View Full Version : Fourth Turning and national crisis
I regret to say I have not read the book, though I need to.
The linked article considers the cycles our nation has faced in the past, and seeks to discern where it may be headed in the future. In essence, it suggests that the next 20 years or so will involve challenges of the magnitude of the civil war or WWII. It links these to the cyclical nature of generations.
It is rather long; but, perhaps, provides some food for thought.
Boomers - Winter is Coming (http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/quinn/2009/0713.html)
Scimitar
07-17-2009, 22:46
Interesting Synopsis....
The skies are darkening and a cold wind is beginning to blow. Autumn began with bright skies and warm breezes, but the atmosphere has gotten bitter as swirling winds rip the remaining leaves from the trees. Winter is approaching rapidly and it gives all indications that it will be a bitter, dangerous, harsh time for all Americans. We wish we didn’t have to face the coming trial, but there is no avoiding it. Generational moods are transitioning, and a Crisis will envelop the country for the next twenty years. Courage and fortitude on a level not seen since World War II will be required. The celebrity circuses like the Michael Jackson funeral, Britney Spears comeback tour, and Brangelina’s latest adoption will seem so trite during the coming Crisis. Wearing a blue rubber wristband and putting a yellow ribbon on your Mercedes SUV will not cut it. Previous 4th Turnings in U.S. history have involved total war. Deaths during the American Revolutionary War were approximately 50,000. Total deaths during the Civil War were 600,000. Total deaths during World War II were 73,000,000. How many people will die during the coming Crisis? No one knows the answer in advance. An integrated global economy, combined with nuclear weapons, advanced military killing machines, terrorists, and peak oil appears to be a recipe for death on a colossal scale.
DinDinA-2
07-17-2009, 23:14
At least there is a bit of humor to be found...
__________________________________________________ ____________
“I believe it is appropriate to have an 'over-representation' of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience." - Al Gore
I’d like to know the difference between over-representation and lying.
__________________________________________________ ______________
Sounds like a rip-off of Lord of the Rings - wonder who will play the parts of Sauron and his minions this time. ;)
When discussing cycles in History, I am always reminded of FDRs remarks before the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia in 1936 :
"There is a mysterious cycle in human events.
To some generations, much is given.
Of other generations, much is expected.
This Generation has a rendezvous with destiny."
This Winter Is Coming JQ guy offers some pretty bleak CPA points-of-view - Staff Sr. Director of Strategic Finance and Planning at Wharton School of Business, U of Pennsylvania.
http://theburningplatform.com/
Richard's $.02 :munchin
The Reaper
07-18-2009, 09:47
I recently found myself wondering if the great civilizations, which inevitably fall, realized that their time was over, and when in their cycle they realized it. Did they discover the factor(s) responsible for their demise? Did they try to stop the fall, or just ride it out? Did some make it worse by their actions?
Where are we in our own national cycle?
Are we still rising, or are we now on a downward trajectory? Can the downward trend be arrested or reversed for any significant period?
TR
I regret to say I have not read the book, though I need to.
<<SNIP>>
It is rather long; but, perhaps, provides some food for thought.
At the risk of sounding like a wet blanket...:)
The historical analysis offered on the Fourth Turning website <<LINK (http://www.fourthturning.com/)>> does not inspire confidence in Howe's and Strauss's understanding of American, European, or world history, or how professional historians think about the past.
The posts on the BB hosted at the Fourth Turning website and Mr. Quinn's editorial are equally problematic.
A review of the book in question is available here (http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/01/26/reviews/970126.26lindlt.html).
The amazon dot com information on the book, located here (http://www.amazon.com/Fourth-Turning-William-Strauss/dp/0767900464/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_1) has an insightful snippet from a review (apparently of the audio version of the work) for Library Journal. The "Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought" information is also suggestive.
There are significant differences between iconoclastic or polemical works produced by serious historians who have spent decades studying a topic and teleological works produced by those counting on their affluent audiences being unable to tell the difference between gold and iron pyrite.;)
YMMV.
Oh to be a happy little Psiloi standing in my Epitagma.
Just do what I'm told.
