Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What are your specialities?
#21
(09-07-2019, 09:33 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(09-06-2019, 08:04 AM)taramarie Wrote:
(09-06-2019, 07:08 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Could the cycle be that simple -- hormones in their own cycle?

No far more complex things going on of course. But then again I totally don't believe in this theory anyway.

Or could it be that the hormone cycle is a consequence of position in the saeculum? Could it be a feedback mechanism?
....
Sometimes we confuse cause and effect.

Hormones affect how individuals and groups act, react and assess the environment. Hormone levels are there when societal events happen, and they define the response. I totally understand the way of thinking that hormone levels might only react to the environment, and that has transgenerational consequences, but on a generational level this seems highly unlikely to happen for all mammal cycle.
Generational hormone theory: https://jannemiettinen.fi/FourthTurning/
Reply
#22
(09-07-2019, 09:33 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(09-06-2019, 08:04 AM)taramarie Wrote:
(09-06-2019, 07:08 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Could the cycle be that simple -- hormones in their own cycle?

No far more complex things going on of course. But then again I totally don't believe in this theory anyway.

Or could it be that the hormone cycle is a consequence of position in the saeculum? Could it be a feedback mechanism?

Typically every stage of the saeculum has at least three generations of adults with influence from workers starting families to geezers wielding the last vestiges of power and influence in society. 

Sometimes we confuse cause and effect.

Early motherhood is a norm when bread-winning husbands are paid well and non-working wives are common... and teenage marriage becomes economically viable due to a commonness of good pay for unskilled labor. But get hard times and people defer marriage and childbearing, because hardship the economic norm and women must go to work to ensure that two low incomes can be equivalent to one solid income. Low breast-feeding rates may relate to the "scientific" (really, commercial) advocacy of using cow's milk or baby formulas instead of relying upon breast milk. Alcohol and drug consumption fall off as they become old-hat and more infamous for ruin than delightful for fun. (Drug overdoses and people dying of binge drinking in their thirties make an effective warning to find fun and enlightenment by other means). In a 3T, people still rely upon hedonism because they are so spiritually-dead or spiritually-nuked that there is nothing else. When hedonism fails -- about when an economic bubble bursts (1857, 1929, 2008) -- then comes the time of the locust, the 4T.

Above all, populist nationalism appears when "stay-the-course" classical liberals have created extreme economic failure by telling people to go ahead and invest in bubbles that ultimately devour capital and quit giving a rate of return on capital. Or as Will Rogers put it during the early stages of the Great Depression: people were concerned about the rate of return on their capital when they instead should have been concerned about the return of their capital. Populist nationalism often results in scapegoating of what had recently been model minorities (like the definitive model minority, German Jews under Antichrist Hitler). The "model minorities" get the blame for what a bubble did even if the model minorities had nothing special to do with it.
As said I don't believe in that, but believe other things are going on here. I seriously don't believe in a hormone theory regarding generations.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#23
I thought that the most proximate cause of the generational cycle was the extinction of childhood memories -- arguably the most powerful memories in society around 70 years after they are fully formed, but typically dying off about ten years later due to deaths and senile dementia. What others might have the proclivity to do at times is stopped by the old people able to convince younger adults that it is a bad idea (I think of the GI Generation) to have a corrupt and irresponsible speculative boom. The fuddy-duddies of an earlier time get in the way of having destructive ways of having fun until those people are off the scene. Then people seem to indulge with impunity and feel the bad consequences -- very hard.
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.


Reply
#24
I totally understand that it may be difficult to see how hormone levels could define the path of human history, so let me explain it by breaking the generational hormone theory down into smaller parts. History tells who did what, when and where. Human history essentially consists of:

1) individual behavior,
2) group behavior,
3) the environment these individuals and groups lived in (including random events caused by nature, like disease and weather anomalies, and less random events, like the four seasons of nature).

Hormones define group formation and group behavior. Hormone levels define how individuals react to:

1) other individuals,
2) groups,
3) their surroundings.

A 4th turning can be compared in many ways to puberty. If an individual has differences of opinion for example with his/hers parents before puberty hits, puberty will quite likely make the situation worse. What causes this? Hormones. Another example is the menstrual cycle. Women in their reproductive years have mood swings that are caused by their menstrual cycle, and they react according to their mood. One manifestation of the menstrual cycle is anxiety, and hormones are causing all of this.

