Where did the US screw up?

[odeon]

I think looking at what people have picked out for generational patterns is food for thought, whether or not there's any direction causation.

Agreed. Even if it's 500 years of coincidence, it's still very interesting.

It's 500 years of hindsight. If you're looking for patterns, you will find them. It's how our brains work.

[odeon]

No you didn't. You provided a postmodernist, gobbledygook attempt at critical theory.

Why do you apply one set of standards to me and another to yourself?

I know what I posted, and why. You don't.

[Jack]

I think looking at what people have picked out for generational patterns is food for thought, whether or not there's any direction causation.

Agreed. Even if it's 500 years of coincidence, it's still very interesting.

It's 500 years of hindsight. If you're looking for patterns, you will find them. It's how our brains work.

Isn't hindsight supposed to be 20/20? Still not sure what that's supposed to imply. Looking for a pattern and finding one doesn't negate the pattern. Sociological theories are based in hindsight and patterns; there's not much avoiding that.

[Al Swearegen]

No you didn't. You provided a postmodernist, gobbledygook attempt at critical theory.

Why do you apply one set of standards to me and another to yourself?

I know what I posted, and why. You don't.

I disagree. (NO I am not "having a go")

Scrap has the ability to undercut himself and his premises by generalisations or looking at things a little selectively. That may be a little on him. HOWEVER, though it may mean that exceptions to his blanket claims or that things may need to be made less generalisation and more specific, these are not a denunciation of his claims.

For example, Him saying that it does not require a majority of society to change the society and culture and that a large minority can do this well, such as the well established SJWs in Media, Academia, and Hollywood or the handful of Nazis that took over Germany.

Now to say "There were not a handful of Nazis because there were 2 million is deliberately missing the thrust of what is a good argument to haggle over a redundant claim (which I also disagree with). He does not care to haggle over minutiae and that one point does not negate his argument nor does it mean his points on the matter are stupid. As with most of his claims of this nature, he is broad right or broadly the topic is worth considering irrespective of whether he disclaims every exception and anomaly and whether he is specific or not.

Scrap is smart. Not sure how he stacks up here but he is not the dumbest and no one here is particularly dumb.

[El]

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

Took me a little hunting around to be totally sure he wasn't the same guys as this guy:  https://somaticexperiencing.com/category/about-peter/

(also, another site with text in raleway!)

[Pyraxis]

I think looking at what people have picked out for generational patterns is food for thought, whether or not there's any direction causation.

Agreed. Even if it's 500 years of coincidence, it's still very interesting.

It's 500 years of hindsight. If you're looking for patterns, you will find them. It's how our brains work.

If you're schizophrenic. If you're not, you've got a better chance of discerning a valid pattern from a wishful one.

[odeon]

I think looking at what people have picked out for generational patterns is food for thought, whether or not there's any direction causation.

Agreed. Even if it's 500 years of coincidence, it's still very interesting.

It's 500 years of hindsight. If you're looking for patterns, you will find them. It's how our brains work.

Isn't hindsight supposed to be 20/20? Still not sure what that's supposed to imply. Looking for a pattern and finding one doesn't negate the pattern. Sociological theories are based in hindsight and patterns; there's not much avoiding that.

To put it slightly differently: there are about five or six thousand visible stars in the night sky. Connecting a few of them to form suitable patterns was not a difficult task for our ancestors and there were still many left. This is pretty much the same. You find patterns because you are looking for them. Hindsight is indeed 20/20.

[odeon]

No you didn't. You provided a postmodernist, gobbledygook attempt at critical theory.

Why do you apply one set of standards to me and another to yourself?

I know what I posted, and why. You don't.

I disagree. (NO I am not "having a go")

Scrap has the ability to undercut himself and his premises by generalisations or looking at things a little selectively. That may be a little on him. HOWEVER, though it may mean that exceptions to his blanket claims or that things may need to be made less generalisation and more specific, these are not a denunciation of his claims.

For example, Him saying that it does not require a majority of society to change the society and culture and that a large minority can do this well, such as the well established SJWs in Media, Academia, and Hollywood or the handful of Nazis that took over Germany.

Now to say "There were not a handful of Nazis because there were 2 million is deliberately missing the thrust of what is a good argument to haggle over a redundant claim (which I also disagree with). He does not care to haggle over minutiae and that one point does not negate his argument nor does it mean his points on the matter are stupid. As with most of his claims of this nature, he is broad right or broadly the topic is worth considering irrespective of whether he disclaims every exception and anomaly and whether he is specific or not.

