Welcome. Back in 2006 we were in the period of time called by one poster (Sean Love) the "Phoney Fourth". Many of us thought the 4T had begun in 2001, some still do. More think it began in 2008, which is when Neil Howe decided to date it, so I will go with that date.
I first came to the old site in 2000. My focus has always been on finding ways to empirically validate the cycle or to test its validity in some way. I have finally come up with some crude tests that are in the form of predictions.
The approach I have taken assumes that the S&H cycle is a theory in the scientific sense and not simply an ideological belief, and as such it can be falsified. The S&H cycle is one of a class of first order cycles (often called generational cycles). Other examples of such cycles are Easterlin's population cycle, the Kondratieff cycle, Schlesinger's political cycle, Key's critical election cycle, Simon Kuznet's real estate cycle, Modelski and Thompson's Leadership cycle, Wright's War Cycle, Namenwirth's social mood cycle etc.
By comparing these different cycles one can identify commonalities between them. I am preparing a paper on the analysis of American history in terms of generational cycles using a composite of Schlesinger and Key political cycles. Kuznets and Kondratieff economic cycles, and the S&H cycle. I find a near-significant (p < 0.052) correlation with high and low levels of sociopolitical instability as defined by Turchin 2012. This is moderately encouraging. If there really is a generational cycle along the lines of what S&H and these other workers propose, then their consensus allows for certain predictions to be made. If such a cycle does exist, then the period corresponding to a 4T began around 2008 and the election in that year must be a critical election like 1968 was. What made 1968 a critical election was that 5 of the next 6 presidential elections were won by one party. which reflected a significant departure from the pattern of alternating 2 Democratic and 2 Republican terms that has been in place since 1952, except for the 1976-1992 period when it failed. It is this failure in the 65+ year post-1952 pattern that makes 1968 a critical election. Something like this will happen again if we are in a 4T. The only way this can happen is if Republicans lose the 2020 election, which would be a violation post-1952 pattern indicative of a critical election. But presidents usually win re-election so this is unlikely, which makes a Trump defeat more convincing (after all successful prediction of an event likely to occur by chance is not very meaningful) and a Trump victory more disqualifying for the S&H theory.
The second prediction has to do with sociopolitical instability, which today mostly amounts to the incidence of mass shootings. The list shows the average number of these instability events (mostly mass shootings) in three year intervals since 1991. It looks like an uptick occurred after 2008. Now, I have applied a model proposed by Turchin to several centuries of this data and found a good fit using two approaches. One assumes there is an S&H generational influence and one does not. Assuming S&H influence gives a prediction that these instability levels will get worse into the next decade and peak then. Leaving out S&H influence gives a prediction that we have already seen the worst and it won't get any worse.
1991-93 5
1994-96 7
1997-99 9
2000-02 7
2003-05 4
2006-08 8
2009-11 15
2012-14 17
2015-17 14
This gives two testable predictions. If Trump loses and violence increases next decade this is strong evidence in favor of the S&H theory. If neither happens, I would take this as an invalidation of the theory. If it is a mix (50% likely by chance) then the picture remains muddled (Grrrr).
I first came to the old site in 2000. My focus has always been on finding ways to empirically validate the cycle or to test its validity in some way. I have finally come up with some crude tests that are in the form of predictions.
The approach I have taken assumes that the S&H cycle is a theory in the scientific sense and not simply an ideological belief, and as such it can be falsified. The S&H cycle is one of a class of first order cycles (often called generational cycles). Other examples of such cycles are Easterlin's population cycle, the Kondratieff cycle, Schlesinger's political cycle, Key's critical election cycle, Simon Kuznet's real estate cycle, Modelski and Thompson's Leadership cycle, Wright's War Cycle, Namenwirth's social mood cycle etc.
By comparing these different cycles one can identify commonalities between them. I am preparing a paper on the analysis of American history in terms of generational cycles using a composite of Schlesinger and Key political cycles. Kuznets and Kondratieff economic cycles, and the S&H cycle. I find a near-significant (p < 0.052) correlation with high and low levels of sociopolitical instability as defined by Turchin 2012. This is moderately encouraging. If there really is a generational cycle along the lines of what S&H and these other workers propose, then their consensus allows for certain predictions to be made. If such a cycle does exist, then the period corresponding to a 4T began around 2008 and the election in that year must be a critical election like 1968 was. What made 1968 a critical election was that 5 of the next 6 presidential elections were won by one party. which reflected a significant departure from the pattern of alternating 2 Democratic and 2 Republican terms that has been in place since 1952, except for the 1976-1992 period when it failed. It is this failure in the 65+ year post-1952 pattern that makes 1968 a critical election. Something like this will happen again if we are in a 4T. The only way this can happen is if Republicans lose the 2020 election, which would be a violation post-1952 pattern indicative of a critical election. But presidents usually win re-election so this is unlikely, which makes a Trump defeat more convincing (after all successful prediction of an event likely to occur by chance is not very meaningful) and a Trump victory more disqualifying for the S&H theory.
The second prediction has to do with sociopolitical instability, which today mostly amounts to the incidence of mass shootings. The list shows the average number of these instability events (mostly mass shootings) in three year intervals since 1991. It looks like an uptick occurred after 2008. Now, I have applied a model proposed by Turchin to several centuries of this data and found a good fit using two approaches. One assumes there is an S&H generational influence and one does not. Assuming S&H influence gives a prediction that these instability levels will get worse into the next decade and peak then. Leaving out S&H influence gives a prediction that we have already seen the worst and it won't get any worse.
1991-93 5
1994-96 7
1997-99 9
2000-02 7
2003-05 4
2006-08 8
2009-11 15
2012-14 17
2015-17 14
This gives two testable predictions. If Trump loses and violence increases next decade this is strong evidence in favor of the S&H theory. If neither happens, I would take this as an invalidation of the theory. If it is a mix (50% likely by chance) then the picture remains muddled (Grrrr).