Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Name people who were anomalies for their generation
#41
(11-15-2018, 11:53 AM)Marypoza Wrote:
(11-15-2018, 06:44 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:
(11-14-2018, 09:33 AM)Hintergrund Wrote:
(09-16-2018, 09:12 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: Tolkien (born 1892) was not a Lost at all. With his ecological sensitivity and whimsical hobby of constructing Elvish languages, he looks like a proto-Silent.

He was from South Africa, don't forget that. Some of them participated in the World Wars, but were those wars a real threat for SA? The events which shaped SA most were a) the Boer Wars and b) the end of apartheid, for better or for worse. Their last big change was in 1994, not 1945.


Checking: The Boer War went from 1899-1902. Tolkien was a kid then, and his parents would have protected him. Yes, fits that he became an Artist.

I had a conversation with a South African on Personality Cafe, and he also claimed the SA saeculum is out of sync with the UK/US one.

-- it's stuff like this which makes me wonder about S&H theory. If our saecula cycle derives from the British one, shouldn't that hold true 4 Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, & some other places the Brits went? We should all be in sync.

I think that we ARE all in synch. After World War Two we became one global society, and that process actually started in the 1890s when imperialism reached its climax.

You can see the commonalities among peoples now to an increasing degree on the cycle. Right now we see a typical 4T trend toward reaction, tyranny and racism all over the world. And I think the global movements especially among the young of rising people power will soon break through into a new progressive trend in the next decade.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#42
(09-14-2019, 06:28 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I think that we ARE all in synch. After World War Two we became one global society, and that process actually started in the 1890s when imperialism reached its climax.


You can see the commonalities among peoples now to an increasing degree on the cycle. Right now we see a typical 4T trend toward reaction, tyranny and racism all over the world. And I think the global movements especially among the young of rising people power will soon break through into a new progressive trend in the next decade.

The Second World War was ultimately the climax of the late-19th century effort to colonize the world, at least in the Pacific "theater". Except for China, almost all of that war was in colonies of European powers and Japan (which assimilated the colonial ethos) -- Indochina, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Burma, and French, British, and Australian insular possessions. Do not forget that Alaska (Attu and Kiska were occupied shortly by Japan) and Hawaii (Battle of Midway, and remember Pearl Harbor!) were colonies of the United States. At the end of the war the Soviet Union moved into Japanese frontier areas such as the Kuril Islands, southern Sakhalin (taken by Japan from Imperial Russia in 1906), and the effective colony of Manchukuo and brutally-treated Korea. 

Much of the struggle between the Axis and Allied Powers was in colonial Africa, including the British puppet state of Egypt and the French and Italian colonies. Syria  and Lebanon had a struggle between the Free French and the Vichy regime for dominance, with the Free French yielding independence to both countries to keep them out of Axis hands. Nazi conquests were an attempt to turn most of Europe into a frontier for German expansion -- note well that Hitler was an avid reader of Western stories of struggles between white settlers and 'barbarous savages' in the works of Karl May. Hitler chose to treat such people as Poles and Ukrainians as  'barbarous savages' who would lose all relevance in the new zones of German Lebensraum.  Hitler played his own game of Cowboys and Indians -- with the Poles and Jews as Indians.    

World War II is so horrific that except for Latin America and very isolated parts of Africa it or its sequels (independence struggles for South and Southeast Asia. Communist takeovers of central and Balkan Europe and the Chinese and Greek civil wars) that it effectively creates a reset for much of the world. Little could be more a Crisis than a Communist takeover that utterly destroys the old economic elites and imposes a Marxist cover on all culture. 

I am tempted to believe that the efforts of Trump, Orban, and Bolsonaro to establish illiberal pseudo-democracies will implode. People do not want to suffer for economic elites.
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
#43
(09-14-2019, 10:09 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Nazi conquests were an attempt to turn most of Europe into a frontier for German expansion -- note well that Hitler was an avid reader of Western stories of struggles between white settlers and 'barbarous savages' in the works of Karl May. Hitler chose to treat such people as Poles and Ukrainians as  'barbarous savages' who would lose all relevance in the new zones of German Lebensraum.  Hitler played his own game of Cowboys and Indians -- with the Poles and Jews as Indians.

Except for the fact that the nazis actually liked the Indians. Winnetou the Apache chief is a good character.
Reply
#44
Many others who and I have done research into turnings and generations in various societies across the world. Argue that not all the world is on the same saeculum as us. Some of us have lived in some of these societies and can be considered ‘on the ground’ observers. I consider myself as an ‘on ground’ observer for Australia and can argue that our generations are 5-6 years younger than North America’s.

