Abandon-business events and a history book (Cynical Theories)

In a previous post, Generational tipping point: 2021, I hypothesized a certain kind of Strauss-Howe generational event. I define "abandon business" events as the yielding of dominance and power by a dominant generation to its successor. This, of course, would affect the entire society.

First, it's fallacious to look for evidence to confirm any hypothesis—per Karl Popper's theory of the separation of science from non-science. The scientific method, according to Popper, excludes this fallacy of verificationism (which is also called evidential induction). It prescribes, instead, that we attempt to falsify all hypotheses. For more on verificationism, see:

• "Karl Popper: The Problem of Demarcation" – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2021-Mar-18;
• "Comment on 'The falsification of falsification' by Ann Althouse" – Openidname, 2020-Sep; and
• "What is the demarcation problem?": [skip to] A brief history of demarcation – PhilosophicalApologist, 2016.

Here, while seeming to commit perhaps the above-mentioned fallacy of verificationism (i.e., by searching for some evidence to confirm my hypothesis), instead I suggest, for any book of history, that we contemplate all of the dates it mentions (without cherry-picking from them) in order to see whether their associated stories fit (or alternatively falsify) my hypothesis: that a framework of generational abandon-business events influences the course of history. Do the book's meaningful dates fall after the generational events which I hypothesized (even if not particularly closely), so that it's even feasible for the abandon-business events, along with the resulting generational reigns, to have helped to cause the dated events described by the selected history book?

Using the book: Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender and Identity—and Why This Harms Everybody by Helen Pluckrose & James Lindsay (2020), the abandon-business events (from my hypothesis) that are relevant to the book are:

        Event-Year  =  Last-Birth-Year  +  Offset  –  Event  –  Generation  –  (Type)

        1961 = 1900 + 61 – abandon business – Lost generation – (Damaged)
        1985 = 1924 + 61 – abandon business – G.I. generation – (Together)
        2003 = 1942 + 61 – abandon business – Silent generation – (Smooth)

Thus 1961, 1985, and 2003 were the beginnings of the reigns of the G.I., Silent, and Baby Boom generations, precisely because the Lost, G.I., and Silent generations (the immediate precursor generations) were abandoning business just then:

        1961 = 1900 + 61 – abandon business – Lost generation – (Damaged):   This resulted in the reign of the G.I. (Together) generation;

        1985 = 1924 + 61 – abandon business – G.I. generation – (Together):   This resulted in the reign of the Silent (Smooth) generation; and

        2003 = 1942 + 61 – abandon business – Silent generation – (Smooth):   This resulted in the reign of the Baby Boom (Authentic) generation.

Below, I've quoted all of the book's mentionings of dates in its history of postmodernism. Regarding the three waves ("postmodernism," "applied postmodernism," and "reified postmodernism") described in the book, a separate abandon-business event does seem indeed to have helped to cause each one. The evidence for this is that the three waves occurred during the reigns respectively of the G.I., Silent, and Baby Boom generations.

Finally, here are the quotations (for review purposes, and please keep in mind the three years of 1961, 1985, and 2003):

        "Postmodernism first burst onto the intellectual scene in the late 1960s[,] and quickly became wildly fashionable among leftist and left-leaning academics....After its first big bang beginning in the late 1960s, the high deconstructive phase of postmodernism burn[ed] itself out by the early 1980s....The common wisdom among academics is that, by the 1990s, postmodernism had died. But, in fact, it simply mutated from its earlier high deconstructive phase into a new form....This change occurred as a new wave of Theorists emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s." – pp. 45–6

        "Theory, in this sense, has not gone away, but neither has it stayed the same. Between the late 1980s and roughly 2010, it developed the applicability of its underlying concepts[,] and came to form the basis of entirely new fields of scholarship, which have since become profoundly influential." – pp. 46–8

        "By losing the ironic playfulness and despair of meaning characteristic of high-deconstructive postmodernism[,] and by becoming goal-oriented, Theorists of the 1980s and 1990s made postmodernism applicable to institutions and politics....After the applied postmodern turn, postmodernism was no longer a mode of describing society and undermining confidence in long-established models of reality: it now aspired to be a tool of Social Justice. This ambition would come to fruition in the early 2010s, when a second significant evolutionary mutation in postmodernism occurred....The intense scrutiny of language and development of ever stricter rules for terminology pertaining to identity often known as political correctness came to a head in the 1990s and has again become pertinent since the mid-2010s....As these methods can be applied to virtually anything, a vast body of work drawing on any (or all) identity-based fields has emerged since roughly 2010." – pp. 61–3

