Where did the US screw up?

[Al Swearegen]

First thing I notice is that the length of generations is extremely rubbery, between 16 and 29 years for the generations presented on Wikipedia. It’s almost as if those lengths are adjusted to make the available information fit the theory. Okay, not almost – that appears to be exactly what they have done.

Generation time spans can sometimes vary slightly by source, but the generation years column seems accurate enough compared to Wikipedia dates. Though do agree with information adjusted to fit the theory, because while the generation spans seem correct, some of the developments during those time frames don't fit well.

I took "generation" to be when a child was born up to the time they were likely to have children of their own. Accounting for historical and cultural changes and getting rid of outliers this 16-29 seems about right

[Gopher Gary]

I think the US screwed up when we started allowing women to vote. 

[Al Swearegen]

I think the US screwed up when we started allowing women to vote. 

You guys did???

Why the Hell did you do that? 

[Pyraxis]

I think the US screwed up when we started allowing women to vote. 

Oh is that why there's no Mrs. Gopher?

[odeon]

The problem with sociology is its frequent lack of stringency. It's why theories like this pop up.

That may be like saying the problem with art is its frequent lack of straight lines.

Is it, though? What if the straight lines are needed?

To me, the theory reminds me of Asimov's Foundation Trilogy's concept of pshychohistory. It's entertaining but ultimately probably not possible.

[odeon]

I think the US screwed up when we started allowing women to vote. 

[Icequeen]

I think the US screwed up when we started allowing women to vote. 

Damn... I could really go for some gopher stew right about now.

[Gopher Gary]

I think the US screwed up when we started allowing women to vote. 

You guys did???

Why the Hell did you do that? 

It probably had something to do with nagging. 

[Gopher Gary]

I think the US screwed up when we started allowing women to vote. 

Oh is that why there's no Mrs. Gopher?

That and my fondness for the pene. 

[Gopher Gary]

I think the US screwed up when we started allowing women to vote. 

Damn... I could really go for some gopher stew right about now.

So then get in the kitchen and make some. 

[Gopher Gary]

I think the US screwed up when we started allowing women to vote. 

 

[Lestat]

Where did the US screw up?

When the colonists left england and lost their way. In other words...where did they screw up?

The 'where' is commonly referred to as 'north america'.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

First thing I notice is that the length of generations is extremely rubbery, between 16 and 29 years for the generations presented on Wikipedia. It’s almost as if those lengths are adjusted to make the available information fit the theory. Okay, not almost – that appears to be exactly what they have done.

Generation time spans can sometimes vary slightly by source, but the generation years column seems accurate enough compared to Wikipedia dates. Though do agree with information adjusted to fit the theory, because while the generation spans seem correct, some of the developments during those time frames don't fit well.

Look at the sources for those Wikipedia dates for most of the generations listed. Most of the generations prior to the Silent Generation and the Baby Boomers were invented by Howe and Strauss. The Millennial Generation, or at least the name for that generation, was also invented by Howe and Strauss. I'm pretty sure that most people didn't conceptualise generations the way we do today 100, 200 or 300 years ago (although some apparently did).

I would be interested in how Strauss and Howe came up with those rubbery start-and-finish dates for the generations. I suspect that it is part of how they made the available data appear to fit their theory. I'd probably need to read their books in order to confirm that, but that isn't going to happen.

I'd also like to see the data that they started with and how they determined which data to use. How much of their characterisation of each generation was based opinion and how much was based on hard data?

The thing is that sociology is not a hard science and should not be judged in the same way as, for example, physics. BUT data analysis is a hard science and should be judged accordingly.

A quick google finds plenty of criticism of the theory. Here is one that contains links to a couple of other articles: https://qz.com/970646/the-world-has-already-bought-into-steve-bannons-apocalyptic-ideology/

[Jack]

First thing I notice is that the length of generations is extremely rubbery, between 16 and 29 years for the generations presented on Wikipedia. It’s almost as if those lengths are adjusted to make the available information fit the theory. Okay, not almost – that appears to be exactly what they have done.

Generation time spans can sometimes vary slightly by source, but the generation years column seems accurate enough compared to Wikipedia dates. Though do agree with information adjusted to fit the theory, because while the generation spans seem correct, some of the developments during those time frames don't fit well.

Look at the sources for those Wikipedia dates for most of the generations listed. Most of the generations prior to the Silent Generation and the Baby Boomers were invented by Howe and Strauss. The Millennial Generation, or at least the name for that generation, was also invented by Howe and Strauss. I'm pretty sure that most people didn't conceptualise generations the way we do today 100, 200 or 300 years ago (although some apparently did).

I would be interested in how Strauss and Howe came up with those rubbery start-and-finish dates for the generations. I suspect that it is part of how they made the available data appear to fit their theory. I'd probably need to read their books in order to confirm that, but that isn't going to happen.

I'd also like to see the data that they started with and how they determined which data to use. How much of their characterisation of each generation was based opinion and how much was based on hard data?

The thing is that sociology is not a hard science and should not be judged in the same way as, for example, physics. BUT data analysis is a hard science and should be judged accordingly.

A quick google finds plenty of criticism of the theory. Here is one that contains links to a couple of other articles: https://qz.com/970646/the-world-has-already-bought-into-steve-bannons-apocalyptic-ideology/

That's an excellent observation, who invented the generation names. Knowing that makes some of the criticism read make more sense, one criticism is that the theory is non-falsifiable. The column for historic events actually did happen, but if everything else around it was created by the theorist, then there's no way anyone can potentially say no that didn't really happen during that generation or turning. Absolutely agree a thirteen year difference between the length of some generations seems iffy. The omission of the Vietnam war and techno boom are the only historic points I see as purposely glossed over by less eventful things, and those are glaring because they each encompass a 20 yr generational span, while affecting society to extremes which define their generations in any other context than this theory. Scrap is a history buff; thinking he should come back and discuss his link. He might notice other things that have been left out or replaced by less eventful things.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

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.

Gaslighting.