Thank you
John wrote:
First off, there is no change in the length of a generation. People
get confused about this because they say that the length of a human
lifetime has been increasing, but that refers to the AVERAGE lifespan.
What's important to Generational Dynamics is the MAXIMUM lifespan, and
that's remained fairly constant at 80 years for millennia.
The official definition of a generation is the average time between birth and the first time you got a child, so the first part of my question had nothing to do with lifetime, but with the relation between father-mother and children, and so to the speed of change in attitudes.
Lifetime (second part of my question) was about time before memory dies (today we can still speak with people having survived to WWII) and this is important, because, on my point of view it keeps us away from WWIII for a little bit of time.
You use a different view, thank you for the explanation. If I understand well your view is connected to the fact that, whatever education you had, you are the most powerful person when you are 40 (and this is VERY stable) and you die (or have Alzheimer) at 80 (this is less stable, because nowadays you can find quite healthy people at 90 and more)
John wrote:
Look, if you want to learn how to evaluate generational eras, then you
just have to get lots of practice.
For sure, I take some time to do it and I'm quite fascinated today with Turkey, it is as if they were headed by "Heros" who'd like to be friends with everyone (exactly as if there were a brain new cycle), as it will not work, they are going to be VERY disappointed and at that time we will have a problem.
It really takes time and a lot of readings, and I'm still not sure of the validity of my remark (see below)
John wrote:
It's important to remember, when reading these guidelines, that generational eras are determined not by specific events, but by the "mood" of the great masses of people. It's worthwhile pointing out that there are two distinct methods for determining where a particular country is at a particular time: (1) By number of years since the last crisis war; or (2) By turning-specific events. In practice, it's easiest to use the two methods together, especially for historical periods in countries where little information is available.
Thank you for this precision, yes I find hard sometimes the "balance" between the 2 approaches.
My question came from there.
John wrote:
[*] The Awakening period (second turning) begins 15-18 years later, when
the Prophets begin to make themselves felt. An Awakening can be
identified by "Awakening-type" events that are caused by a political
struggle between the war survivors and the Prophet generation. Typical
Awakening-type events are: Riots and demonstrations for individual
rights; greater prominence for gender issues; pro-war or anti-war
demonstrations – whichever is the opposite of what their parents
prescribe. If there is violence in this period, it's "low-level
violence," punished by police action in specific cases.
That is where I made the mistake, mixing the "Awakening-type" event and the "Awakening crisis"
John wrote:
[*]After the Awakening crisis, the austere rules that were set
down during the first turning really begin to unravel, and total
craziness sets in. Typical unraveling type events are: willingness to
compromise to the point of appeasement; economic bubble.
Do you mean by "willingness to compromise to the point of appeasement" what we are living now in Europe with the crazy communication on bailout for Greece and today Ireland, trying to compromise to an illusion OR compromise to a REAL point of appeasement?
Can the problem we have here could come from the illusion that Merkel and Sarkosy think that they can communicate in 2010 as if we were in 1970 (it can also very well be manipulation in the sense that you say "no bailout" and provoke a crisis so that the population is so shocked that it accepts anything, i'm hesitating between stupidity and manipulation)?
John wrote:
[*] The Crisis Era - Part I -- the "post-unraveling period." This begins
when the survivors of the last crisis war all disappear (retire or
die), all at the same time. This is about 55-60 years after the end
of the last crisis war. This would be amended if the crisis war begins
earlier than 55 years after. Typical Crisis Era - Part I events are
immigration laws, signs of xenophobia including maltreatment of
foreigners, emphasis on stereotypical gender roles.
Then again my question about length of generation, today people retire later, and specialy from the political life (even if they don't do politics, retired people (from the active life) are an important mass of people very influent). Does it have any influence on the start of the Crisis era - part I or on its length?? or is it out of subject
John wrote:
A fifth turning occurs if the Crisis Era goes by with no crisis
war. This is a distinctly different era from the others. Typical fifth
turning events today: Suicide bombers.
Can we consider that Turkey is in this case, this country is making a tremendous effort to be happy with everybody, and live with a tremendous hope on the future? It is not as religious as that, it is actuallly 50-50, some people want a religious change some want a more laic country, so there is a hope that, not going too far in any direction, means peace. And today the economy runs fine, so it helps.
But then I'm trying to find the forth turning and I dont see it yet.
any advice?
John wrote:
Every society and nation experiences a genocidal crisis war every
70-90 years, with a new one starting just around the time that the
generations of survivors of the previous one all disappear (retire or
die), all at once. This is a basic component of generational theory.
What is your opinion on Mexico? I have NOT studied this country with the generational tool, but it looks like the period is longer than that? no?
Regards
Thank you for your patience