So if a society has problems, be they economic or civic or something else, these problems will grow larger once the anxieties of a 4th turning come about. And I have reason to believe that hormone levels are causing the anxieties during 4th turnings, just like during puberty or certain phases of the menstrual cycle. There obviously are differences in individual hormone levels and behavior, but looking at a generation as a whole irons out these individual differences, and for example, youth culture and voting behavior are good indicators of how a generations acts and what are their preferences. As most people are married to and have a majority of their friends from their own generation, this enhances the effect of hormone levels to individual and group behavior.

Is the generational hormone cycle theory easier to understand now?
Generational hormone theory: https://jannemiettinen.fi/FourthTurning/
Reply
#25
...but does the generational cycle of history cause the hormones to appear as they do, or do the hormones drive mass behavior? Would they not be different in the adult generations of the time? If they are alike for the three adult generations of a time, then such would be more effect than cause.
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.


Reply
#26
Hormones drive individual and group behavior, and hormone levels define the average decision an individual makes. So yes, hormones drive mass behavior. I will once again refer to menstrual cycle and puberty, as both of those are driven by a biological clock, and they both have physiological effects as well as mental effects that go hand in hand. Another example is that millennials are cooperative and the mothers have high breastfeeding rates; both of these are traits of high oxytocin levels. This is how generational traits are formed, be they physiological, mental or even ideological. The cycle repeats every 80 years with distinct phases for each generation. This is the same for cyclical populations of lemmings and voles, they act according to the current hormone levels in the cycle.

The hormone levels are mostly set at birth, which for example explains why Boomers (and many in Gen X) have a tendency to use alcohol more than the other generations, as they have low oxytocin levels, but millennials use much less alcohol due to higher oxytocin levels. But it seems that the hormone levels are also somewhat impacted through life, because the alcohol consumption goes down for all generations during a 3rd turning once the oxytocin curve starts to go climb. Once the oxytocin levels go lower again during a 4th turning, boomers increase drinking, but the younger generations not so much: https://www.businessinsider.com/millenni...?r=US&IR=T

"Again, a decline in drinking has been tied to several factors, such as the tendency of younger generations to be more concerned about their health and to favor marijuana over booze. But according to the market-research firm Mintel, another reason is that younger people are seeking control in the face of constant social-media surveillance."

If someone is asked why they don't want to drink, they come up with all kinds of explanations, like health or money. This is because humans have a tendency to explain their behavior in acceptable ways. But in the end, the choices are made by our hormone levels. The latter sentence is true though, as most people want to conform, not stand out as someone who behaves differently from others in their groups, which mostly consist of individuals of their own generation. The correct answer to "Why don't you drink?" would be "I don't feel like it." or "It doesn't get me very happy.", but such honest answers are hard to come by. How can you explain something that the other person can't feel and thus can't really understand? It's difficult.

No cyclical populations of voles or lemmings have been offered alcohol, but mice for instance drink less alcohol when they have more oxytocin, so we're not that different from mice. But it is quite certain that if lemmings were given a steady supply of alcohol, they would drink it according to the oxytocin levels that vary according to their population cycle. And if they were asked why they don't drink (and they could communicate) during the high point of their oxytocin cycle, would they answer "It's because now we have higher oxytocin levels."? No, they would probably come up with different excuses for their behavior. This is why if one were to write a book about lemming generations, it would be basically Generations or The Fourth Turning of lemmings. This is why I believe that Strauss & Howe found the biological generational cycle of humans, but they didn't realize that it's all about cyclical hormone levels between generations. (And how could they have known, oxytocin and vasopressin are only now being seriously researched, their impact to social behavior was still almost a complete mystery during the 20th century.)

Humans think they're in charge of their lives, not hormones, but if that was the case, there would be no (unwanted) addiction, no obesity, no sex, no xenophobia, etc. Hormones have an effect how rewarding a day at work is, and this has been studied even on a tribal level in Bolivia. Testosterone levels go down after a hunt and oxytocin levels increase to make the hunters share their catch of the day with their family (and tribe if the catch is a big one). I believe that this is the basic mechanism why low oxytocin generations, Boomers and Gen X, want to share less with others, and keep more to themselves, and this is why they vote right and for lower taxes. Left leaning voters, Millennials and Gen Z, have a higher interest in sharing the catch, so they are more socialist and believe more in collective sharing. (An individual's life path of course has a large impact on this, and group think has an big impact, but once again, our groups mostly consist of individuals from our own generation, especially best friends, which is why a generations are so unified in their traits.)
Generational hormone theory: https://jannemiettinen.fi/FourthTurning/
Reply
#27
(09-07-2019, 06:53 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: What others might have the proclivity to do at times is stopped by the old people able to convince younger adults that it is a bad idea (I think of the GI Generation) to have a corrupt and irresponsible speculative boom.