Therefore; when you encounter a public figure from a society which does not have the same saeculum as ours, you need to consider how they fit archetypically wise with their society.
For example; Ali Khamenei (1939), Alexander Lukashenko (1954) and Vladimir Putin (1952) have very Reactive personalities. However, they are all members of their society’s Reactive generations, which were born roughly from the late 1930s to late 1950s (roughly). Going back into the histories of these regions, it explains why both Lenin and Stalin had personalities consistent with that of members of a Reactive generation, well they were members of their societies Reactive generation. The same went for Ataturk (1981), Khrushchev (1894) and an contemporary example Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (1956) having Civic personalities, well they were members of their societies Civic Generations. To give another example; South Africa Trevor Noah seems to have an adaptive personality, well South Africans born from say the early 1970s to early 1990s, belong to an Adaptive generation which grew up in a Crisis. Also, you need to account for turning and generation boundaries in societies, even those on roughly the same saeculum as ours.

However; every generation is composed of people of every archetype, however one archetype dominates each generation. But you need to know what a particular society's generational lineup is like as well.
Reply
#45
(11-19-2019, 01:45 AM)Teejay Wrote: Many others who and I have done research into turnings and generations in various societies across the world. Argue that not all the world is on the same saeculum as us. Some of us have lived in some of these societies and can be considered ‘on the ground’ observers. I consider myself as an ‘on ground’ observer for Australia and can argue that our generations are 5-6 years younger than North America’s.

Therefore; when you encounter a public figure from a society which does not have the same saeculum as ours, you need to consider how they fit archetypically wise with their society.
For example; Ali Khamenei (1939), Alexander Lukashenko (1954) and Vladimir Putin (1952) have very Reactive personalities. However, they are all members of their society’s Reactive generations, which were born roughly from the late 1930s to late 1950s (roughly). Going back into the histories of these regions, it explains why both Lenin and Stalin had personalities consistent with that of members of a Reactive generation, well they were members of their societies Reactive generation. The same went for Ataturk (1981), Khrushchev (1894) and an contemporary example Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (1956) having Civic personalities, well they were members of their societies Civic Generations. To give another example; South Africa Trevor Noah seems to have an adaptive personality, well South Africans born from say the early 1970s to early 1990s, belong to an Adaptive generation which grew up in a Crisis. Also, you need to account for turning and generation boundaries in societies, even those on roughly the same saeculum as ours.

However; every generation is composed of people of every archetype, however one archetype dominates each generation. But you need to know what a particular society's generational lineup is like as well.

Since every generation has people of every archetype, what would cause someone to fall outside of their archetype like someone born in 1979 in the USA that was like a prophet in personality and views?
Reply
#46
(11-19-2019, 03:57 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote:
(11-19-2019, 01:45 AM)Teejay Wrote: Many others who and I have done research into turnings and generations in various societies across the world. Argue that not all the world is on the same saeculum as us. Some of us have lived in some of these societies and can be considered ‘on the ground’ observers. I consider myself as an ‘on ground’ observer for Australia and can argue that our generations are 5-6 years younger than North America’s.

Therefore; when you encounter a public figure from a society which does not have the same saeculum as ours, you need to consider how they fit archetypically wise with their society.
For example; Ali Khamenei (1939), Alexander Lukashenko (1954) and Vladimir Putin (1952) have very Reactive personalities. However, they are all members of their society’s Reactive generations, which were born roughly from the late 1930s to late 1950s (roughly). Going back into the histories of these regions, it explains why both Lenin and Stalin had personalities consistent with that of members of a Reactive generation, well they were members of their societies Reactive generation. The same went for Ataturk (1981), Khrushchev (1894) and an contemporary example Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (1956) having Civic personalities, well they were members of their societies Civic Generations.  To give another example; South Africa Trevor Noah seems to have an adaptive personality, well South Africans born from say the early 1970s to early 1990s, belong to an Adaptive generation which grew up in a Crisis. Also, you need to account for turning and generation boundaries in societies, even those on roughly the same saeculum as ours.

However; every generation is composed of people of every archetype, however one archetype dominates each generation. But you need to know what a particular society's generational lineup is like as well.

Since every generation has people of every archetype, what would cause someone to fall outside of their archetype like  someone born in 1979 in the USA that was like a prophet in personality and views?

Possible explanation: Their parents also were exceptions. Or they grew up in a different country.
Reply
#47
(11-20-2019, 02:56 AM)Hintergrund Wrote:
(11-19-2019, 03:57 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote: Since every generation has people of every archetype, what would cause someone to fall outside of their archetype like  someone born in 1979 in the USA that was like a prophet in personality and views?

Possible explanation: Their parents also were exceptions. Or they grew up in a different country.

