Glen -
It is always assumed (at least by me) that (at least my own) anecdotal
observations are not just at risk of selective attention, confirmation
bias and motivated reasoning, etc. but almost *defined* by it. This
might seem like a huge admission or dismissal of my elaborate offerings
and opinions... and maybe many here have already made such, but I value
the same from others in a way that I do not value objective observation
and analysis.
Please don't take my skepticism as rejection of the data. I think I'm
as big a fan of anecdotal data as you are (though perhaps not as big a
fan of anecdotes as you are). In fact, I'd guess that 50% of my
rhetoric always boils down to: add concrete detail to that abstract
oversimplification and let's see what comes out the other end!"
But I am purposefully expressing skepticism of your second defense of
the existence of (or use of the term) "generations".
Sorry... I didn't mean to sound defensive... I was intending something
more like stridency! I don't doubt your appreciation for the mode, but
was rather trying to acknowledge those who might not...
And yes, I agree... the point of an anecdotal observation is usually as
a point of departure, an opening of a potential hypothesis to begin
gathering more rigorous data around.
I mean taking/analyzing impersonal data that tests the hypothesis that
generations exhibit patterns. Surely, by now, we have enough data on,
say, heart disease rates spanning multiple generations? If so, then we
should be able to see bumps in the curves (controlling for increased
life span or other "universals"). If we also have data on cancer,
diabetes, obesity, tooth decay, etc, then perhaps there are bumps in
those curves. If the bumps line up at all, _where_ do they line up?
Are there interesting patterns of near-discontinuities or inflection
points between, say, the heart disease of the greatest generation and
and that of the boomers? Do all the lines increase or decrease near
each other? Are there portions of the lines where variability spikes,
then drops? Etc.
If generations actually exist, then we should be able to see them in
this type of biomedical data.
Ah yes, though this could be like looking for the keys you lost in the
alley under the streetlamp some distance away "because the light is
better". Nevertheless, in support of your statement, I think there must
be existing data and analysis on this point, usually I presume to
support specific issues (such as the medical problems you describe), and
I agree that it would be useful.
On the other hand, I'm not setting out to *prove* my concept of what is
generational, but rather to explain or illuminate it. I also don't
want to pretend that it is universal (that all properties skip
generations, or that all generational sequences experience this type of
skipping).
I agree with Arlo's proposition that much of the conveniences of our
idea of "Generation This" and "Generation That" *are* somewhat
contrived, I'm only trying to make the argument that there *are*
couplings between "generations" which yield interesting oscillations
with periods roughly on the order of human reproduction cycles.
I also think there are arguments for some "phase locking" such as
significant social events that help to group a distribution more into a
"bin". I think in "our time" the 60's had several such events ranging
from the Vietnam War to Civil Rights and Equal Rights movements. This
united/coupled roughly "a generation". I was on the young end, my wife
(7 years my senior) was in the middle. I was counter-counter-culture
in my sensibilities and circumstances, but despite not identifying with
the majority of my peer group thus defined (+12, -3 years?) I am
definitely a product of those times and the resonances established.
I *would* be interested in finding work that might have been done around
this (presumed) phenomena...
Nick's suggestion of writing a paper (or generating a formal model?) was
probably only partly serious. I'm reminded of his own MOTH (my way or
the highway) model based on the prisoners dilemma:
P^intent to C^intent, P^intent to C^behavior, P^behavior to
C^intent, P^behavior to C^behavior.
I agree with Nick's implication that there could be some
quibbles/variants on this but for the sake of arguement it is a good start.
- Steve
"Kids these days" are no different than they were in our (various,
skewed across decades) "day".
And yet they are... no less than we (adolescents in the 50's, 60's,
70's, 80's ...) were different from our parents and their peers?
Well, again, I'm not so sure anyone's actually different from anyone
else. Sure, choose any particular measure (aka model, aka predicate)
and you can bin the universe. But absent the measure, are there any
differences? And how _general_ can we make the measure? Can we say that
some parent-child generations exhibit more or less difference than
others? Do we have _any_ measures that are objective enough to make
such claims? Or are all our measures defined so contrivingly within a
given generation that they are too special to say anything useful about
inter-generational differences, in general? (That sentence is more fun
if you swap out different pronunciations of "G". ;-)
I'm not asking rhetorical questions. I truly do not know the answers.
I am wrestling with the paradoxes of this.
In my youth, my parents generation (depression/WWII) were very clear
that my generation (Baby Boom) were from a different planet (where
apparently sex, drugs, rockNroll, poorGrooming, etc. were the only
commodities). They themselves did NOT distinguish themselves overtly
from *their* parents' generation, though they did speak of some of their
parents' limited understanding of the technology (specifically
communication and transportation) that was coming of age as they were
(the cohort born about the time of the automobile, the airplane, the
telephone and the wireless) and lack of access to modern medicine
(though not lack of access to medical understanding?). My grandparents
knew the names of the cancers and strokes and heart attacks and
tuberculosis that killed their parents, even if there was little to be
done about it.
My generation (raised by parents who read Dr. Spock but often did not
spare the rod at risk of spoiling the child) was determined to not
alienate their children as our parent's generation had us. We gave our
children odd names (taken from fantasy and psychadelic experiences or
from soap operas) and we inserted ourselves into their lives in ways our
parents never would have imagined. And to some effect, but not to the
extent intended?
The unction of population control lead me to be raised among families of
1-4 children while my parents generation were usually raised among
families of 5 to 10. My children were raised among families of 1-2
with my own peers often choosing to be childless. My children's peers
appear to be choosing between 0-1 child.
Having been married to two women from large(ish) families, I claim there
is a huge difference between being 1 of 6 or 8 and being 1 of 2 (as am
I, and as were my own children).
So my (also not rhetorical) question is roughly: Do these differences
yield qualitative and quantized results in individuals or groups?
I would think that cultural anthropologists and even evolutionary
psychologists (Nick?) might already have a bead on this work?
Thanks to Arlo (and Glen) for confronting my assumptions... this is
teasing out a more interesting question I think.
- Steve
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