There are significant differences between iconoclastic or polemical works produced by serious historians who have spent decades studying a topic and teleological works produced by those counting on their affluent audiences being unable to tell the difference between gold and iron pyrite.;)
YMMV.
And discerning that difference is ever a challenge. A single indicator, lonely and as bare as Pete's Psiloi, can, as you suggest, mislead. And yet, I find the underlying concept of the fourth turning similar to another controversial notion, Kondratieff winter ( LINK (http://www.kondratieffwinter.com/kw_mission.html) ) as well as Elliot Wave theory ( LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_wave_principle) ). Especially in the case of Elliot Wave theory, proponents have had some spectacularly accurate calls - and some embarrassing misses. The lack of rigor and precision does not necessarily discredit the underlying notion.
I mentioned single indicators. Two anthropological works that sound cautionary notes include Diamond's "Collapse", along with Tainter's "Collapse of Complex Societies." Diamond looks at the rise and fall of civilizations through the lens of the environment. In contrast, Tainter has developed the theory of complexity. In his view, a society becomes increasingly complex to deal with problems and continues adding complexity as fresh problems assert themselves. However, the gains from such additions decline. Ultimately, added complexity works to the detriment of the civilization, thus leading (or at least contributing) to its collapse. If you haven't enjoyed these two works, I recommend them highly. Tainter writes like a Princeton Professor - which is, I suppose, appropriate. :D
And then there are the occasional little items out of left field - Black Swans, if you will. I've attached a paper that suggests we may be approaching the limit for economic gain due to innovation. Let us consider what that means. If we lose those expected gains, the entire underlying premise of our global growth-dependent economy is fatally flawed. Still more problematic, the global economy becomes a zero-sum game. For one person or group to gain something, someone else must lose.
Abstract:
A comparison is made between a model of technology in which the level of technology advances exponentially without limit and a model with an economic limit. The model with an economic limit best fits data obtained from lists of events in the history of science and technology as well as the patent history in the United States. The rate of innovation peaked in the year 1873 and is now rapidly declining. We are at an estimated 85% of the economic limit of technology, and it is projected that we will reach 90% in 2018 and 95% in 2038.
The paper has some math (suitable for intimidating undergraduates :cool: ), but is highly readable and only 7 pages long, and is attached.
So...back to the fourth turning. Probably an imperfect theory. But that does not mean it lacks predictive value. Coupled with other indicators, it seems suggestive.
Jonathan Huebner, A possible declining trend for worldwide innovation, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Volume 72, Issue 8, October 2005, Pages 980-986, ISSN 0040-1625, DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2005.01.003.
These offer better odds... ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
GratefulCitizen
07-19-2009, 15:21
The paper has some math (suitable for intimidating undergraduates :cool: ), but is highly readable and only 7 pages long, and is attached.
Jonathan Huebner, A possible declining trend for worldwide innovation, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Volume 72, Issue 8, October 2005, Pages 980-986, ISSN 0040-1625, DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2005.01.003.
From the paper:
"In a simplified model of the history of technology, in which the population remains constant, the rate of innovation is nearly zero at the dawn of civilization and then gradually starts to accelerate. Halfway to the technological limit, the rate of innovation reaches a maximum value and then starts to decline. As the technological limit is approached, the rate of innovation approaches zero, but it never reaches zero, so that the rate of innovation follows a bell curve."
Ummm...
A bell curve (the Guassian Distribution) won't work for this sort of thing.
That is why the peak oilers tossed it as model some time ago.
But Grateful - in the next paragraph, he says:
In a model of technological development in which there is no technological limit, the rate of innovation should increase exponentially with only minor deviations due to the factors mentioned above. As more technologies are developed, people have a wider base of technologies to exploit, and they become increasingly more productive in generating new technologies. Thus, a plot of the rate of innovation over time can distinguish between a world with a technological limit and a world with no limit or with a limit that is so far away that it has little effect.
So the author offers two models - one that supposes a technological limit, and one that supposes no such limit exists. He then examines the data to determine which offers a closer match to the existing data. The data offers a better match to the model that supposes limits.
