Okay boomer (muted)
Discussion
Not a boomer my friend. Would love to talk more about your views though , I might learn something!
'If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry.'
OK I will. He is referring to the work by William Strauss and Neil Howe, who wrote a book called the fourth turning, among others.
Hello, not sure what this is in response to as I can’t find the note you are responding to. Was it is response to something I wrote? Cheers.
I was responding to this bit of curiosity:
Ah! Ok thanks. For some reason your response didn’t show up in the conversation yet I got your reply. Not sure how to process your response though. Is it because I came across as not being aware of generational archetypes?
No, I was referring to your criticism of 'someone lacking critical thinking skills'. nostr:nprofile1qqszp5avl025yvj04lvlg0r6exzjx7hx2v232pf273kxg86s00mw0kqppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp08c4n2e put in the work of reading the fourth turning, and you really aren't going to get it unless you put in the work yourself.
My response was to inform you where his ideas are based in, for the curious mind.
Just to be clear, my original statement about generational labelling was aimed at the tendency of quite a few younger people to blame an entire older generation for the leadership theories practiced by just a few of that gen. It seems to be the flavour of the month on some platforms. It goes two ways though, meaning older folks can tend to be heard writing off younger generations because of the actions of just a few. I can see why some of the millennial and gen z readers of the 4th turning might want to adopt a “hero” label based on the theory. Strauss and Howe’s ideas are about eras and should not be confused with the individuals that make up that era. There is a difference albeit subtle. My statement that critical thinking was lacking was to suggest that it should be obvious that if you can blame a whole generation for the legislation of a few, then it would follow that a whole generation would be tempted to take credit for the work of just a few (hence the suggestion of stupidity). While in general their thesis has identified that generations indeed are influenced by the era they are born in, it is my contention that there are no generational villains or heroes, just a few key players that know how to play the game. Thanks for your interaction 🙏 Cheers.
One book read by a thousand minds becomes a thousand unique books.
A succinct summary for the book, among others, could be:
Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times.
So what is a strong man? I would say today that is an actual cypherpunk. Not someone who just identifies with one. Prior cycles had different definitions, and each person probably has their own definition of a strong man.
Who would you classify as a weak man in this phrasing? I assume anyone in that era that grew up in an abundance.
One cannot blame without claiming the victim. Regardless of who's fault it is, playing the victim is not a strong man.
Cheers