tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post9041744287127368654..comments2024-03-28T21:56:51.675-04:00Comments on Face to Face: Watching Network to see Millennials as the next Silent Generationagnostichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-25585045737495730012012-02-25T01:36:47.661-05:002012-02-25T01:36:47.661-05:00I'm more inclined to think that what happens d...I'm more inclined to think that what happens during childhood is more important than adolescence. <br /><br />And, the stark differences in those born from 83-84 vs. 86-87 lead me to believe that the period in which we "imprint" a world view is very short.<br /><br /> You seem to have found significance with the age of 7, and as I mentioned, that could be a period when a "cognitive growth spurt" happens. In other words, when you turn 7, you quickly create a world view based on what's going on around you... that lasts for the rest of your life. So if you turned 7 in 1992, that means that you would have a "rising-crime personality". Even though you end up spending the latter parts of your childhood, and all of adolescence, during a falling-crime period. <br /><br />I know that morally, most people develop adult morality around 10 or 11...<br /><br />And of course, it could be whatever's going on during the year you hit puberty.<br /><br />But I am definitely leaning more towards humans imprinting a falling-crimes orientation or rising-crimes orientation in a very short span of time - 1-3 years possibly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-37581484300911063002012-02-24T17:36:18.032-05:002012-02-24T17:36:18.032-05:00Well every generation has variation. Dunaway's...<i>Well every generation has variation. Dunaway's character is more typical, while Jagger was clearly an outlier.<br /><br />The exceptional cases usually serve as bridge figures when the younger generations change their ways, and are looking for guidance from the few older people who they identify with.</i><br /><br />Well, James Brown was 30 in 1963. The Beatles were born in the 40s and were 20 by the time the 60s hit. Hendrix was born in the 40s. Unless I'm getting my history wrong, the (musical at least) innovators of the 60s and early 70s all had formative periods (less than age 20) in falling crime times, with only the late 70s and 80s musical innovators being born during a rising crime period.<br /><br />I dunno, were all their records being bought by people 10 years younger than them? If people are strongly affected by their 1-20 years upbringing or 4-7 years upbringing, then it would take longer than the transitions in youth and mass culture that you have described happening in the falling crime periods to take affect.<br /><br />It's your theory, but it just seems like formative generational status really is a very weak at best addition to behaviour compared to age, rising crime and falling crime and how long each era has been going on for. <br /><br />When the next rising crime period happens, judging from history, the innovators and people who embody, are most in tune with and stand most fully in that age will be young people (20s to 30s) who were born and raised solidly in the falling crime times, not us older folks who were born and raised around the transition of a rising crime period to a falling crime period.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-39569687490197816802012-02-24T14:39:31.931-05:002012-02-24T14:39:31.931-05:00Well every generation has variation. Dunaway's...Well every generation has variation. Dunaway's character is more typical, while Jagger was clearly an outlier.<br /><br />The exceptional cases usually serve as bridge figures when the younger generations change their ways, and are looking for guidance from the few older people who they identify with.<br /><br />Charles Manson is a sicker example of an outlier from the Silents becoming famous with a changing young generation. In more recent times, look at how famous the snarky loser Jon Stewart has become with the increasingly dorky and cocooning younger generations.<br /><br />Your formative experiences for adult personality don't come during your 20s and 30s, but from childhood through adolescence. Who you are is basically set by age 20, with usually minor changes after that.<br /><br />So William Holden had already lived 16 years before the crime rate began falling in 1934. Even the ones born in the early '20s still experienced childhood in that heyday of kidnapping, gangs, flirty girls, drugs, heroism, dancing, and entrepreneurial spirit.<br /><br />I think they're the most keenly aware of the difference between the earlier generations and the Silents because they came of age partly in rising-crime and partly in falling-crime times, just like people around my age did.<br /><br />We have a feel for what both eras felt like, and just how bizarre young people look when they weren't exposed at all to the more demanding environment.agnostichttp://akinokure.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-187230421570468272012-02-24T14:29:41.214-05:002012-02-24T14:29:41.214-05:00"when did female singers cease to be appealin..."when did female singers cease to be appealing in a natural, human, feminine way and become gaudy, comical, robotic super-skanks?"<br /><br />Belinda Carlisle is definitely a soothing refuge when the skankdom and mousiness of American females starts getting to you.<br /><br />The first really comical robo-attention-whores I remember are the Spice Girls in '97, although there were probably some rap groups a little earlier than that. Salt N Pepa circa 1993 or '94.<br /><br />I don't agree about '80s Madonna being skanky, though. She was still flirty and vulnerable back then. She may have hammed it up in some of her videos, but usually in more of a tease-y way than a "look but don't touch" way.agnostichttp://akinokure.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-52343715916374617722012-02-23T14:40:33.169-05:002012-02-23T14:40:33.169-05:00I still don't quite understand this I must adm...I still don't quite understand this I must admit - Faye Dunaway is born 2 years before Mick Jagger. Surely if she is a Silent Generation member, so is someone like Jagger (and other people in their 20s in the 60s and in their 30s in the 70s)? <br /><br />Whereas William Holden was a participent of the culture of the 30s and 40s as a young man (from age 20 to 30). How can someone who was an undistinguished participent of a popular cultural era you despise as a young adult become lionised as an middle aged man because of when he was born?<br /><br />It seemed like you were on steadier ground without all this generational learning business.