Posts: 505
Threads: 52
Joined: Feb 2022
Imo, neither "nomad", nor "reactive" really characterize this generational archetype well. Instead, I would posit "Survivalist Generation" as a more fitting moniker for the following reasons
1) Compared to millennials and boomers, I would say that Gen X is actually a less reactive generation as a whole. Boomers are more prone to moralistic crusading, and millennials to collective protesting and cancelation, but either way, both exhibit a sense of outrage over many political matters that leave Gen X thinking "What were expecting? A Disney movie? Lmao! Welcome to the real world kiddo. Fasten your seatbelts..."
2) Neither "reactive" nor "nomad" really characterize a sense of tough mindedness.
3) Nomad Gens tend to be the black sheep (also a potential name for them tbh) in most of the generational constellations they live through. Survivalist doesn't just imply staying alive, it implies having the fight/push against something to do so.
4) The basic archetypal roles that Nomad Gens tend to play include capitalists (John D Rockafeller, Elon Musk), generals (George Washington, Dwight D. Eisenhower) crimelords/pirates (Lucky Luciano, Blackbeard, Viktor "Lord of War" Bout), and various protective parental figures. Every one of these has a strong "survivalist" slant.
5) Nomad Gens are the most cynical generations within the saeculum and the most likely to believe that they are responsible for their own survival rather than relying on a social system to do so.
PS: I'm a millennial and y'all are my favorite generation. I realize that nothing quite says Gen X like...not speaking up to defend Gen X, but I gotchu fam.
Posts: 604
Threads: 68
Joined: May 2016
In the manner of Aldous Huxley in Brave New World, I have come to referring to the Prophet, Nomad, Hero and Artist generations as "Alphas," "Betas," "Gammas," and "Deltas," respectively - not in the order of their superiority, but rather in the order in which they appear.
"These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation" - Justice David Brewer, Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 1892
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
03-27-2022, 12:43 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-27-2022, 12:56 PM by Eric the Green.)
(02-10-2022, 12:15 AM)JasonBlack Wrote: Imo, neither "nomad", nor "reactive" really characterize this generational archetype well. Instead, I would posit "Survivalist Generation" as a more fitting moniker for the following reasons
1) Compared to millennials and boomers, I would say that Gen X is actually a less reactive generation as a whole. Boomers are more prone to moralistic crusading, and millennials to collective protesting and cancelation, but either way, both exhibit a sense of outrage over many political matters that leave Gen X thinking "What were expecting? A Disney movie? Lmao! Welcome to the real world kiddo. Fasten your seatbelts..."
2) Neither "reactive" nor "nomad" really characterize a sense of tough mindedness.
3) Nomad Gens tend to be the black sheep (also a potential name for them tbh) in most of the generational constellations they live through. Survivalist doesn't just imply staying alive, it implies having the fight/push against something to do so.
4) The basic archetypal roles that Nomad Gens tend to play include capitalists (John D Rockafeller, Elon Musk), generals (George Washington, Dwight D. Eisenhower) crimelords/pirates (Lucky Luciano, Blackbeard, Viktor "Lord of War" Bout), and various protective parental figures. Every one of these has a strong "survivalist" slant.
5) Nomad Gens are the most cynical generations within the saeculum and the most likely to believe that they are responsible for their own survival rather than relying on a social system to do so.
PS: I'm a millennial and y'all are my favorite generation. I realize that nothing quite says Gen X like...not speaking up to defend Gen X, but I gotchu fam.
Yes, S&H described Gen X as "sharp-eyed survivalists"
Reactive is not a good name. Nomad has its rationale, but also drawbacks as a name for the archetype.
No-one is completely typical of their archetype. So if some people think they are more like Gen X or Gen Z/Silent than Boomer or Millennials, or vice versa, they might be.
But Anthony got it right the first time by calling his membership in the "Jones" Boomer period "Baby Buster". He is not Gen X, according to the dates, but as I said, people are individuals too, and they may identify more with those other than the one they are born into according to the clock and the cycles of society, as Anthony and Jason do.
