Where did the US screw up?

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_code

Not a criticism of the theory. Which may be perfectly valid. More an adjunct to the side discussion on humans' ability to find patterns where no real patterns exist.

The word for it is apophenia.

[Jack]

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."

Thinking there's a lot of truth in that. Don't particularly like sociology or history, nor believe the US ebbs and flows so precisely. It's still an interesting theory though and also seems to have a level of truth in it; especially liking the archetypes. However don't agree with how the millennial generation is classified. 1990-2008 is considered one of the more prosperous eras in the US. The archetype of the hero better describes them as born during a high, over indulged youth and the self-absorbed crusades of young adults. And how does the social crisis of the Vietnam war fit in? While agreeing genX fits well in the scheme as born during an awakening, it seems the crisis of war was the driver of that awakening for the young adult boomer generation.

[Jack]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_code

Not a criticism of the theory. Which may be perfectly valid. More an adjunct to the side discussion on humans' ability to find patterns where no real patterns exist.

The word for it is apophenia.

Not really denying that, but would rather to see the pattern dismantled if it doesn't really exist.

[Pyraxis]

Thinking there's a lot of truth in that. Don't particularly like sociology or history, nor believe the US ebbs and flows so precisely. It's still an interesting theory though and also seems to have a level of truth in it; especially liking the archetypes. However don't agree with how the millennial generation is classified. 1990-2008 is considered one of the more prosperous eras in the US. The archetype of the hero better describes them as born during a high, over indulged youth and the self-absorbed crusades of young adults.

But upon reaching teenagehood or adulthood, depending on whether you're talking about early or late gen Millenials, they stepped into economic disillusionment. It's interesting to watch because on one hand there are all the online social justice movements, which seem like a symptom of an overindulged and self-absorbed generation, but on the other hand there is a ton of anger and despair over the lack of opportunity and the pressure from older generations to reach arbitrary milestones (ie buying a house) that are no longer feasible. That seems more like people who grew up in the 1920's and then got hit with the Depression.

Too, with 9/11 and the war on terror - I'm not quite young enough to be a proper Millenial, but 9/11 was on my college welcome day and set the tone for the rest of the four years. Most male peers I talked to were worried about being drafted or coming up with plans of varying levels of plausibility of how to avoid it. There wasn't the drive for entrepreneurship and wild tech success like in the 80's and 90's, people were far more concerned about getting a job that paid the bills.

[Jack]

Thinking there's a lot of truth in that. Don't particularly like sociology or history, nor believe the US ebbs and flows so precisely. It's still an interesting theory though and also seems to have a level of truth in it; especially liking the archetypes. However don't agree with how the millennial generation is classified. 1990-2008 is considered one of the more prosperous eras in the US. The archetype of the hero better describes them as born during a high, over indulged youth and the self-absorbed crusades of young adults.

But upon reaching teenagehood or adulthood, depending on whether you're talking about early or late gen Millenials, they stepped into economic disillusionment. It's interesting to watch because on one hand there are all the online social justice movements, which seem like a symptom of an overindulged and self-absorbed generation, but on the other hand there is a ton of anger and despair over the lack of opportunity and the pressure from older generations to reach arbitrary milestones (ie buying a house) that are no longer feasible. That seems more like people who grew up in the 1920's and then got hit with the Depression.

Too, with 9/11 and the war on terror - I'm not quite young enough to be a proper Millenial, but 9/11 was on my college welcome day and set the tone for the rest of the four years. Most male peers I talked to were worried about being drafted or coming up with plans of varying levels of plausibility of how to avoid it. There wasn't the drive for entrepreneurship and wild tech success like in the 80's and 90's, people were far more concerned about getting a job that paid the bills.

That seems to support what I said about the millenials not fitting. The graph line for the millenials notes the era they were children. The unraveling labeled time frame when millennials were born was actually a high, and it could be said the theory supports the current day time frame for young adult millennial could be an awakening following the high, rather than the crisis label it's given. However they're young adults in a time of economic weakness and high distrust of leadership noted for an unraveling, while their activism fits the awakening after the high. Though guess the point could be made, like the Vietnam war, the current war and economy means the US went from a high straight back into crisis again. Or the occurrance of war happening after a high means society is unraveling during their self-centered awakening.

[odeon]

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.

OK. What I'm trying to say is that it's nowhere near an objective study, it cannot be, because history as sampling material is already rigged. We don't have the objective facts, we have weighted samples. History is already presented through a number of lenses and, depending on what we are looking for in time or place, different ones. For any scientifically valid study, this spells disaster.

My background is in physics and for pretty much any experiment in physics, this sort of thing is basic stuff. It's about getting your lab settings right. This is how cold fusion happened in physics, a couple of years ago.

Add to the rigged samples the human brain's propensity for pattern-matching, we have a very high risk for what I'd label as wishful thinking.