        "While, initially, postcolonial Theory scholarship mostly took the form of literary criticism and the discursive analysis of writing about colonialism...the field gradually expanded and simplified. By the early 2000s, the concept of decolonizing everything had begun to dominate scholarship and activism, and new scholars were using and developing the concepts in different ways, with more actionable elements....The aims of postcolonial Theory also became more concrete: focusing less on disrupting discourses they saw as colonialist in the fairly pessimistic way typical of postmodernism[,] and more on taking active steps to decolonize these, using the militant Social Justice approach that has taken hold since 2010." – p. 77

        "If we think of the first postmodernists of the late 1960s as a manifestation of radical skepticism and despair[,] and the second wave, from the late 1980s, as a recovery from hopelessness[,] and a drive to make [the] core ideas politically actionable, [then] this third wave, which became prominent between the late 2000s and the early 2010s, has fully recovered its certainty and activist zeal. The first postmodernists were reacting largely to the failure of Marxism, the longstanding analytical framework of the academic left, and suffering from major disillusionment....They therefore sought only to dismantle, deconstruct, and disrupt existing frameworks ironically, with a kind of joyless playfulness. This was the state of cultural thought in the 1970s. By the time this first wave of despairing skepticism—the high deconstructive phase of postmodernism—had worn itself out twenty years later [in the 1990s], the academic left had somewhat recovered hope and was looking for more positive and applicable forms of Theory....Above all else, intersectional feminism sought empowerment through identity politics and collective action, which largely defines the current cultural mood....So, by the 1990s, the applied postmodern turn had arrived, [which] made postmodern Theory actionable, and focused on identity and identity politics. As these Theories developed through the late 1990s into the 2000s within various forms of identity studies...they increasingly combined their aims, to become steadily more intersectional. By the mid-2000s, if you studied one of the key topics...you were expected to factor in all the others....As the 2010s began, the ambiguity and doubt that had characterized postmodernism up until then had almost entirely disappeared[.]" – pp. 184–6

        "Social Justice scholarship does not just rely on the two postmodern principles and four postmodern themes: it treats them and their underlying assumptions as morally righteous known-knowns—as The Truth According to Social Justice. It therefore constitutes a third distinct phase of postmodernism, one we have called reified postmodernism because it treats the abstractions at the heart of postmodernism as if they were real truths about society. To understand how the three phases of postmodernism have developed, imagine a tree with deep roots in radical leftist social theory. The first phase, or high deconstructive phase, from the 1960s to the 1980s (usually simply referred to as 'postmodernism'), gave us the tree trunk: Theory. The second phase, from the 1980s to the mid-2000s, which we call applied postmodernism, gave us the branches....In the current, third phase, which began in the mid-2000s, Theory has gone from being an assumption to being The Truth, a truth that is taken for granted. This has given us the leaves of the tree of Social Justice scholarship, which combines the previous approaches as needed....Social Justice scholarship represents the third phase in the evolution of postmodernism. In this new incarnation, postmodernism...now seeks to apply deconstructive methods and postmodernist principles to the task of creating social change, which it pushes into everything.

        "[W]hat Social Justice scholars [currently] seem in practice to do is to select certain favored interpretations of marginalized people's experience (those consistent with Theory) and anoint these as the 'authentic' ones; all others are explained away as an unfortunate internalization of dominant ideologies or cynical self-interest...at the price of rendering the Social Justice Theory completely unfalsifiable and indefeasible: [N]o matter what evidence about reality (physical, biological, and social)[,] or philosophical argument may be presented, Theory always can and always does explain it away. It is therefore no exaggeration to observe that Social Justice Theorists have created a new religion, a tradition of faith that is actively hostile to reason, falsification, disconfirmation, and disagreement of any kind. Indeed, the whole postmodernist project now seems, in retrospect, like an unwitting attempt to have deconstructed the old metanarratives of Western thought—science and reason along with religion and capitalist economic systems—to make room for a wholly new religion, a postmodern faith based on a dead God, which sees mysterious worldly forces in systems of power and privilege[,] and which sanctifies victimhood. This, increasingly, is the fundamentalist religion of the nominally secular left." – pp. 207–11

