Posts: 880
Threads: 18
Joined: May 2016
This thread is about techniques to use in generational research. The thesis is as follows. The Strauss and Howe generational cycle as a theory of history is just about dead. Strauss is dead and Howe is mostly working as a financial columnist (he's 65 and has decided to focus on those aspects of his ideas that have had acceptance) there will be no further work from him, and when he dies the idea will die with him.
However S&H made an important contribution. The basic process (generations create history and history creates generations) that we attribute to them was not invented by them. It's all in Karl Mannheim's 1928 essay, but you have to have to really go deep to see it (unless having read S&H you know what to look for). Others have derived the same mechanism from Mannheim that S&H did. But as far as I know none have combined the political cycles observed by others with the religious cycles observed by McLoughlin and others.
A far as I know, Dave Krein is the only historian to have seriously considered the ideas of S&H and has extended their paradigm. Dave turns 74 this year. I was working on a paper on generational cycles and have lost it (corrupted file) and will be rewriting it over the next few years. I have another paper (intact) I plan to submit first so I am at least a year away from submitting the generational paper (it references the earlier paper which is why there is an order). Plenty of time to rewrite it. I will probably do it differently (might as well) hence this thread.
In the subsequent posts I plan to give an example of a technique and show how I apply it. Other T4Ters have proposed theories. How do you do it? And how would you seek to make a case in a peer-reviewed situation?
Posts: 880
Threads: 18
Joined: May 2016
08-31-2016, 02:05 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-31-2016, 02:07 PM by Mikebert.)
(08-31-2016, 01:54 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Although Howe is no longer focusing on basic development of the S&H theory I would hardly call S&H dead. If anything, we are barely far enough into the test stage to have useful information regarding the efficacy of S&H.
By dead I mean nobody is currently working on it, publishing about it etc. They only place AFAIK where vigorous discussion of the theory happened was the T4T site. And that was shut down by Howe. Doesn't that suggest something to you?
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
Maybe most possible revisions to the theory have been researched and mulled over by now.
Posts: 2
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
Mike - for what it's worth, my Birthdates Matter article has proved the least quoted (and I assume the least read) of all my publications.
Pax.
Dave Krein '42
Posts: 880
Threads: 18
Joined: May 2016
Dave, as far as I know your paper is the only application of the concept. Fifteen years ago I was trying to use the saeculum as a unifying cycle that underlay the "visible" cycles that had already been characterized in the literature such as various economic cycles and political cycles. The project was ultimately unsuccessful and I had pretty much abandoned it around 2007.
More recently I have learned about the secular cycle and cliodynamics. This is an empirical cycle and it has theoretical support there are mathematical models that can be fitted to data (I just published a paper on this). This is a good paradigm to use for the purpose I was using the saeculum before.
Based on the investigation I’ve done so far, it may be this secular cycle for the post-industrial situation might correspond to the saeculum –at least in America. If so one could model aspects of it using a model based on generations create history and history creates generations. In the manuscript I was working on before I lost it to a corrupted memory stick I cited your paper and some political science papers to support this idea.
(09-01-2016, 10:12 PM)davidkrein Wrote: Mike - for what it's worth, my Birthdates Matter article has proved the least quoted (and I assume the least read) of all my publications.
Pax.
Dave Krein '42
Posts: 880
Threads: 18
Joined: May 2016
09-02-2016, 01:12 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-02-2016, 01:13 PM by Mikebert.)
[/font Wrote: [font=Calibri] "X_4AD_84"]
Mikebert Wrote:By dead I mean nobody is currently working on it, publishing about it etc. The only place AFAIK where vigorous discussion of the theory happened was the T4T site. And that was shut down by Howe. Doesn't that suggest something to you?
It suggests that even though he's Boomer, Howe has an uncanny sense of his growth Market - Millies. Although we've a few on here, these sorts of "old fashioned" internet forums are considered, by the masses ... well ... old fashioned. Such forums are a dying breed. Whereas, the Twitterverse, SnapChat, etc ... now you're talking!
I don't think so. I think it reflects this fact:
Dave Krein Wrote:my Birthdates Matter article has proved the least quoted (and I assume the least read) of all my publications.
I think when S&H first published Generations, they had hoped to see more response from academics. Their followup book, T4T, added some more meat, but included a lot for the popular audience. Since then they went for popular audience and the business opportunity, which frankly is what I did (on a smaller scale) after my first book turned out to be modestly successful (sold about 6000 copies and it led to a writing gig that grossed me about 40K before it ended).
Posts: 1,402
Threads: 17
Joined: May 2016
(08-31-2016, 06:07 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Maybe most possible revisions to the theory have been researched and mulled over by now.
Uh, no. I found this gem over on http://www.nakedcapitalism.com . 
Jake Mudroski Wrote:Heh, a *miracle indeed. Kind of funny that the authors are Oxford-affiliated yet their stuff shows up here in the comic sense of “there are n things wrong with this picture — can you find them all?”
To add to your points, I’ll highlight their mixing up of “Science” as an idealized abstract conception of a process, with implicit inevitability of progress and the alternative “Science” as it so happens to be practiced in a particular culture at a particular time.