Myself, I have no trouble linking myself with the Boomer and Prophet archetype. I was born right in the middle of it. I am a prophet, literally, and an idealist. I am a crusader and a moralist.
The astrology makes it clear too, as three of my personal points (Sun, Ascendent, and Mars-- ruler of and aspecting my Moon sign that is square/ruler of the Ascendant and elevated) align very closely with the outer 3 generational planets, while the Establishment/conventional society planets Jupiter and Saturn are much less aligned with personal points in my chart. Remember too that I picked these aspects and positions out as being in my chart even before looking up their actual positions. I verified this for myself.
Posts: 505
Threads: 52
Joined: Feb 2022
(03-27-2022, 12:08 PM)Anthony 58 Wrote: In the manner of Aldous Huxley in Brave New World, I have come to referring to the Prophet, Nomad, Hero and Artist generations as "Alphas," "Betas," "Gammas," and "Deltas," respectively - not in the order of their superiority, but rather in the order in which they appear.
You should study socionics (it's a personality system similar to MBTI if you've ever looked into that, but it fleshes out the types and cognitive processes a lot more thoroughly)
ammosexual
reluctant millennial
Posts: 505
Threads: 52
Joined: Feb 2022
(03-27-2022, 12:43 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Myself, I have no trouble linking myself with the Boomer and Prophet archetype. I was born right in the middle of it. I am a prophet, literally, and an idealist. I am a crusader and a moralist.
What convinced me of the validity of generational theory is the number of traits that fit me in spite of being against my natural personality, like how I was begrudgingly forced to accept substantially more collectivistic strategies as a means of survival and basic pragmatism.
ammosexual
reluctant millennial
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(05-06-2022, 02:30 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: (03-27-2022, 12:43 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Myself, I have no trouble linking myself with the Boomer and Prophet archetype. I was born right in the middle of it. I am a prophet, literally, and an idealist. I am a crusader and a moralist.
What convinced me of the validity of generational theory is the number of traits that fit me in spite of being against my natural personality, like how I was begrudgingly forced to accept substantially more collectivistic strategies as a means of survival and basic pragmatism.
There is a famous Venn diagram of "Ideas We Admire" and another of "Ideas that Actually Work". Of course, the joke is: there is zero overlap. It may be intended as humor, but it's also more than a bit accurate. We Americans, especially, have been raised on the idea of individualism and up-by-the-bootstraps motivation and self-worth -- in short, the competitive model. In reality, the cooperative model works better, producing more consistent results at lower cost to the individual and society as a whole.
If you doubt it, look at the two arenas that consistently test the theory: sports and war. Setting aside individual sports where cooperation doesn't really apply, teams and armies do best when they operate in a cohesive and complimentary manner. Neither trait is associated with individualism.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 683
Threads: 41
Joined: May 2016
(05-07-2022, 06:32 AM)David Horn Wrote: (05-06-2022, 02:30 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: (03-27-2022, 12:43 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Myself, I have no trouble linking myself with the Boomer and Prophet archetype. I was born right in the middle of it. I am a prophet, literally, and an idealist. I am a crusader and a moralist.
What convinced me of the validity of generational theory is the number of traits that fit me in spite of being against my natural personality, like how I was begrudgingly forced to accept substantially more collectivistic strategies as a means of survival and basic pragmatism.
There is a famous Venn diagram of "Ideas We Admire" and another of "Ideas that Actually Work". Of course, the joke is: there is zero overlap. It may be intended as humor, but it's also more than a bit accurate. We Americans, especially, have been raised on the idea of individualism and up-by-the-bootstraps motivation and self-worth -- in short, the competitive model. In reality, the cooperative model works better, producing more consistent results at lower cost to the individual and society as a whole.
If you doubt it, look at the two arenas that consistently test the theory: sports and war. Setting aside individual sports where cooperation doesn't really apply, teams and armies do best when they operate in a cohesive and complimentary manner. Neither trait is associated with individualism.
General speaking, business generally also abide by the gospel of teamwork as well. Does it work all the time? No, but you will similarly find said friction in the sports world from time to time. In our workplaces we are often preached the gospel of "No I in team".