[Pyraxis]

Physics and sociology surely don't mix, any more than physics and psychology. 

[odeon]

Physics and sociology surely don't mix, any more than physics and psychology. 

 

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

[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.

OK. What I'm trying to say is that it's nowhere near an objective study, it cannot be, because history as sampling material is already rigged. We don't have the objective facts, we have weighted samples. History is already presented through a number of lenses and, depending on what we are looking for in time or place, different ones. For any scientifically valid study, this spells disaster.

My background is in physics and for pretty much any experiment in physics, this sort of thing is basic stuff. It's about getting your lab settings right. This is how cold fusion happened in physics, a couple of years ago.

Add to the rigged samples the human brain's propensity for pattern-matching, we have a very high risk for what I'd label as wishful thinking.

Yes, sociology has limitations in how objective or scientific it can be. However, have been trying really hard to get you to step away from that and critique the content of this theory rather than critiquing the field of study, or critiquing human nature. I came up with an actual critique; the technology boom is incorrectly labeled and doesn't fit the pattern.

[Pyraxis]

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.

[Al Swearegen]

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.

OK. What I'm trying to say is that it's nowhere near an objective study, it cannot be, because history as sampling material is already rigged. We don't have the objective facts, we have weighted samples. History is already presented through a number of lenses and, depending on what we are looking for in time or place, different ones. For any scientifically valid study, this spells disaster.

My background is in physics and for pretty much any experiment in physics, this sort of thing is basic stuff. It's about getting your lab settings right. This is how cold fusion happened in physics, a couple of years ago.

Add to the rigged samples the human brain's propensity for pattern-matching, we have a very high risk for what I'd label as wishful thinking.

Yes, sociology has limitations in how objective or scientific it can be. However, have been trying really hard to get you to step away from that and critique the content of this theory rather than critiquing the field of study, or critiquing human nature. I came up with an actual critique; the technology boom is incorrectly labeled and doesn't fit the pattern.

Yes much like how Psychology and the disciplines from it that brought relief to shell shock victims of war also makes many abstract associations of penis envy.

Sociology and Psychology I have long been critical of for surprisingly the same things Odeon has brought up. I do not consider them objectively true or their theories often "provable" in the same ways that hard sciences do even though they attempt to use similar methodologies.

  From 5:50 is a point really attuned to what I say here

However, I think neither can be dismissed out of hand or as all theories being equally as bad.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

I’m not particularly familiar with sociology, so I’m not likely to come up with some blazing insight that reviewers and critics of this work have missed.

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.

In more general terms, it seems to me like each generation looks down on the next couple of generations for lacking the attributes or the struggles that they think made their generation awesome. That probably has as much influence on how we see each generation as anything else. Just a little pattern I’ve noticed.

[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.

OK. What I'm trying to say is that it's nowhere near an objective study, it cannot be, because history as sampling material is already rigged. We don't have the objective facts, we have weighted samples. History is already presented through a number of lenses and, depending on what we are looking for in time or place, different ones. For any scientifically valid study, this spells disaster.

My background is in physics and for pretty much any experiment in physics, this sort of thing is basic stuff. It's about getting your lab settings right. This is how cold fusion happened in physics, a couple of years ago.

Add to the rigged samples the human brain's propensity for pattern-matching, we have a very high risk for what I'd label as wishful thinking.

Yes, sociology has limitations in how objective or scientific it can be. However, have been trying really hard to get you to step away from that and critique the content of this theory rather than critiquing the field of study, or critiquing human nature. I came up with an actual critique; the technology boom is incorrectly labeled and doesn't fit the pattern.

Yes much like how Psychology and the disciplines from it that brought relief to shell shock victims of war also makes many abstract associations of penis envy.

Sociology and Psychology I have long been critical of for surprisingly the same things Odeon has brought up. I do not consider them objectively true or their theories often "provable" in the same ways that hard sciences do even though they attempt to use similar methodologies.

(video removed)

However, I think neither can be dismissed out of hand or as all theories being equally as bad.

But who cares what's wrong with sociology? What's wrong with sociology isn't necessarily what's wrong with this particular theory. The table rows for the missionary and lost generations also appear problematic. The gilded age was about a thirty year time span of rapid growth and prosperity in the US, with the most prosperous being the last twenty years of 1880-1990. While the second industrial revolution began producing economic growth in 1860, the most prosperous industrial years of the gilded age are not classified as a high, but rather an awakening after a high. If 1860-1882 qualifies as a high, then the full two generations of 1860-1900 should qualify as a high. I'll dismantle this pattern myself.

[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.

[Jack]

most prosperous industrial years of the gilded age are not classified as a high, but rather an awakening after a high.

Just realized all of the awakening periods in the table are previously established periods of religious growth, so the author of this theory appears to have used that, regardless of whatever else might have been happening at the time that wasn't related to religion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Awakening