GratefulCitizen
07-19-2009, 18:28
But Grateful - in the next paragraph, he says:
In a model of technological development in which there is no technological limit, the rate of innovation should increase exponentially with only minor deviations due to the factors mentioned above. As more technologies are developed, people have a wider base of technologies to exploit, and they become increasingly more productive in generating new technologies. Thus, a plot of the rate of innovation over time can distinguish between a world with a technological limit and a world with no limit or with a limit that is so far away that it has little effect.
So the author offers two models - one that supposes a technological limit, and one that supposes no such limit exists. He then examines the data to determine which offers a closer match to the existing data. The data offers a better match to the model that supposes limits.
I looked at his math.
He is just making adjustments to the Guassian Distribution to make the curve fit the data.
His calculations are fine.
The underlying logic is not.
The choice of mathematical model assumes what is supposedly the conclusion.
When you assume the left side of the equation, you are assuming the right side.
Well, Grateful, I'm confused.
Do you support the no limits model?
MOO - History is not dead - and such modeling is a lot like all the op plans we used to maintain and kept in classified file cabinets - and never seemed to fit the situation whenever something happened. I'll remain a skeptic - and you can worry about what will probably never happen as you've planned because all of the variables were never considered. ;)
Richard's $.025 :munchin
MOO - History is not dead - and such modeling is a lot like all the op plans we used to maintain and kept in classified file cabinets - and never seemed to fit the situation whenever something happened. I'll remain a skeptic - and you can worry about what will probably never happen as you've planned because all of the variables were never considered. ;)
Richard's $.025 :munchin
Skepticism is generally the wisest course; ideas should be held to account.
Please don't think I lose sleep over these models. I find examining them to be great fun. Perhaps it is not so much worse than playing with dice. :D
And if I may speculate, I would not be surprised if some of the people involved in creating serious plans had a little fun doing it.
Please don't think I lose sleep over these models. I find examining them to be great fun. Perhaps it is not so much worse than playing with dice.
I really don't think that - and I may have been less clear than I wanted to be in my posts. I believe both the issues and the answers lie somewhere between the social modeling theorems - the nearly always reportedly finite modeling which tends to focus on the forest's trees and loses sight of the greater universe or even the forest itself - and the roll of the dice. IMO and experiences - Life has proven itself to be much more complex than man's eternal (infernal???) attempts to reorder the workings of the universe to suit his levels of understanding and comfort - and I have a tendency to retain a jaundiced view of such activities and their overall worth - beyond a point of generic usefullness which seems to remain hazy - except in the sometimes (but not always) less cloudy window of retrospective analyses.
I looked at JQs background and focus, read a number of the blogs he's associated with, and suspect he would always be far more comfortable as a 'strategist' in the Babbit world to which he belongs than a 'wizard' in the one described by JRR Tolkein in Lord of the Rings.*
YMMV
Richard's $.02 :munchin
* FWIW - personally, I relate to the likes of the Striders of the world - whomever's world. ;)
Wizards?
What was the clasic line - "Something mother taught me when you were not looking"?
Wizards?
What was the classic line - "Something mother taught me when you were not looking"?
^ That brings back some memories. Talk about a trip in the Way-Back machine.:D
It was about the same time that I bought my first (and last) copy of Heavy Metal.:cool: My dad took one look at Richard Corben's artwork:eek: and that was that.
Peregrino
07-20-2009, 12:28
Wizards?
What was the clasic line - "Something mother taught me when you were not looking"?
You're scaring me.
You're scaring me.
Ya' had to see it on the big screen - and about half lit.
http://www.badmovies.org/movies/wizards/wizards6.jpg
Peregrino
07-20-2009, 19:31
Ya' had to see it on the big screen - and about half lit.
http://www.badmovies.org/movies/wizards/wizards6.jpg
I did and I was - that's why you're scaring me. :p Course we need to get back on topic before somebody takes a Luger (IIRC) to us.
GratefulCitizen
07-21-2009, 21:02
Well, Grateful, I'm confused.
Do you support the no limits model?
That is a false dilemma.
It is not an either/or issue.