There are more mundane alternatives too. Any family can be subject to illness. Any town, to natural disaster. Likewise, unexpected good fortune has the opposite effect. Life has plenty of randomness just living through it.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#48
(11-19-2019, 03:57 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote:
(11-19-2019, 01:45 AM)Teejay Wrote: Many others who and I have done research into turnings and generations in various societies across the world. Argue that not all the world is on the same saeculum as us. Some of us have lived in some of these societies and can be considered ‘on the ground’ observers. I consider myself as an ‘on ground’ observer for Australia and can argue that our generations are 5-6 years younger than North America’s.

Therefore; when you encounter a public figure from a society which does not have the same saeculum as ours, you need to consider how they fit archetypically wise with their society.
For example; Ali Khamenei (1939), Alexander Lukashenko (1954) and Vladimir Putin (1952) have very Reactive personalities. However, they are all members of their society’s Reactive generations, which were born roughly from the late 1930s to late 1950s (roughly). Going back into the histories of these regions, it explains why both Lenin and Stalin had personalities consistent with that of members of a Reactive generation, well they were members of their societies Reactive generation. The same went for Ataturk (1981), Khrushchev (1894) and an contemporary example Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (1956) having Civic personalities, well they were members of their societies Civic Generations.  To give another example; South Africa Trevor Noah seems to have an adaptive personality, well South Africans born from say the early 1970s to early 1990s, belong to an Adaptive generation which grew up in a Crisis. Also, you need to account for turning and generation boundaries in societies, even those on roughly the same saeculum as ours.

However; every generation is composed of people of every archetype, however one archetype dominates each generation. But you need to know what a particular society's generational lineup is like as well.

Since every generation has people of every archetype, what would cause someone to fall outside of their archetype like  someone born in 1979 in the USA that was like a prophet in personality and views?


It's extremely unlikely that an American born in 1979 will have similar experiences to a German born in 1979.
Reply
#49
I'm torn on whether Martin Luther King Jr. could be considered an anomaly. He was born in the Silent Generation right as the Great Depression was getting started, but seems like he fits more with the Prophet archetype in terms of being a 2T religious awakening leader. He would fit in well with the likes of Martin Luther and George Whitfield in that regard. "I Have a Dream" is also a very idealistic speech to give. But at the same time, I'm also not sure how unusual it is for Artists to pursue careers in religious work.
Reply
#50
(11-21-2019, 07:08 PM)ResidentArtist Wrote: I'm torn on whether Martin Luther King Jr. could be considered an anomaly. He was born in the Silent Generation right as the Great Depression was getting started, but seems like he fits more with the Prophet archetype in terms of being a 2T religious awakening leader. He would fit in well with the likes of Martin Luther and George Whitfield in that regard. "I Have a Dream" is also a very idealistic speech to give. But at the same time, I'm also not sure how unusual it is for Artists to pursue careers in religious work.

The term Avant Gard exists because some people are just ahead of the pack from day one.  For those wearing the Prophet archetype out of season, most tend to be Cassandras.  MLK was a true exception to that, although he didn't live to see his work fulfilled.  It's still a work in progress, but one fully recognized as much more than just aspirational. It's a must, and the Millennials, Homelanders and their children seem destined to complete the mission.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#51
(11-20-2019, 06:38 PM)Ghost Wrote:
(11-19-2019, 03:57 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote:
(11-19-2019, 01:45 AM)Teejay Wrote: Many others who and I have done research into turnings and generations in various societies across the world. Argue that not all the world is on the same saeculum as us. Some of us have lived in some of these societies and can be considered ‘on the ground’ observers. I consider myself as an ‘on ground’ observer for Australia and can argue that our generations are 5-6 years younger than North America’s.

Therefore; when you encounter a public figure from a society which does not have the same saeculum as ours, you need to consider how they fit archetypically wise with their society.
For example; Ali Khamenei (1939), Alexander Lukashenko (1954) and Vladimir Putin (1952) have very Reactive personalities. However, they are all members of their society’s Reactive generations, which were born roughly from the late 1930s to late 1950s (roughly). Going back into the histories of these regions, it explains why both Lenin and Stalin had personalities consistent with that of members of a Reactive generation, well they were members of their societies Reactive generation. The same went for Ataturk (1981), Khrushchev (1894) and an contemporary example Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (1956) having Civic personalities, well they were members of their societies Civic Generations.  To give another example; South Africa Trevor Noah seems to have an adaptive personality, well South Africans born from say the early 1970s to early 1990s, belong to an Adaptive generation which grew up in a Crisis. Also, you need to account for turning and generation boundaries in societies, even those on roughly the same saeculum as ours.

However; every generation is composed of people of every archetype, however one archetype dominates each generation. But you need to know what a particular society's generational lineup is like as well.

Since every generation has people of every archetype, what would cause someone to fall outside of their archetype like  someone born in 1979 in the USA that was like a prophet in personality and views?