The GI Generation was too young to understand the Great Depression. You mean the Lost Generation.
Reply
#28
(09-09-2019, 05:04 AM)Hintergrund Wrote:
(09-07-2019, 06:53 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: What others might have the proclivity to do at times is stopped by the old people able to convince younger adults that it is a bad idea (I think of the GI Generation) to have a corrupt and irresponsible speculative boom.

The GI Generation was too young to understand the Great Depression. You mean the Lost Generation.

The GI Generation was too young to participate in the bad behavior that created the Great Depression. Even a child of five years old (but not much younger) can understand that adults are investing heavily in securities on the assumption of easy money and can catch onto the fact that the markets implode in the Crash. Such is one divide between the GI and Silent generations. The GI generation had some recognition of the corrupt speculative boom, and the Silent knew only the Depression without knowing its cause first-hand. Children of a certain age have some perception, however flawed, of events that scare them in childhood -- and the GI Generation found the Market Crash scary. They may hone their knowledge over time, but childhood memories set one up for life.

Can you imagine such late-surviving GI figures as Bob Dole and Lee Iacocca promoting a speculative boom to create easy money fast for a few only for others to get stuck with the consequences of a financial panic? Well, they were off the scene in the Double-Zero decade. The cat is away, and the mice will play.
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.


Reply
#29
(09-07-2019, 05:00 PM)taramarie Wrote:
(09-07-2019, 09:33 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(09-06-2019, 08:04 AM)taramarie Wrote:
(09-06-2019, 07:08 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Could the cycle be that simple -- hormones in their own cycle?

No far more complex things going on of course. But then again I totally don't believe in this theory anyway.

Or could it be that the hormone cycle is a consequence of position in the saeculum? Could it be a feedback mechanism?

Typically every stage of the saeculum has at least three generations of adults with influence from workers starting families to geezers wielding the last vestiges of power and influence in society. 

Sometimes we confuse cause and effect.

Early motherhood is a norm when bread-winning husbands are paid well and non-working wives are common... and teenage marriage becomes economically viable due to a commonness of good pay for unskilled labor. But get hard times and people defer marriage and childbearing, because hardship the economic norm and women must go to work to ensure that two low incomes can be equivalent to one solid income. Low breast-feeding rates may relate to the "scientific" (really, commercial) advocacy of using cow's milk or baby formulas instead of relying upon breast milk. Alcohol and drug consumption fall off as they become old-hat and more infamous for ruin than delightful for fun. (Drug overdoses and people dying of binge drinking in their thirties make an effective warning to find fun and enlightenment by other means). In a 3T, people still rely upon hedonism because they are so spiritually-dead or spiritually-nuked that there is nothing else. When hedonism fails -- about when an economic bubble bursts (1857, 1929, 2008) -- then comes the time of the locust, the 4T.

Above all, populist nationalism appears when "stay-the-course" classical liberals have created extreme economic failure by telling people to go ahead and invest in bubbles that ultimately devour capital and quit giving a rate of return on capital. Or as Will Rogers put it during the early stages of the Great Depression: people were concerned about the rate of return on their capital when they instead should have been concerned about the return of their capital. Populist nationalism often results in scapegoating of what had recently been model minorities (like the definitive model minority, German Jews under Antichrist Hitler). The "model minorities" get the blame for what a bubble did even if the model minorities had nothing special to do with it.

As said I don't believe in that, but believe other things are going on here. I seriously don't believe in a hormone theory regarding generations.

As I think of it, hormones are more likely effect than cause, but they may intensify behaviors within the generational cycle. We may have a feed-back loop, at least temporarily.
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.


Reply
#30
pbrower2a, please give me some examples so I can assess your ideas. One very strong implication that the cycle is purely biological is by looking at animals. Some of the cyclical species don't have nurturing and they don't spend time with their families, like larch budmoths. But still they seem to have the same population cycle, and they have been cycling for thousands of years with an average 9.3 year cycle.