Concerning the choice of mathematical model:
A motivated student using his linear algebra text could make a nice, smooth polynomial model which exactly fits the data and goes on to do whatever he chooses as you head right on the x-axis.
By choosing the Guassian Distribution, he guarantees the result which he is trying to prove.
The first derivative always goes negative, i.e. the curve will always go down.
Fitting data to a model does not imply that the model is predictive.
IMO, Huebner's article suffers from the man's mistaken belief that history is a social science. What he seems to misunderstand is that history is not just the study of facts, but the debate over the significance of those facts. Huebner pretty much sums up his (mis)understanding of history when he uses the phrase "Dark Ages." European historians have spent over one hundred years showing why this term has little value.
Moreover, he would have readers agree that innovations are limited to those that have been patented. This approach disqualifies most forms of "redneck engineering," the trade secrets of the QPs, as well as forms of knowledge that are developed in the workplace, in the home (especially the kitchen), the study group's meeting room, the artist's mind, and the writer's notebook.
This approach also accepts the viability of innovations that prove unsustainable. Take, for example, U.S. Patent numbers 6035438, 6170378, 6745661B1, and 6705197B1. Those patents were filed by this company <<LINK (http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/)>> for its prized product, discussed here (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14523).
I really don't think that - and I may have been less clear than I wanted to be in my posts. I believe both the issues and the answers lie somewhere between the social modeling theorems - the nearly always reportedly finite modeling which tends to focus on the forest's trees and loses sight of the greater universe or even the forest itself - and the roll of the dice. IMO and experiences - Life has proved itself to be much more complex than man's eternal (infernal???) attempts to reorder the workings of the universe to suit his levels of understanding and comfort - and I have a tendency to retain a jaundiced view of such activities and their overall worth - beyond a point of generic usefulness which seems to remain hazy - except in the sometimes (but not always) less cloudy window of retrospective analysis.
I looked at JQs background and focus, read a number of the blogs he's associated with, and suspect he would always be far more comfortable as a 'strategist' in the Babbit world to which he belongs than a 'wizard' in the one described by JRR Tolkein in Lord of the Rings.*
YMMV
Richard's $.02 :munchin
* FWIW - personally, I relate to the likes of the Striders of the world - whomever's world. ;)
Yes, I can understand why there might be a certain harmony with Strider. ;)
I think the wizards - whether Gandalf or Avatar, or even Blackwolf are agents of deep (transformational) change. There are few who are willing to embrace such change, and fewer still able to catalyze (and then manage) such events. Perhaps we should be glad that is the case, since transformation tends to destroy the old patterns even as it creates new ones. While Babbit's character is, perhaps, meant to provoke us out of our staid complacency, I think that the reassuring sameness of his environment can be attractive. Perhaps even more attractive, as change in the world accelerates.
However, with regard to models and predictions - it is true that such models are limited and often flawed. But just as the Greeks once supposed that the planets all circled the Earth, the cycle of creating a model, probing the model, and then improving (or replacing) the model has its value. We develop deeper understanding through the process; and although the initial effort may have laughably deep flaws, the initial steps are a prerequisite to progress.
Now, let us consider Huebner. He states:
For the purposes of this paper, the rate of innovation is defined as the number of important technological developments per year divided by the world population. This result represents the innovation of an average person in developing new technologies each year.
Others have pointed out their reservations about Huebner in the posts above.
We can, of course, argue with his methodology or his choice of data. But there is a central issue that deserves consideration. We assume technological advance. We hear that a discovery is "5 years away" or "10 years in the future" or some such. I have heard that nuclear fusion will come on line in 20 years - but I've been hearing that for 45 years. ;) Our economy, along with many of our expectations for the future, depend on technological innovation. Whether in the fields of energy or health care, space travel or weaponry, we have an expectation.
However - do we know that those assumptions are true? Might there be limits to how much we can innovate? And - how can we answer that question, since our future depends upon it?
Before we dismiss Huebner's views, we might do well to ask ourselves why we haven't made a great deal more progress than we have. The typical computer on our desk has more power than a supercomputer of decades ago. We can replicate the work of a lifetime (eg, table of logarithms) with a program like excel in a matter of hours. Or minutes. There are more scientists and engineers alive today than there have ever been.