It's extremely unlikely that an American born in 1979 will have similar experiences to a German born in 1979.

They watched the same movies and TV series, played with the same toys and games, ate the same junkfood, were afraid of Chernobyl/WW3/no pensions for them... they may have more things in common than things not in common.
Reply
#52
(10-24-2018, 11:40 PM)Teejay Wrote:
(03-04-2017, 04:31 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(03-02-2017, 02:58 AM)disasterzone Wrote: For the GI Generation, Betty Freidan 

For Xer Anderson Cooper. 


Any other examples come to mind?

Van Jones seems to have escaped the cynicism of the X Generation. I'm sure there's others too, like Kirsten Gillibrand. But they may be typical nomads in other ways.

Perhaps David Bowie was a prophet who was like an Xer ahead of his time.

I am assuming that the Generation 68' (European Boomers) had their first cohort in 1947. David Bowie born in the first cohort of this generation.

The latest and most used year for the starting date of Baby Boomers is 1946 because that was the start of the rise in the birth rates after WWII.

I have seen dates as early as 1937 being used because it is the first year after birth rates hit its lowest point in 1936. Probably an unrelated reason, but 1937 borns were also the first to start elementary school after Pearl Harbor.
Reply
#53
(11-26-2019, 08:43 AM)Hintergrund Wrote:
(11-20-2019, 06:38 PM)Ghost Wrote:
(11-19-2019, 03:57 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote:
(11-19-2019, 01:45 AM)Teejay Wrote: Many others who and I have done research into turnings and generations in various societies across the world. Argue that not all the world is on the same saeculum as us. Some of us have lived in some of these societies and can be considered ‘on the ground’ observers. I consider myself as an ‘on ground’ observer for Australia and can argue that our generations are 5-6 years younger than North America’s.

Therefore; when you encounter a public figure from a society which does not have the same saeculum as ours, you need to consider how they fit archetypically wise with their society.
For example; Ali Khamenei (1939), Alexander Lukashenko (1954) and Vladimir Putin (1952) have very Reactive personalities. However, they are all members of their society’s Reactive generations, which were born roughly from the late 1930s to late 1950s (roughly). Going back into the histories of these regions, it explains why both Lenin and Stalin had personalities consistent with that of members of a Reactive generation, well they were members of their societies Reactive generation. The same went for Ataturk (1981), Khrushchev (1894) and an contemporary example Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (1956) having Civic personalities, well they were members of their societies Civic Generations.  To give another example; South Africa Trevor Noah seems to have an adaptive personality, well South Africans born from say the early 1970s to early 1990s, belong to an Adaptive generation which grew up in a Crisis. Also, you need to account for turning and generation boundaries in societies, even those on roughly the same saeculum as ours.

However; every generation is composed of people of every archetype, however one archetype dominates each generation. But you need to know what a particular society's generational lineup is like as well.

Since every generation has people of every archetype, what would cause someone to fall outside of their archetype like  someone born in 1979 in the USA that was like a prophet in personality and views?


It's extremely unlikely that an American born in 1979 will have similar experiences to a German born in 1979.

They watched the same movies and TV series, played with the same toys and games, ate the same junkfood, were afraid of Chernobyl/WW3/no pensions for them... they may have more things in common than things not in common.

You're correct about that, but I don't think that German politics are/were similar to American politics.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Who is more religious? The Silent Generation or the Boomer Generation? AspieMillennial 10 314 01-18-2020, 09:08 AM
Last Post: AspieMillennial
  Why does Gen X act like they are the generation most impacted by abortion? AspieMillennial 7 434 11-28-2019, 11:23 AM
Last Post: David Horn
  Choosing your generation? Bill the Piper 62 4,672 11-26-2019, 08:55 AM
Last Post: Hintergrund
  Generation Z = / = Homelander? Ghost 44 2,509 11-18-2019, 09:01 AM
Last Post: Hintergrund
  The "Bad Apples" of each generation Ghost 52 9,847 09-19-2019, 05:54 PM
Last Post: Ghost
  Silent Generation Sub Forum sbarrera 8 628 08-19-2019, 08:01 PM
Last Post: Hintergrund
  Generation is a social construct and doesn't tell all experiences AspieMillennial 3 404 08-14-2019, 08:30 AM
Last Post: Hintergrund
  How does the Fourth Turning produce unity in the end when 4T people are terrible? AspieMillennial 7 737 05-18-2019, 08:25 PM
Last Post: Hintergrund
  Why do people think you need a giant social movement to search for obscure things? AspieMillennial 13 1,131 05-03-2019, 10:46 AM
Last Post: AspieMillennial
  Controlling Cohort in Each Generation jleagans 17 2,971 02-06-2019, 10:38 AM
Last Post: Hintergrund

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)