        "It is not a coincidence that the applied postmodern turn began in the late 1980s, just as the Civil Rights Movement, liberal feminism, and Gay Pride began to see diminishing returns after twenty years of remarkably rapid progress towards racial, gender, and LGBT equality on a legal and political level. With Jim Crow laws dismantled, Empire fallen, male homosexuality legalized, and discrimination on the grounds of race and sex criminalized, Western society was newly aware and ashamed of its long history of oppression of marginalized groups and wanted to continue righting those wrongs. Since the most significant legal battles had been won, all that remained to tackle were sexist, racist, and homophobic attitudes and discourses. Postmodernism, with its focus on discourses of power and socially constructed knowledge, was perfectly placed to address these." – pp. 230–1

Copyright (c) 2021 Mark D. Blackwell.

Generational tipping point: 2021

ABSTRACT

After defining the concept of "social force," some instances of its withdrawal are observed to precede significant social change; causation is conjectured.

An argument is presented, regarding the Strauss-Howe generations, that their final birth year has importance for understanding social change. This birth year's attainment of various threshold ages is observed to correlate with major historical events. In particular, regarding the final birth year, 61 and 71 years of age are seen to accompany a major and minor diminishment in social influence, respectively, for the entire generation.

Finally, based on this, a prediction is made that in the year 2021 the Baby Boom generation's power will diminish, in a major way.

INTRODUCTION

The year 2021 will be a tipping point, away from some of the "craziness" which has been developing continually in the past several decades.

To justify this unexpected prediction, first I'll touch on the topic of social force; then I'll pursue in some depth the topic of generations.

SOCIAL FORCE

Potential social phenomena involve two kinds of social force: one kind that supports, and another kind that resists.

To actually exist, any given phenomenon requires some force to support it (of course). Also, any resisting force must either have withdrawn voluntarily, or else it must have been overpowered. Only then will we see the phenomenon. This view focuses on the static forces involved, and resembles the analysis of static forces in civil engineering.

The removal of a phenomenon is also a phenomenon. The existence of the new phenomenon (which is precisely the absence of the old phenomenon) follows the same static force rules as above. This symmetry is both simplifying and useful.

A dynamic view of forces is useful for understanding social change. Even allowing for mass, inertia, and variable rates of adoption and learning, still the gradual actualization or disappearance of a phenomenon can occur only after some force has been added, or after another force has been withdrawn—or both.

Albeit less known, the second kind of action—the withdrawal of a force—is the focus of this article.

GENERATIONS

Generations, in the Strauss-Howe hypothesis, are cultural and psychological phenomena, irregular in their timing. Each comprises a distinct range of birth years. Their defining boundary years don't match (perhaps naturally) those chosen by most demographers.

Each generation's earlier half (loosely speaking) is called the first wave; its latter half is called the last wave.

The Strauss-Howe generations come in four types; they cycle in the following order:

        Damaged,  Together,  Smooth,  Authentic

(These names are my own.) Each name describes that type's basic, differentiating psychological characteristic.

These arise presumably because each generation (of that type) received particular rewards for expressing that characteristic in childhood.

Initially, each generation is raised by the second-previous generation. This fact, interpreted through peer group influence, "sets the pattern" of its basic characteristic. (Its later-born members are raised by the immediately-previous generation.)

Thus—in some way—as children:

• With preponderantly last wave Smooth-generation parents, the Damaged generations' first wave is rewarded for being completely and grittily realistic;

• With preponderantly last wave Authentic-generation parents, the Together generations' first wave is rewarded for playing cooperatively with playmates;

• With preponderantly last wave Damaged-generation parents, the Smooth generations' first wave is rewarded for calming their parents; and

• With preponderantly last wave Together-generation parents, the Authentic generations' first wave is rewarded for expressing their deepest, most honest reactions.

In the run-up to the American Civil War, an exceptional cycle elided its Together generation. Thus:

• First born in 1843, although with preponderantly last wave Transcendental (Authentic) generation parents, the Progressive (Smooth) generation's first wave was rewarded as usual for calming their parents; and

• First born in 1860, although with preponderantly last wave Gilded (Damaged) generation parents, the Missionary (Authentic) generation's first wave was rewarded as usual for expressing their deepest, most honest reactions.