Are we advancing quickly? Considering the growing world population, the various tools, and the expanding availability of education? Will it continue?
Questions that may deserve reflection, especially as we collectively suppose that innovation will come to us on our expected schedule. I think that we as a society are making an unwarranted and unfounded assumption that progress will continue, largely without interruption. What if that assumption is wrong?
I have to wonder why he fails to take into consideration the affects of necessity - perceived or real - on the process of innovation? :confused:
Necessity - or need, if you will - plays a powerful role in the process of being creative or innovative. And if we predict a future of greater unpredictabilty or challenge - wouldn't that be more likely to foster innovative growth rather than stifle or lessen it? :confused:
And as far as progress - perhaps we have an innate tendency to be overly optimistic in trusting the value of the modeling and predicted outcomes, and - therefore - confused when they fail to meet their theoretical projections. :confused:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
ZonieDiver
07-24-2009, 14:12
Well, Grateful, I'm confused.
Do you support the no limits model?
Nmap - Any more, I am always confused!
Intresting in that our government is based on the Roman republic, I wonder who will be our Caesar?
However, I will volunteer to be our "Caesar"! (Up to the final act... :D)
I'll be benevolent! I promise...
However, I will volunteer to be our "Caesar"! (Up to the final act... :D)
I'll be benevolent! I promise...
Have you ever watched the PBS series titled "I, Claudius"? (Using PBS as an historical reference? I suspect I'm already in trouble! :D )
After the problems with Caligula, Claudius became Caesar, and ruled reasonably well. But after him came Nero.
I suspect you would be both a benevolent and capable Caesar. The only problem is, would the same be true of the one who came after you?
Peregrino
07-24-2009, 17:33
Have you ever watched the PBS series titled "I, Claudius"? (Using PBS as an historical reference? I suspect I'm already in trouble! :D )
After the problems with Caligula, Claudius became Caesar, and ruled reasonably well. But after him came Nero.
I suspect you would be both a benevolent and capable Caesar. The only problem is, would the same be true of the one who came after you?
All ZD has to do is avoid the ambitious wife trap! Never marry a woman willing to poison you to advance her power trip. :munchin Funny how she thought her son would be more "tractable".
I have to wonder why he fails to take into consideration the affects of necessity - perceived or real - on the process of innovation? :confused:
Perhaps that comes back to the way he chooses to measure. With points that create an average over 10 years, the impact of short term events may be masked. For example, from a U.S. perspective, WWII lasted about 4 years - so even if we suppose that we were driven to innovate during that period, the effects might not be discerned.
Necessity - or need, if you will - plays a powerful role in the process of being creative or innovative. And if we predict a future of greater unpredictabilty or challenge - wouldn't that be more likely to foster innovative growth rather than stifle or lessen it? :confused:
I have a half-baked theory on that...
I wonder if stressful times emphasize the practical, and less demanding times permit efforts in areas that have no obvious quick returns. For example, the Manhattan project produced a working nuclear weapon - a major innovation. But the underlying notion that made the project possible occurred in research by Einstein and others around 1905.
The laser and the transistor were both created in the laboratory - and although the transistor had some viability as a solution, the laser was billed as the "answer in search of a question."
So it may be that a certain kind of innovation - one which promises a quick return on the effort - is emphasized by such times. On the other hand, if Huebner's theory is valid, one would think we would see an upward trend on the curve post-1914 instead of a clear downtrend.
And as far as progress - perhaps we have an innate tendency to be overly optimistic in trusting the value of the modeling and predicted outcomes, and - therefore - confused when they fail to meet their theoretical projections. :confused:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Entirely possible. Extrapolating a positive trend is easy to do, common - and usually wrong. For that matter, the same can apply to any trend, whether positive or negative.
I also wonder if the price tag on some of the equipment needed for the research has reached some sort of limit. The superconducting supercollider is now a hole in the ground not far from Dallas. People talk about replacing the Hubble space telescope and the shuttle...and, for that matter, trips to Mars; but I cannot help wondering who can possibly fund it. The U.S.? China? Some group of countries?
