Where did the US screw up?

[QuirkyCarla]

Teejay and I need to trade places. He can live in the USA, and I'll live in Australia.

[Rabbit From Hell]

When it elected bIll cLinton.

[Calandale]

When it elected bIll cLinton.

Nah. Jackson was worse. Far worse.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

It all looked so promising.  The US had mastered the atom and nuked Japan into submission.  The hard sciences were widely respected and scientists revered.  The old days of witch-burning seemed a thing of the past as the US embraced scientific endeavour as never before.

60 years on, we have this:

Welcome to Idiot America.

We've been attacked," he says, "by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture."

What happened?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generational_theory

[Jack]

That was interesting.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

And kinda frightening too.

If the cycle holds up there will be a major war in the next decade or so.

I forget how I stumbled across this, but it follows a saying/meme that has been popular on Facebook as of late.

"Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, weak men create hard times".

[Jack]

Maybe the current war is the war.

"Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, weak men create hard times".

That's a good quote.

[Pyraxis]

The site lists the war on terror as being part of the same phase of the cycle as WW2 and the American Civil war in previous cycles, but being in the midst of it, I have to agree it doesn't seem as all-encompassing. Maybe there's indeed worse to come.

[odeon]

http://peterlevine.ws/?p=8143

[Jack]

http://peterlevine.ws/?p=8143

It would be interesting to test the personality types. Think the nomad description describes my generation well. GenX is the latch key kid generation, labeled as lost and unguided in youth, labeled independent and entrepreneurial as young adults, and now the stability of the modern-day workforce.

[Pyraxis]

http://peterlevine.ws/?p=8143

The critiques he applies to it are kind of short-sighted, though. Like pointing out the logical flaw in assigning people to 20-year generational blocks, where someone born on the cusp of one will supposedly more resemble someone born 19 years earlier than 1 year later. True, if it were strictly black and white, but tendencies like that are more likely to manifest as bell curves.

I'm also not clear on why he insists the generational theory must be a "better" predictor than birth year. One would assume there are smaller trends within each larger trend, and those could cause unexplained spikes.

[Jack]

The critiques he applies to it are kind of short-sighted, though.

Didn't even view it as a critique. The article seemed to say, here's an explanation of the theory, someone should test the theory, someone other than the author should test it though, but here's an article about an idea of how to test it.

[Lestat]

Absolutely, raxy! because it isn't the year or period itself that causes any effects, its the circumstances prevailing WITHIN said time periods and such modifiers as the reasons for them and how they are reacted to, which are going to cause end effects; not simply 'oh, XYZ is from ABC generation', when they were born only influences what kinds of environment they are exposed to and in and of itself is not a direct causative agency.


As for smaller trends winthin larger ones, i agree; on the grounds that unless one specific factor is so highly determinative as to outcome, to in and of itself be the direct cause, the cause of any effect is likely to be an aggregate of multiple interplaying causes and effects of lesser magnitude, IMO its neither birth year or 'generational block', but the specific interplay of factors most prevalent in the environment of a given individual which relate to that individual.

[Gopher Gary]

I feel like everyone in this thread is having their own individual conversation, so I don't understand what's being said. 

[Lestat]

You aren't setting the bar very high are you, fur-face?