Scrap is smart. Not sure how he stacks up here but he is not the dumbest and no one here is particularly dumb.

"A handful of Nazis" is a rubbish argument because the premise is misleading: two million is not a handful, regardless of how you see it, and those were just the registered members. In 1933, the party got around 40% of the votes (I don't remember the numbers more precisely and can't be arsed to look them up), so they had plenty of supporters. You don't have to be registered to be a Nazi, you only have to vote for them.

But it's also misleading because the sentiment of the suggestion is that a significant portion of the German were somehow actively opposed to them (as in "not Nazis while aware of the situation") and that's just not true.

So no; you may think that Scrap is smart but I disagree. He is a lot of hot air, a lot of internet wisdom, but very little actual insight.

[odeon]

I think looking at what people have picked out for generational patterns is food for thought, whether or not there's any direction causation.

Agreed. Even if it's 500 years of coincidence, it's still very interesting.

It's 500 years of hindsight. If you're looking for patterns, you will find them. It's how our brains work.

If you're schizophrenic. If you're not, you've got a better chance of discerning a valid pattern from a wishful one.

Oh yes, but our pattern matching capabilities are significant, regardless. I don't know if it is a hardware feature or just the OS, but it's how our brains get by. It's how we can ignore a hole in our field of vision, just to pick one example.

[Jack]

I think looking at what people have picked out for generational patterns is food for thought, whether or not there's any direction causation.

Agreed. Even if it's 500 years of coincidence, it's still very interesting.

It's 500 years of hindsight. If you're looking for patterns, you will find them. It's how our brains work.

Isn't hindsight supposed to be 20/20? Still not sure what that's supposed to imply. Looking for a pattern and finding one doesn't negate the pattern. Sociological theories are based in hindsight and patterns; there's not much avoiding that.

To put it slightly differently: there are about five or six thousand visible stars in the night sky. Connecting a few of them to form suitable patterns was not a difficult task for our ancestors and there were still many left. This is pretty much the same. You find patterns because you are looking for them. Hindsight is indeed 20/20.

Still not sure what you're trying to say. Sociology is crap? Probably on some level, sure.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

From bondage to spiritual faith;
 from spiritual faith to great courage;
 from courage to liberty;
 from liberty to abundance;
 from abundance to selfishness;
 from selfishness to apathy;
 from apathy to dependence;
 from dependency back again into bondage."

[odeon]

I think looking at what people have picked out for generational patterns is food for thought, whether or not there's any direction causation.

Agreed. Even if it's 500 years of coincidence, it's still very interesting.

It's 500 years of hindsight. If you're looking for patterns, you will find them. It's how our brains work.

Isn't hindsight supposed to be 20/20? Still not sure what that's supposed to imply. Looking for a pattern and finding one doesn't negate the pattern. Sociological theories are based in hindsight and patterns; there's not much avoiding that.

To put it slightly differently: there are about five or six thousand visible stars in the night sky. Connecting a few of them to form suitable patterns was not a difficult task for our ancestors and there were still many left. This is pretty much the same. You find patterns because you are looking for them. Hindsight is indeed 20/20.

Still not sure what you're trying to say. Sociology is crap? Probably on some level, sure.

I'm saying that most theories like this one probably are.

[Jack]

I think looking at what people have picked out for generational patterns is food for thought, whether or not there's any direction causation.

Agreed. Even if it's 500 years of coincidence, it's still very interesting.

It's 500 years of hindsight. If you're looking for patterns, you will find them. It's how our brains work.

Isn't hindsight supposed to be 20/20? Still not sure what that's supposed to imply. Looking for a pattern and finding one doesn't negate the pattern. Sociological theories are based in hindsight and patterns; there's not much avoiding that.

To put it slightly differently: there are about five or six thousand visible stars in the night sky. Connecting a few of them to form suitable patterns was not a difficult task for our ancestors and there were still many left. This is pretty much the same. You find patterns because you are looking for them. Hindsight is indeed 20/20.

Still not sure what you're trying to say. Sociology is crap? Probably on some level, sure.

I'm saying that most theories like this one probably are.

Didn't even know there's other theories like this one. Is there something about it that strikes as incorrect?

[odeon]

Beyond the 500-year hindsight, you mean?

[Jack]

Beyond the 500-year hindsight, you mean?

Yes. 500 years of hindsight doesn't make it incorrect or invalidate anything about it. Hindsight is not a critique of the theory, but rather sociological theory in general because the past is all anyone can study. Help me out here. This is the only conversation this place has going for it right now.