05-20-2017, 03:31 PM
The table below summarizes the data. The years refer to the generational model prediction of the first year of a political moment (analogous to social moments except political). The Revolutionary moment (1774-89) is assumed as a starting point and leader age (obtained from Howe’s database) minus 21 (end of youth phase of life) is added to the previous political moment to forecast the next one. For example, the average leader age of 49 in 1801, less 21, gives 28, which when added to 1774 gives 1802. The leader age in 1831 of 50 less 21 is 29, which when added to 1802 gives 1831 and so on down to 2008.
Year PSI (%tile) Type Radicalization?
1774 97 4T Yes
1802 64 Neither No
1831 7 2T Yes
1862 84 4T Yes
1896 9 2T Yes
1933 88 4T No
1968 31 2T Yes
2008 67 ? Yes
The next column in the table is the political stress index (PSI). PSI is a measure developed by Jack Goldstone to explain pre-industrial revolutions like the English Revolution in 1642-49 or the French revolution. Turchin has extended a version of it to America and used it to explain the Civil War. Here I simply calculate it and express its value as a percentile ranking relative to the range of values it showed during the cycle in which it occurred. The figure below shows raw PSI values and the table shows percentile ranks of the values in the years given.
![[Image: Political-stress-fig.gif]](https://mikebert.neocities.org/Political-stress-fig.gif)
Three of the PSI values were very high, scoring in the top fifth of PSI values, indicating that the conditions for a 4T were ripe as soon as the generation constellation arrived. In all three cases a 4T was beginning or had recently begun and was now underway when the model forecasted the arrival of a political moment.
The last column shows whether the date occurred in a time of high radicalization as predicted by Turchin’s social contagion model. This model predicts sociopolitical instability (i.e. violence). In all six cases where radicalization was present there was violence. Three of the dates occur at periods of high radicalization with associated violence, but low PSI. All three are 2Ts.
This leaves two dates in which PSI was neither very high or very low. 1802 was a period of low radicalization (violence). This period was neither a 4T (PSI too low) or a 2T (no radicalization/violence). It certainly was in a political moment (1801-1816), begun by the election of 1800, which is sometimes called the Revolution of 1800. It was important politically, but was not a secular crisis--PSI was not very high. Nor were emotions high, radicalization was absent, ruling out a 2T. It is categorized as “neither”. S&H lumped it in with the previous Federalist era and subsequent "Era of Good Feelings” into a single 1T, because while it was a political moment, it certainly was not a social moment.
This leaves the present era, predicted by the generational model to begin in 2008. It is a period of radicalization so it appears to be a social moment. It did not have a super-high PSI in 2008 (if it had perhaps Obama’s response to the financial crisis would have been more robust). On the other had the PSI was much higher than has been typical for previous 2Ts. It really doesn’t map cleanly into either a 2T or a 4T. But it should be one or the other, and not neither like 1801-1816.
Hence, I have been floating the idea that this could be a 2T rather than a 4T. That is, if this doesn’t turn out like one would expect a 4T to do, it is probably better to characterize it as a second 2T than as a “failed 4T”, since the implications of the later term is unclear. This means that an anomaly would not feature Heroes turning into Artists (dominant to recessive) but rather Prophets (dominant to dominant). By definition, a generation that comes of age in a social moment is a dominant one.
I do not buy the Civil War anomaly, I think there was a Civil War hero gen. Should this 4T be a bust, the Millies would be the first anomalous generation. The would-be 4T would end up functioning like a 2T and Millies will end up as another Prophet gen and the Homies another Nomad gen. It’s not that Millies won’t rebel or try to make a 4T happen, it’s just that their efforts would be no more successful than those of young people in the late teens and early twenties, who were trying to achieve the same thing.
Year PSI (%tile) Type Radicalization?
1774 97 4T Yes
1802 64 Neither No
1831 7 2T Yes
1862 84 4T Yes
1896 9 2T Yes
1933 88 4T No
1968 31 2T Yes
2008 67 ? Yes
The next column in the table is the political stress index (PSI). PSI is a measure developed by Jack Goldstone to explain pre-industrial revolutions like the English Revolution in 1642-49 or the French revolution. Turchin has extended a version of it to America and used it to explain the Civil War. Here I simply calculate it and express its value as a percentile ranking relative to the range of values it showed during the cycle in which it occurred. The figure below shows raw PSI values and the table shows percentile ranks of the values in the years given.
Three of the PSI values were very high, scoring in the top fifth of PSI values, indicating that the conditions for a 4T were ripe as soon as the generation constellation arrived. In all three cases a 4T was beginning or had recently begun and was now underway when the model forecasted the arrival of a political moment.
The last column shows whether the date occurred in a time of high radicalization as predicted by Turchin’s social contagion model. This model predicts sociopolitical instability (i.e. violence). In all six cases where radicalization was present there was violence. Three of the dates occur at periods of high radicalization with associated violence, but low PSI. All three are 2Ts.
This leaves two dates in which PSI was neither very high or very low. 1802 was a period of low radicalization (violence). This period was neither a 4T (PSI too low) or a 2T (no radicalization/violence). It certainly was in a political moment (1801-1816), begun by the election of 1800, which is sometimes called the Revolution of 1800. It was important politically, but was not a secular crisis--PSI was not very high. Nor were emotions high, radicalization was absent, ruling out a 2T. It is categorized as “neither”. S&H lumped it in with the previous Federalist era and subsequent "Era of Good Feelings” into a single 1T, because while it was a political moment, it certainly was not a social moment.
This leaves the present era, predicted by the generational model to begin in 2008. It is a period of radicalization so it appears to be a social moment. It did not have a super-high PSI in 2008 (if it had perhaps Obama’s response to the financial crisis would have been more robust). On the other had the PSI was much higher than has been typical for previous 2Ts. It really doesn’t map cleanly into either a 2T or a 4T. But it should be one or the other, and not neither like 1801-1816.
Hence, I have been floating the idea that this could be a 2T rather than a 4T. That is, if this doesn’t turn out like one would expect a 4T to do, it is probably better to characterize it as a second 2T than as a “failed 4T”, since the implications of the later term is unclear. This means that an anomaly would not feature Heroes turning into Artists (dominant to recessive) but rather Prophets (dominant to dominant). By definition, a generation that comes of age in a social moment is a dominant one.
I do not buy the Civil War anomaly, I think there was a Civil War hero gen. Should this 4T be a bust, the Millies would be the first anomalous generation. The would-be 4T would end up functioning like a 2T and Millies will end up as another Prophet gen and the Homies another Nomad gen. It’s not that Millies won’t rebel or try to make a 4T happen, it’s just that their efforts would be no more successful than those of young people in the late teens and early twenties, who were trying to achieve the same thing.