Some recent **NC links have been great at showing the damage caused in the sciences by the current bad structures of funding, hiring, and publishing that reward carelessness and narcissism.
To your point, “But at a certain point they are not worth retrieving,” I’ll merely add that at certain points the complexity becomes too great for key foundational knowledge to transfer to newer generations. And the learning curve becomes so daunting that the diligent folks invariably get outpaced by the careerists, fakers and self-promoters. This leads to a cycle of generations always “discovering America.” 
One wonders if the authors can account for the lack of new Beethovens and the quantity of revenue-producing crap in the music world, and whether they see how that dynamic applies to the practice of science today.
*Technology-Driven Growth.
**Naked Capitalism.
---Value Added
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
Let the scientists do science. Let them manage science, because science can't violate Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) badly enough that minor adjustments by low-level accountants can't correct. Science has controls that remove personality, partisan politics, and bureaucratic power out of the decision-making process. If anyone thinks that science can get in the way of profits, then think again: scientific reality can show that a procedure is unprofitable and unworthy of the effort. I know of one retired professor of chemistry who made huge money into his nineties (he was a contemporary of FDR, so he's not around anymore) as a consultant for deciding whether a process could turn a profit based upon chemical reality (energy costs).
It made eminent sense back then and still does. Objective science can keep people from making some unprofitable investments, especially in the production of energy.
Science is very good at policing itself. Double-blind tests and peer review ensure that fakers get the chance to seek careers somewhere other than science. For its intellectual demands, science pays badly enough that it doesn't attract narcissists. Self-promoters invariably find marketing far more promising than science or engineering for achieving the good life of high-priced vehicle marques, trophy spouses, and the like. Those scientists who have the talent for showmanship (like Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and the late Carl Sagan) know well enough to let science provide the show.
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.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
(08-31-2016, 08:20 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: (08-31-2016, 02:05 PM)Mikebert Wrote: (08-31-2016, 01:54 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Although Howe is no longer focusing on basic development of the S&H theory I would hardly call S&H dead. If anything, we are barely far enough into the test stage to have useful information regarding the efficacy of S&H.
By dead I mean nobody is currently working on it, publishing about it etc. They only place AFAIK where vigorous discussion of the theory happened was the T4T site. And that was shut down by Howe. Doesn't that suggest something to you?
It suggests that even though he's Boomer, Howe has an uncanny sense of his growth Market - Millies. Although we've a few on here, these sorts of "old fashioned" internet forums are considered, by the masses ... well ... old fashioned. Such forums are a dying breed. Whereas, the Twitterverse, SnapChat, etc ... now you're talking!
In other words, millies prefer forums where no discussion takes place?
Posts: 1,402
Threads: 17
Joined: May 2016
pbrower2a Wrote:Let the scientists do science. Let them manage science, because science can't violate Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) badly enough that minor adjustments by low-level accountants can't correct. Science has controls that remove personality, partisan politics, and bureaucratic power out of the decision-making process. If anyone thinks that science can get in the way of profits, then think again: scientific reality can show that a procedure is unprofitable and unworthy of the effort. I know of one retired professor of chemistry who made huge money into his nineties (he was a contemporary of FDR, so he's not around anymore) as a consultant for deciding whether a process could turn a profit based upon chemical reality (energy costs).
I think the NC poster was referring to "shoddy science" like this. . I believe that presently, the source of funding for a study is mandatory or some such before it's accepted.
Quote:It made eminent sense back then and still does. Objective science can keep people from making some unprofitable investments, especially in the production of energy.
Science is very good at policing itself. Double-blind tests and peer review ensure that fakers get the chance to seek careers somewhere other than science. For its intellectual demands, science pays badly enough that it doesn't attract narcissists. Self-promoters invariably find marketing far more promising than science or engineering for achieving the good life of high-priced vehicle marques, trophy spouses, and the like. Those scientists who have the talent for showmanship (like Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and the late Carl Sagan) know well enough to let science provide the show.
Yes of course. However it's when the word, "science" is taken in vain like this is where I have a problem. The reality is that no, humans do not need to consume sugar of any sort [glucose,fructose,galactose, etc.] to live. The body can convert proteins to any needed glucose. The same goes with any sort of starches. The human body can break down say oatmeal and get all the glucose it needs. Big Sugar of course isn't the only entity that's abused "science" like that. It's junk science that seems to become cruft nowadays. Junk science is the product of corporatism as well. You know, like "frankenfood" springs forth from some pretty bright minds employed in Corporate America.
---Value Added
Posts: 880
Threads: 18
Joined: May 2016
(10-06-2016, 05:41 PM)taramarie Wrote: (10-06-2016, 10:00 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: (08-31-2016, 08:20 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: (08-31-2016, 02:05 PM)Mikebert Wrote: (08-31-2016, 01:54 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Although Howe is no longer focusing on basic development of the S&H theory I would hardly call S&H dead. If anything, we are barely far enough into the test stage to have useful information regarding the efficacy of S&H.