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-44144595572310520952012-02-23T09:50:16.938-05:002012-02-23T09:50:16.938-05:00I have a question and figured this would be the mo...I have a question and figured this would be the most appropriate post to tack it onto. <br /><br />Today I was listening to Belinda Carlisle's "I Get Weak", which completely rocks, and wondered: when did female singers cease to be appealing in a natural, human, feminine way and become gaudy, comical, robotic super-skanks? To see the immediate contrast, simply google "Belinda Carlisle" and then "Lady Gaga" and compare the top 5 image results that appear.<br /><br />I guess people don't really care much about natural beauty any more, they just want cheap sex. Or, due to fragmentation in the music market, it's just a select group that's driving the demand for the super-skanks and the trend isn't representative of the overall population (though I think it is...and as you've said before, it's teenage girls and middle aged (gay?) men who consume the most popular music, and these groups wouldn't seem to want the skanks).<br /><br />Taylor Swift doesn't count as a skank, but 80s Madonna does, so of course there are exceptions.<br /><br />Maybe Mariah Carey serves as the turning point, sort of strattling the two styles.Mild Speculationhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17896987391288790731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-90950266921728746492012-02-21T13:36:48.979-05:002012-02-21T13:36:48.979-05:00well, same principle is still at work.well, same principle is still at work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-80242579992352464322012-02-20T18:06:39.584-05:002012-02-20T18:06:39.584-05:00Jimmy Carter was born in 1926, and spent the war i...<i>Jimmy Carter was born in 1926, and spent the war in the Annapolis Naval Academy. Think how radically he was in demeanor from John Kennedy, Reagan, and George Bush Sr.(all categorized as "G.I. Generation", 1901-1924).</i><br /><br />Carter was born in October 1924. Most likely he would have seen combat had he not been selected for the Naval Academy.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04266094188872421777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-75277145785436922212012-02-19T20:27:21.434-05:002012-02-19T20:27:21.434-05:00maybe some sort of important cognitive development...maybe some sort of important cognitive development happens in chidren when they turn 7?<br /><br />also, I'd expand that to 1986. crime didn't drop sharply until 1995, and that seems when the culture - especially children's culture - went to shit.(compare Aladdin and the Lion King to Pocahantas and the Humpback of Notre DAme, for example).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-71515507323515717152012-02-19T16:40:34.975-05:002012-02-19T16:40:34.975-05:00"It's interesting in another way that mov..."It's interesting in another way that moving back 59 years from the first Millennial birth year of 1985 takes you to 1926. Probably coincidence, but interesting nonetheless. People (males, at least) born in 1926 were just young enough in most cases to miss combat service in World War II. Assuming they were drafted soon after turning 18, by the time they were finished with training and were deployed overseas, most of the fighting was over. A few made the tail end of combat in the Pacific, but consider that males born just one year earlier would have been right in the thick of things."<br /><br />Strauss and Howe place the end of the "Greatest Generation" at 1924, for precisely the reasons you bring up. Which also fits in with the blog author's theory.<br /><br />Jimmy Carter was born in 1926, and spent the war in the Annapolis Naval Academy. Think how radically he was in demeanor from John Kennedy, Reagan, and George Bush Sr.(all categorized as "G.I. Generation", 1901-1924).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-88754161204354331842012-02-19T10:25:28.475-05:002012-02-19T10:25:28.475-05:00It's interesting in another way that moving ba...It's interesting in another way that moving back 59 years from the first Millennial birth year of 1985 takes you to 1926. Probably coincidence, but interesting nonetheless. People (males, at least) born in 1926 were <i>just</i> young enough in most cases to miss combat service in World War II. Assuming they were drafted soon after turning 18, by the time they were finished with training and were deployed overseas, most of the fighting was over. A few made the tail end of combat in the Pacific, but consider that males born just one year earlier would have been right in the thick of things.<br /><br /><i>Recently, I looked up "Conga Line" on Wikipedia, where it says it's a Cuban dance which became popular here in the 1930s-1950s. So what does that signify? That we'll see a return of the Conga?</i><br /><br />During those years America went through a phase of being fascinated with Latin American culture. Not sure why, maybe it was because most of the rest of the world was in a lot of turmoil at the time. Cuba in particular was a popular spot for tourism and cultural fascination.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04266094188872421777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-11963341732485781062012-02-18T23:12:52.588-05:002012-02-18T23:12:52.588-05:00Recently, I looked up "Conga Line" on Wi...Recently, I looked up "Conga Line" on Wikipedia, where it says it's a Cuban dance which became popular here in the 1930s-1950s. So what does that signify? That we'll see a return of the Conga? That the Conga is part of the cocooning trend?asnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-60160506653047080482012-02-18T13:08:40.386-05:002012-02-18T13:08:40.386-05:00And Network is truly one of the bests - right on s...And Network is truly one of the bests - right on so many accounts of how the world would turn out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-69156492610042717522012-02-18T12:53:36.360-05:002012-02-18T12:53:36.360-05:00Well, I don't think they will be like the Sile...Well, I don't think they will be like the Silent Generation, because they will have to deal with various crises that will probably require civic action and social cohesion. Remember: the Silent Generation became what they were because they never experienced some sort of crisis in their adulthoods, and thus never had the opportunity for civic action.<br /><br />The G.I. Generation, who came before the Silent Generation, were also "cocooned" as children. The difference is that when they came of age, immense demands were placed on them, which required social cohesion and therefore socialization with others. <br /><br />Ultimately, people can adapt their behavior to the situation, regardless of how they were raised. IF you have to go fight a war, you're giong to have overcome any cocooning you may have received.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com