And companies are emphasizing the bottom line more, too. They want a quick return. So Bell Labs, the ones who created the transistor, is little more than a shell of its former self. Is preparation necessary for innovation? I think so. I wonder if we're putting it into place or failing to do so. Have we mugged the future through the claim that "we have needs down here on Earth?"
I keep coming back to the same question that has gnawed at me for some time. With all the tools we have, why aren't we moving ahead more quickly? We have computers, the internet, incredible access to information - so why aren't we innovating and creating? Do we have it too easy? I don't know. I have direct knowledge of how much work it took to turn out a few pages on a manual typewriter, and how comparatively easy it is now. I know how difficult it was to get good references from the library - and how very easy it is now.
The ideal situation (I won't hold my breath) would be if the Huebner paper started a dialog. First, is his metric valid? Is there a better way to measure innovation over long periods of time?
Second, is innovation actually in decline? If so, why? And what can we do (if anything) to change it? Again, I won't hold my breath.
Still, if Huebner is correct, then the implications for a child born today are not pleasant. Stagnation and poverty will be such a child's inheritance.
GratefulCitizen
07-25-2009, 22:51
I have to wonder why he fails to take into consideration the affects of necessity - perceived or real - on the process of innovation? :confused:
Necessity - or need, if you will - plays a powerful role in the process of being creative or innovative. And if we predict a future of greater unpredictabilty or challenge - wouldn't that be more likely to foster innovative growth rather than stifle or lessen it? :confused:
Herein lies a great problem in attempting to forecast future economic conditions through mathematical modeling.
The problems are self-referential.
As needs are satisfied by innovation, there is less economic motivation for future innovations, innovation declines.
As innovations stagnate, needs start to outstrip existing solutions, which increases economic motivation for new innovation, innovation increases.
Attempting to model this with math is the same as trying to solve the halting problem.
It can't be done for the longer term.
http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/EPISTEMOLOGy.eco.complex.doc
(if you don't want to dig through it all, page 17-18 has conclusions)
And as far as progress - perhaps we have an innate tendency to be overly optimistic in trusting the value of the modeling and predicted outcomes, and - therefore - confused when they fail to meet their theoretical projections. :confused:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
My main beef with many of these models is the logical fallacy at their foundation.
They start by saying: if (insert Malthusian catastrophe) is going to happen, then it will follow a pattern where the critical measure peaks and then irreversibly falls.
This is true.
Call it: "A implies B" is true.
Then, they go on to show that the data fits into a math model which peaks, and then falls.
This is true.
Call it: "B is true"
After these facts have been established, they go on to conclude that the "if" part of the original proposal is true.
- "A implies B" is true.
- "B" is true.
- Therefore, "A" is true.
This is the logical fallacy known as "affirming the consequent".
"A implies B" and "B" both being true tell you absolutely nothing about the truth of "A".
This error is terribly common.
People often make this mistake because of the contrapositive result from a case where "A implies B" is true and "B" is not true.
In that case, we know that "A" is also not true.
However, it only works in one direction.
My main beef with many of these models is the logical fallacy at their foundation.
They start by saying: if (insert Malthusian catastrophe) is going to happen, then it will follow a pattern where the critical measure peaks and then irreversibly falls.
This is true.
Call it: "A implies B" is true.
Then, they go on to show that the data fits into a math model which peaks, and then falls.
This is true.
Call it: "B is true"
After these facts have been established, they go on to conclude that the "if" part of the original proposal is true.
- "A implies B" is true.
- "B" is true.
- Therefore, "A" is true.
This is the logical fallacy known as "affirming the consequent".
"A implies B" and "B" both being true tell you absolutely nothing about the truth of "A".
This error is terribly common.
People often make this mistake because of the contrapositive result from a case where "A implies B" is true and "B" is not true.
In that case, we know that "A" is also not true.
However, it only works in one direction.
When humans are involved in the making of any model, it's bound to be flawed. We are hard wired to see patterns. We would be better off just analizing facts and then recording them into a computer. If there is a pattern to it, the computer will make a model if there is one to be made.
Will you take the blue pill or the red pill ?:D