Have often asked, in regards to the societal malaise that has been with us for, I would say, the past 7 years at least, is there nothing that could get the troops to feel excited and inspired, ready to go after the gold? Perhaps the effort to overturn Roe v. Wade will ignite the needed spark. We shall see.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(02-10-2022, 12:15 AM)JasonBlack Wrote: Imo, neither "nomad", nor "reactive" really characterize this generational archetype well. Instead, I would posit "Survivalist Generation" as a more fitting moniker for the following reasons
1) Compared to millennials and boomers, I would say that Gen X is actually a less reactive generation as a whole. Boomers are more prone to moralistic crusading, and millennials to collective protesting and cancelation, but either way, both exhibit a sense of outrage over many political matters that leave Gen X thinking "What were expecting? A Disney movie? Lmao! Welcome to the real world kiddo. Fasten your seatbelts..."
2) Neither "reactive" nor "nomad" really characterize a sense of tough mindedness.
3) Nomad Gens tend to be the black sheep (also a potential name for them tbh) in most of the generational constellations they live through. Survivalist doesn't just imply staying alive, it implies having the fight/push against something to do so.
4) The basic archetypal roles that Nomad Gens tend to play include capitalists (John D Rockefeller, Elon Musk), generals (George Washington, Dwight D. Eisenhower) crimelords/pirates (Lucky Luciano, Blackbeard, Viktor "Lord of War" Bout), and various protective parental figures. Every one of these has a strong "survivalist" slant.
5) Nomad Gens are the most cynical generations within the saeculum and the most likely to believe that they are responsible for their own survival rather than relying on a social system to do so.
PS: I'm a millennial and y'all are my favorite generation. I realize that nothing quite says Gen X like...not speaking up to defend Gen X, but I gotchu fam.
"Nomad" refers more to mobility than to a lack of roots. Nomads may be obliged to travel light, but they cherish what little they have. They may move about because of seasonal forage, going down to the verdant lowlands of the winter but abandoning those in the summer drought to the well-watered high altitudes; they know what they are doing. They could be people who recognize that they can easily overstay their welcome; they often know the warning signs and leave when the going is good, like the Roma in comparatively good times. In general, literal nomads must hold tight onto their values lest life get crazy or precarious.
"Reactive" implies that someone else establishes an environment in which they interact. The rewards may be low, and so are the expectations. Punishments may be severe, reflecting the saying that one might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb. If the rewards for being a pirate are higher than those of a highwayman, and the consequence for being caught is being hanged, drawn, and quartered, then the criminal Nomad/Reactive chooses being a pirate. If they can't have certainty, then they might as well raise the rewards for unlikely wins. The generation that you here describe may find that only the long-shot bets pay off, with short odds offering little-to-no-reward. So do you become a domestic servant or an oil wildcatter? The results are much the same whether one 'succeeds' as a domestic servant or 'fails' as an oil wildcatter.
"Nomad/Reactive" generations look like gamblers. They may not be the schmucks who spend their pensions, Social Security, or meager wages in casinos; the Nomadic/Reactive gambler as a historical makes bets that can go very well... or can doom the bettor. If one gets away with the bet one does very well and can become a cautionary figure. If one fails, then life is nothing because everything is power or material gain. Other generations can believe in abstractions, principles, or systems; all three of those do not work for a Nomadic/Reactive generation. The Nomad/Reactive may perceive only one chance in life, and if it goes wrong, then one's life has little meaning in the wake of failure.
The good side of the Nomad/Reactive generation is that if they succeed in some small-scale gamble, they create a model for doing what they did on a bigger scale with lesser risk. Civic/Hero generations (unless as cannon fodder) can imitate what succeeded among Nomad/Reactive types only to take the extreme risk of personal ruin out of the prospect. Civic/Hero generations are more likely to set up formal plans that leave more room for backtracking in the event that something unravels. In contrast, the bad guys become ludicrous examples of what goes wrong in the event at the least of bad planning and at worst if the world turns against one.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
|