And I have never been able to understand how the Strauss & Howe generational cycle could maintain it's regularity of about 80 years through centuries of economic depressions, wars, famine, and other momentous occasions. It's just extremely difficult to see how social interactions between hundreds of millions of individuals could make a cycle that not only is connected to social behavior but also such things as parenting, alcohol usage and crime. And that the cycle would always happen at the same time in the same order no matter the environment. It's just next to impossible. I know this may sound like I'm attacking the Strauss & Howe generational theory, but like I said earlier, they couldn't have known that social hormones oxytocin and vasopressin are what are creating the generations and their traits. Supposedly.

What I'm getting to is that a natural biological cycle, that is not that different from menstrual cycle and puberty, explains every single aspect of the Strauss & Howe generational cycle. I've yet to have one question presented to me during this past year of going through this idea that the generational hormonal cycle couldn't explain. And more importantly, the statistical evidence is there to support this theory, which makes things even easier, as the statistics provide simple answers to complex questions like why prohibition happened during the 3rd turning of the previous cycle.

One extremely interesting aspect about oxytocin is that it even lessens the cravings towards alcohol, which means that individuals/generations with low oxytocin levels even think about alcohol more than those with higher oxytocin levels. This means that hormone levels define what we think about and how we think about it. I don't know how more clearly I can state that hormones not only influence but essentially decides the outcome of thought processes. On average, of course. But that's what generations are, averages of a personality with defined behavioral traits. I have good reason to believe that the four archetypes are actually four different hormone levels states.

But I don't want to sound too confident about all of this, and that is why I welcome all questions and wish to be challenged on all fronts of the theory - to see if it holds up to my expectations.
Generational hormone theory: https://jannemiettinen.fi/FourthTurning/
Reply
#31
(09-09-2019, 05:04 AM)Hintergrund Wrote:
(09-07-2019, 06:53 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: What others might have the proclivity to do at times is stopped by the old people able to convince younger adults that it is a bad idea (I think of the GI Generation) to have a corrupt and irresponsible speculative boom.

The GI Generation was too young to understand the Great Depression. You mean the Lost Generation.

My GI parents were born in 1914, graduated from high school at the bottom of the depression in 1932.  That alone changed every life plan either had. Believe me; they understood the depression in full.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#32
(09-09-2019, 09:39 AM)Ldr Wrote: pbrower2a, please give me some examples so I can assess your ideas. One very strong implication that the cycle is purely biological is by looking at animals. Some of the cyclical species don't have nurturing and they don't spend time with their families, like larch budmoths. But still they seem to have the same population cycle, and they have been cycling for thousands of years with an average 9.3 year cycle.

Larch budmoths do not make or use Greek fire, atom bombs, ICBMs, or the AK-47.  


Quote:And I have never been able to understand how the Strauss & Howe generational cycle could maintain it's regularity of about 80 years through centuries of economic depressions, wars, famine, and other momentous occasions. It's just extremely difficult to see how social interactions between hundreds of millions of individuals could make a cycle that not only is connected to social behavior but also such things as parenting, alcohol usage and crime. And that the cycle would always happen at the same time in the same order no matter the environment. It's just next to impossible. I know this may sound like I'm attacking the Strauss & Howe generational theory, but like I said earlier, they couldn't have known that social hormones oxytocin and vasopressin are what are creating the generations and their traits. Supposedly.

The cycle shows when depressions, famines, pogroms, and apocalyptic wars are most possible. It also shows when life revolves around picking up the pieces or feathering the nests, when intellectual ferment is most likely, and when people are most likely to take on Devil-may-care attitudes and believe that easy money is to be had by betting on paper profits. 


Quote:What I'm getting to is that a natural biological cycle, that is not that different from menstrual cycle and puberty, explains every single aspect of the Strauss & Howe generational cycle. I've yet to have one question presented to me during this past year of going through this idea that the generational hormonal cycle couldn't explain. And more importantly, the statistical evidence is there to support this theory, which makes things even easier, as the statistics provide simple answers to complex questions like why prohibition happened during the 3rd turning of the previous cycle.

The big natural cycle is that children are born, they get educated (or shunted into child labor), they start identifying themselves through mass culture that they create or that is created for them, they get adult responsibilities and have children, they  develop skills and build businesses, they get old and infirm, and they die. What they experience as children powerfully influences their core beliefs until dementia or death divests them of it. 

If hormones are involved, then do the different adult generations have different sets of hormones, especially ocytocin and vasopressin? Or do these matter most in the generation of young adults?