By elderhood, each generation type's differentiating characteristic becomes an evolved version of its basic characteristic—so that:

• The Damaged generation type protects society from damage arising from widespread, unconstrained behavior and external threat;

• The Together generation type confidently (and hugely) reaps rewards bestowable by government;

• The Smooth generation type aids individuals through broad governmental power: promoting and preserving rights, freedoms, and protections; and

• The Authentic generation type destroys society through its individuals' stubborn, independent sense of what's right (idealism): and therefore, through their own, selfish greed.

In the cycle overall, the Damaged generation type—when its power is greatest (and least opposed)—repairs some of the damage inflicted by the previous cycle, and establishes a new, working social order. Then, by turns—each, when its power is greatest—the Together, Smooth, and Authentic generation types increasingly damage that order, and tear it apart.

EVENT YEARS

The concept of an "event year", here, is that of a generation altering its deployment of social forces in a major way. Either its last birth-year cohort finally withdraws a social force, or, less importantly, its first birth-year cohort adds one.

Regarding the following list of familiar, recent generations, my idea is for you to try to connect the "Event-Years", at the left edge of their associated charts, to any historical events which come to mind, which occurred soon afterward (perhaps within ten years):

• The Millennial generation:

      Event-Year  =  Edge-Birth-Year  +  Offset  –  Event  –  Generation  –  (Type)

      2016 = 1982 + 34 – manage business – Millennial generation – (Together)
      2000 = 1982 + 18 – upturn academia – Millennial generation – (Together)

• The Gen-X generation:

      1995 = 1961 + 34 – manage business – Gen-X generation – (Damaged)
      1979 = 1961 + 18 – upturn academia – Gen-X generation – (Damaged)

• The Baby Boom generation:

      1977 = 1943 + 34 – manage business – Baby Boom generation – (Authentic)
      1961 = 1943 + 18 – upturn academia – Baby Boom generation – (Authentic)

• The Silent generation:

      2013 = 1942 + 71 – abandon politics and academia – Silent generation – (Smooth)
      2003 = 1942 + 61 – abandon business – Silent generation – (Smooth)
      1959 = 1925 + 34 – manage business – Silent generation – (Smooth)
      1943 = 1925 + 18 – upturn academia – Silent generation – (Smooth)

• The G.I. generation:

      1995 = 1924 + 71 – abandon politics and academia – G.I. generation – (Together)
      1985 = 1924 + 61 – abandon business – G.I. generation – (Together)
      1935 = 1901 + 34 – manage business – G.I. generation – (Together)
      1919 = 1901 + 18 – upturn academia – G.I. generation – (Together)

• The Lost generation:

      1971 = 1900 + 71 – abandon politics and academia – Lost generation – (Damaged)
      1961 = 1900 + 61 – abandon business – Lost generation – (Damaged)
      1917 = 1883 + 34 – manage business – Lost generation – (Damaged)
      1901 = 1883 + 18 – upturn academia – Lost generation – (Damaged)

Why pick these particular numbers as the offsets? Because these are my best assessments of when the corresponding cultural sea changes actually occurred. In other words, why pick:

• 71 years, for when control of politics and academia is basically abandoned? This is based on my own tentative observations regarding power in the U.S. Senate, and influential professors;

• 61 years, for when business control is basically abandoned? It can't be later, because significant events occurred precisely in the predicted sea change years of 1985, 1961, 1943 and 1648 (see below);

• 34 years, for when a presence in business middle management begins? Because, for the predicted sea change years of:

  • 1995, the Gen-X (Damaged) generation founded the popular, emailed (Matt) Drudge Report in that year;

  • 1977, the Baby Boom (Authentic) generation adopted a success-oriented lifestyle, including attendance at disco music dance halls, with the release of the film, "Saturday Night Fever" in that year; and

  • 1959, the Silent (Smooth) generation responded to Volkswagen's "Think small" Beetle advertisement, which spearheaded advertising's Creative Revolution in that year; and

• 18 years, for when student presence in academia begins? It can't be earlier, because the youngest significant college attendance happens then.

