn't work--there is no significant correspondence (p < 0.17). In other words, the political cycle fits empirical data, while the S&H cycle doesn't fit anything that I have been able to find.
I used to think S&H were really on to something. Although I could not get statistical significance with sociopolitical instability and adding crime and alcohol consumption as additional indicators did not cut it, I did find a statistically significant correlation with spiritual event frequency (here I was trying to match 2Ts to the data). I used a very long baseline (12th century on) and employed David McGuinness's dates for the pre-1435 turnings. With this I could then relate the saeculum to empirical price cycles (K-cycles) and so establish a relation between generational cycles and a range of social, economic, political and cultural group behavior. In other words I thought I had established some evidence that the saeculum was a real cycle.
But pope John Paul II ruined it all
One of the elements in my spiritual database (the glue that made it all work) was Roman Catholic saints as examples of "spiritual persons". Presumably, if archetypes are real, spiritual people should fall into the prophet generaton more frequently than Nomads, Heroes. or Artists. In my first analysis that had been the case. When I went to redo it with larger and better sourced database I encountered a large number of additional saints from the 17th and 18th centuries (periods for which my spiritual database had been kinda thin) which allowed me to get a much bigger sample about which I could feel more confident. These were saints that JP II had canonized. When I repeated the analysis with the expanded the correlation vanished. Saints show up roughly equally in all generations, there is no evidence of a spiritual archetype that shows up in large samples of people specifically selected for their spiritual prowess.I tried a similar analysis with a database of 1000 composers with their birth dates. Their seems to be no "artist" archetype that shows up in musical arts. Lis Lebengood tried an analysis along these lines working with popular music. She got bupkis. If archetypes are a real thing it shouldn't be so hard finding statistically significant evidence of their existence.