 

Quote:One extremely interesting aspect about oxytocin is that it even lessens the cravings towards alcohol, which means that individuals/generations with low oxytocin levels even think about alcohol more than those with higher oxytocin levels. This means that hormone levels define what we think about and how we think about it. I don't know how more clearly I can state that hormones not only influence but essentially decides the outcome of thought processes. On average, of course. But that's what generations are, averages of a personality with defined behavioral traits. I have good reason to believe that the four archetypes are actually four different hormone levels states.


OK. We all know about testosterone and and estrogen. My family had two golden cocker spaniels, and the difference between the two was stark. The difference was testosterone (male) and estrogen (female). The two dogs lived with the same family under similar circumstances. There was no reason for either to be different -- but they were.

Testosterone generally makes males more aggressive irrespective of the species. Maybe that explains why men are more likely to go into extremist movements such as fascism, Communism, Ku Kluxism, the Taliban, and ISIS. Maybe that explains why the principal defendants at the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials were all men. Although there were female war criminals in Hitlerland, those were brutal guards always subordinate to low-level male Nazi bosses. So, yes, hormones are not to be ignored. 

So the balance of hormones differs from one generation to another? That makes some sense.   

Quote:But I don't want to sound too confident about all of this, and that is why I welcome all questions and wish to be challenged on all fronts of the theory - to see if it holds up to my expectations.

You have a point; it needs more research.
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.


Reply
#33
(09-09-2019, 12:44 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Testosterone generally makes males more aggressive irrespective of the species. Maybe that explains why men are more likely to go into extremist movements such as fascism, Communism, Ku Kluxism, the Taliban, and ISIS. Maybe that explains why the principal defendants at the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials were all men. Although there were female war criminals in Hitlerland, those were brutal guards always subordinate to low-level male Nazi bosses. So, yes, hormones are not to be ignored. 

So the balance of hormones differs from one generation to another? That makes some sense.  

Yes, that is correct on principal. And since the Strauss & Howe generational cycle also has a part where the gap between sexes is narrower (3rd turning) and wider (1st turning), that does sound awfully lot like testosterone and estrogen might be having changing levels also. If you have doubts about this claim, here is an article on the subject, written by none other than Neil Howe: https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/20...c41bceb8b7

But testosterone currently does not fit the 80 year generational cycle, not yet at least.
Generational hormone theory: https://jannemiettinen.fi/FourthTurning/
Reply
#34
(09-09-2019, 01:38 PM)Ldr Wrote:
(09-09-2019, 12:44 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Testosterone generally makes males more aggressive irrespective of the species. Maybe that explains why men are more likely to go into extremist movements such as fascism, Communism, Ku Kluxism, the Taliban, and ISIS. Maybe that explains why the principal defendants at the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials were all men. Although there were female war criminals in Hitlerland, those were brutal guards always subordinate to low-level male Nazi bosses. So, yes, hormones are not to be ignored. 

So the balance of hormones differs from one generation to another? That makes some sense.  

Yes, that is correct on principal. And since the Strauss & Howe generational cycle also has a part where the gap between sexes is narrower (3rd turning) and wider (1st turning), that does sound awfully lot like testosterone and estrogen might be having changing levels also.

If you have doubts about this claim, here is an article on the subject, written by none other than Neil Howe: https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/20...41bceb8b7f

No cycle needed.  We're basically poisoning ourselves in a somewhat novel manner.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3901878/
---Value Added Cool
Reply
#35
I wish this discussion wouldn't go to testosterone, as it is a highly misunderstood hormone, and it is not incorporated in the generational hormone theory at the moment. Gender differences always spark a conversation, but this is not a good place for that.
Generational hormone theory: https://jannemiettinen.fi/FourthTurning/
Reply
#36
(09-09-2019, 02:14 PM)Ldr Wrote: I wish this discussion wouldn't go to testosterone, as it is a highly misunderstood hormone, and it is not incorporated in the generational hormone theory at the moment. Gender differences always spark a conversation, but this is not a good place for that.

It's hard to avoid in these gender-sensitive times.  I agree, it's not helpful.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#37
(09-09-2019, 02:14 PM)Ldr Wrote: I wish this discussion wouldn't go to testosterone, as it is a highly misunderstood hormone, and it is not incorporated in the generational hormone theory at the moment. Gender differences always spark a conversation, but this is not a good place for that.