By dead I mean nobody is currently working on it, publishing about it etc. They only place AFAIK where vigorous discussion of the theory happened was the T4T site. And that was shut down by Howe. Doesn't that suggest something to you?
It suggests that even though he's Boomer, Howe has an uncanny sense of his growth Market - Millies. Although we've a few on here, these sorts of "old fashioned" internet forums are considered, by the masses ... well ... old fashioned. Such forums are a dying breed. Whereas, the Twitterverse, SnapChat, etc ... now you're talking!
In other words, millies prefer forums where no discussion takes place?
No Eric. These types of forums are just viewed as old fashioned. Millies prefer a place that includes everyone. Not just on a certain topic. Facebook allows for both.
No. This brings up an issue I have raised elsewhere (as you probably are aware). This doesn't apply to you, since you post here. But, Facebook is useless for serious posts because it is a single thread medium. Even with nesting posts, it soon gets buried. With a "branched" site like this I can post stuff that I may wish to reference and still be able to easily find it years later. On Facebook, its forever gone in just a week. On FB is someone posts a provocative post, to which I respond with the thoughtful post, after which life intervenes and I don't get back for a few days, its gone. This is a strong disincentive to posting anything other than whatever is at the top of your head bullshit. It serves to keep the discussion topical and the ideas expressed immediately discardable. THis is not a suitable discussion for anything other than trivialities.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
10-07-2016, 03:19 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-07-2016, 03:43 PM by Eric the Green.)
Right mikebert, and facebook is even better than the ones X_4AD_84 cited, like Twitter and Snap Chat. If millies prefer those sites, it just seems to indicate that millies are not interested in discussions of any depth. It may also be a trend among all generations today. Boomers and Xers might just have older forms of distraction.
I would hope not; probably millies like young people in general follow the fads, and twitter and instagram and such are fads. But these tech-driven trends may be intended by the some of the capitalist bosses to distract the people from real thought. And this election and the polls are certainly likely to increase that trend. Not only because Trump is mere shallow entertainment without substance, but the polls show a stronger than ever division among those who are college educated who prefer Hillary and non-college educated who prefer Trump. Remember Trump's famous comment after winning the Nevada primary? "I love the poorly-educated" he said.
Republicans have never favored education, except for the wealthy; as they favor everything for the wealthy. The Republicans want an uneducated electorate. They can win elections with their support. They claim that the real elites are "cultural", instead of themselves and the corporate bosses they represent. So the bosses they represent, perhaps, are giving us these kinds of social media to facilitate ignorance. That's just my speculation; I'm not saying what's true for sure.
I have certainly posted my share on facebook, and it is clear that a forum like this is not only more of a community, but less subject to trolls than facebook is. Even despite some exceptions, the posters here are far more civil than those on facebook. "Discussions" there are more likely to be shouting matches using expletives. That goes for comments on you tube videos as well.
Posts: 1,216
Threads: 29
Joined: May 2016
I only use FB to keep in touch with friends and family, and actively avoid Twitter like the plague. And I won't be caught dead using Snapchat.
I already miss the heyday of internet message boards in the early 00s, everything's on Reddit, now.
Maybe we should start a Generational Theory sub-Reddit?
#MakeTheDemocratsGreatAgain
Posts: 128
Threads: 2
Joined: May 2016
you guys are talking past each other - taramarie is talking about how social media is being used by millies - equivalent to group conversation; mikebert & others are talking about how they prefer to use it, to support in-depth conversation.
whether you like it is irrelevant, millies prefer the drop-in/drop-out format over the in-depth detailed one. it doesn't mean you won't get in-depth conversations, it's just not mandatory/forced.
Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
(10-12-2016, 11:19 AM)tg63 Wrote: you guys are talking past each other - taramarie is talking about how social media is being used by millies - equivalent to group conversation; mikebert & others are talking about how they prefer to use it, to support in-depth conversation.
whether you like it is irrelevant, millies prefer the drop-in/drop-out format over the in-depth detailed one. it doesn't mean you won't get in-depth conversations, it's just not mandatory/forced.
Agreed with the first paragraph; disagreed with the last sentence. Given even Taramarie seems to agree that in Facebook doesn't work for in depth discussion, obviously you're not going to get in depth discussion there. Not only is it not mandatory; it is effectively prohibited.
To put it another way, taramarie is talking about how social media is being used by millenials, and Mikebert is talking about why most millenials prefer a medium that can only be used that way.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(10-12-2016, 11:19 AM)tg63 Wrote: you guys are talking past each other - taramarie is talking about how social media is being used by millies - equivalent to group conversation; mikebert & others are talking about how they prefer to use it, to support in-depth conversation.
whether you like it is irrelevant, millies prefer the drop-in/drop-out format over the in-depth detailed one. it doesn't mean you won't get in-depth conversations, it's just not mandatory/forced.
Facebook is not good for people who, like me, think in paragraphs. Twitter has the extreme limitation of characters. Any discussion of any theory of history, or any other complex idea, can not get suitable expression. It is telling enough that Trump loves Twitter.
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.
|
