> Among quants there is a saying that goes “don’t torture the data until it talks”, which is another way of saying don’t over-fit the data. While Howe & Strauss’ analysis is very intriguing, I find many disturbing signs of data fitting that make me uncomfortable.
> William Strauss and Neil Howe think society turns on a repeating set of four 20-year cycles and try to predict the future based on this.
[snip]
> According to the authors (writing in 1997), the U.S. was in an "unraveling" in the 1990s and due for another crisis in the 2000s-2010s, which will be followed once the crisis is resolved by a new "high" of economic liberalism and social conservatism a-la the 1950s.
It's interesting how all these cycle-meisters (a subset of woo-meisters or just plain frauds) always say that the crisis is near. Always. Their magical cycle theories never predict a distant crisis.
Onwards:
> The generations themselves are arbitrary constructs. They have an age range of about 20 years each, but what gives somebody born in 1965 (a Generation Xer) more in common with a Generation Xer born in 1980 rather than a Baby Boomer born in 1961?
It's crap. It's one of many cycle theories that gets promoted every so often, and it's based on torturing the data that isn't ignored entirely with huge amounts of retrospective predictions (predicting the past, so much easier than predicting the future), just like the others.
No, they are not "kooks", nor am I, and far from unintentionally making the reference I am pointing it out.
It is a perfectly rational phenomenon that history depends on generational cycles.
No, there is no magic claimed, or involved, and this "all these cycle-meisters (a subset of woo-meisters or just plain frauds) always say that the crisis is near. Always. Their magical cycle theories never predict a distant crisis" is pure, unfounded name-calling.
It is obvious that you have not given even a cursory reading of S & H's writing before concluding "it's crap".
If generations are "arbitrary constructs" then I take it you do not think "boomer" means anything? Welcome to the real world.
> It is a perfectly rational phenomenon that history depends on generational cycles.
Then why isn't it taught in mainstream history courses?
> If generations are "arbitrary constructs" then I take it you do not think "boomer" means anything?
Not really, no. To begin with, you'll never find a full agreement on when that generation (or any other) begins and ends.
> this "all these cycle-meisters (a subset of woo-meisters or just plain frauds) always say that the crisis is near. Always. Their magical cycle theories never predict a distant crisis" is pure, unfounded name-calling.
Actually, it's a place where you could rebut me with solid evidence that disproves my statement, if you actually had such evidence.
Instead, how about this: What predictions did Strauss and Howe make that have actually come true?
Burden of proof applies here- you can't tell him that something is true then refuse to provide evidence for it. Should be pretty simple to give a few examples, no?
http://seekingalpha.com/article/167253-the-fourth-turning-sh...
> Among quants there is a saying that goes “don’t torture the data until it talks”, which is another way of saying don’t over-fit the data. While Howe & Strauss’ analysis is very intriguing, I find many disturbing signs of data fitting that make me uncomfortable.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/William_Strauss_and_Neil_Howe
> William Strauss and Neil Howe think society turns on a repeating set of four 20-year cycles and try to predict the future based on this.
[snip]
> According to the authors (writing in 1997), the U.S. was in an "unraveling" in the 1990s and due for another crisis in the 2000s-2010s, which will be followed once the crisis is resolved by a new "high" of economic liberalism and social conservatism a-la the 1950s.
It's interesting how all these cycle-meisters (a subset of woo-meisters or just plain frauds) always say that the crisis is near. Always. Their magical cycle theories never predict a distant crisis.
Onwards:
> The generations themselves are arbitrary constructs. They have an age range of about 20 years each, but what gives somebody born in 1965 (a Generation Xer) more in common with a Generation Xer born in 1980 rather than a Baby Boomer born in 1961?
It's crap. It's one of many cycle theories that gets promoted every so often, and it's based on torturing the data that isn't ignored entirely with huge amounts of retrospective predictions (predicting the past, so much easier than predicting the future), just like the others.