Ugghhh.   Xenobiotics are pollution which come from the petrochemical industry. The main source that's everywhere is plastics.  These chemicals aren't confined to screwing up just testosterone.  They make folks fat and diabetic from screwing insulin signaling. They cause cancer by screwing up all sorts of signaling. They screw up thyroid signaling, and the list goes on. Like I said, there is no cycle wrt hormones because petrochemicals of all sort are stomping all over them.  IOW, for this cycle, the signal to noise ratio makes any patterns non reliable.

And, I suppose this another real problem that will get obliterated in the culture wars.We're going down. Let's face it, we're insane. And the old going  says.   Those the gods wish to destroy, they first make insane.
---Value Added Cool
Reply
#38
(09-09-2019, 02:14 PM)Ldr Wrote: I wish this discussion wouldn't go to testosterone, as it is a highly misunderstood hormone, and it is not incorporated in the generational hormone theory at the moment. Gender differences always spark a conversation, but this is not a good place for that.

That is why I spoke of two dogs, seemingly differing by gender and little else. But other hormones were brought up in the discussion.

I consider exaggerated masculinity more a threat than a boon, especially when we have nukes already in place.  There was hardly a more exaggeratedly masculine man than Benito Mussolini.
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.


Reply
#39
(09-09-2019, 03:30 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:
(09-09-2019, 02:14 PM)Ldr Wrote: I wish this discussion wouldn't go to testosterone, as it is a highly misunderstood hormone, and it is not incorporated in the generational hormone theory at the moment. Gender differences always spark a conversation, but this is not a good place for that.

Ugghhh.   Xenobiotics are pollution which come from the petrochemical industry. The main source that's everywhere is plastics.  These chemicals aren't confined to screwing up just testosterone.  They make folks fat and diabetic from screwing insulin signaling. They cause cancer by screwing up all sorts of signaling. They screw up thyroid signaling, and the list goes on.

The problem with these claims is that there isn't a single study that ties these chemicals to changes in the general population. There are lots of allegations and speculation, just like to why populist nationalism and xenophobia are rising, but not even one study that would have led to any real suggestions what is the reason and what is the solution. And especially when these changes are global, all of the explanations fall short really fast. And history is rarely even taken into account. It's like they're suggesting that if you make a soup of all of the proposed explanations, that soup will explain the changes, once all the ingredients are mixed together.

But I don't buy this, at all. Because if you can't prove even one of the claims, how do you expect me to believe that the rest of them have any more meaningful influence? And a mix of them somehow solves all or at least most problems/questions at hand? No. It's a house of cards. In a bowl of soup.

So claiming that testosterone levels are down because of pollution from factories, products, etc. is pretty much the same as claiming that the age of puberty is going down because of children are fatter, which I've seen a lot of scientists assume. There is some slight correlation between the two, but in the end, age of puberty had been 12 years also in the middle ages, and it's pretty obvious that the kids were more likely to starve to death than have obesity back then. The age of puberty has changed greatly during the past centuries (from about 15 to about 12), and it has done so previously in history. And these changes have been largely in sync among populations, especially during modern times, which leads me to suspect that there may be a connection to the proposed hormone cycle between generations.

What I'm getting at is that the chemicals could have some effect, but one has to look beyond the past two centuries in order to understand the real scope of these hormonal and biological changes. And since the petrochemical industry consisted mostly of snake oils in the 16th century England, where the Strauss & Howe generational cycle is detectable, chemicals probably have little to do with the generational cycle, or testosterone levels. (I'm not claiming that chemicals don't have an effect, as they most definitely do have effects that science isn't aware of yet, and they compound inside individuals. But still, you have to take history into account before making rushed judgements.)
Generational hormone theory: https://jannemiettinen.fi/FourthTurning/
Reply
#40
(09-09-2019, 09:44 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(09-09-2019, 05:04 AM)Hintergrund Wrote:
(09-07-2019, 06:53 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: What others might have the proclivity to do at times is stopped by the old people able to convince younger adults that it is a bad idea (I think of the GI Generation) to have a corrupt and irresponsible speculative boom.

The GI Generation was too young to understand the Great Depression. You mean the Lost Generation.

My GI parents were born in 1914, graduated from high school at the bottom of the depression in 1932.  That alone changed every life plan either had.  Believe me; they understood the depression in full.

Nothing against your grandparents, but I don't think they understood the situation as well as an insider of Wall Street. This is what I meant.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)