Now, let's focus on the "abandon business" events:

        2003 = 1942 + 61 – abandon business – Silent generation – (Smooth)
        1985 = 1924 + 61 – abandon business – G.I. generation – (Together)
        1961 = 1900 + 61 – abandon business – Lost generation – (Damaged)
        1943 = 1882 + 61 – abandon business – Missionary generation – (Authentic)
        1920 = 1859 + 61 – abandon business – Progressive generation – (Smooth)
        1903 = 1842 + 61 – abandon business – Gilded generation – (Damaged)
        1882 = 1821 + 61 – abandon business – Transcendental generation – (Authentic)
        1852 = 1791 + 61 – abandon business – Compromise generation – (Smooth)
        1827 = 1766 + 61 – abandon business – Republican generation – (Together)
        1802 = 1741 + 61 – abandon business – Liberty generation – (Damaged)
        1784 = 1723 + 61 – abandon business – Awakening generation – (Authentic)
        1761 = 1700 + 61 – abandon business – Enlightenment generation – (Smooth)
        1734 = 1673 + 61 – abandon business – Glorious generation – (Together)
        1708 = 1647 + 61 – abandon business – Cavalier generation – (Damaged)
        1678 = 1617 + 61 – abandon business – Puritan generation – (Authentic)
        1648 = 1587 + 61 – abandon business – Parliamentary generation – (Smooth)
        1626 = 1565 + 61 – abandon business – Elizabethan generation – (Together)
        1601 = 1540 + 61 – abandon business – Reprisal generation – (Damaged)
        1572 = 1511 + 61 – abandon business – Reformation generation – (Authentic)
        1543 = 1482 + 61 – abandon business – Humanist generation – (Smooth)
        1521 = 1460 + 61 – abandon business – Arthurian generation – (Together)

These are arguably the tipping points of greatest significance: when the social influence of that generation type basically ceases. Their influence then becomes sorely missed. For instance, the following generation types, by ceasing their influence, seem to have caused these corresponding events:

• The Silent (Smooth) generation in 2003 ceased "aid[ing] individuals through broad governmental power: promoting and preserving rights, freedoms, and protections."

  • This caused the financial sector's rules to evolve gradually toward increasing fraud and cheating of individual investors, including the ballooning of subprime mortgage lending beginning in 2004, eventually resulting in the Great Recession of 2008. And, it caused the Iraq War in 2003;

• The G.I. (Together) generation in 1985 ceased "confidently (and hugely) reap[ing] rewards bestowable by government."

  • This caused the creation of the Gramm-Rudman U.S. federal budget restrictions in 1985, and the U.S. Congressional PAYGO rules restricting expenditures in 1990. And, it caused Britain to sign the Single European Act, the beginnings of the European Union, in 1986;

• The Lost (Damaged) generation in 1961 ceased "protect[ing] society from damage arising from widespread, unconstrained behavior and external threat."

  • This caused social norms to be loosened, beginning in the 1960s. Noteworthy are the movies released beginning in 1961. And, it caused the U.S. Revenue Act of 1964, which reduced the top marginal tax rate to 77%. It had been at least 91% since 1951;

• The Missionary (Authentic) generation in 1943 ceased "destroy[ing] society through its individuals' stubborn, independent sense of what's right (idealism): and therefore, through their own, selfish greed."

  • This caused the world to stop pursuing its dreams of German, Italian and Japanese domination, and the Allies to gain momentum, both in 1943. And, it caused the era of New Deal Liberalism: cooperation among government, corporations and labor;

• The Progressive (Smooth) generation in 1920 ceased "aid[ing] individuals through broad governmental power: promoting and preserving rights, freedoms, and protections."

  • This caused the financial sector's rules to evolve gradually toward increasing fraud and cheating of individual investors, which eventually resulted in the Great Depression of the 1930s;

• The Compromise (Smooth) generation in 1852 ceased "aid[ing] individuals through broad governmental power: promoting and preserving rights, freedoms, and protections."

  • Regarding individuals who wished to settle safely in U.S. territories (and avoid war), this caused the Kansas–Nebraska Act of 1854, the decisive, uncompromising Dred Scott v. Sandford U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1857, and the American Civil War in 1861;

• The Enlightenment (Smooth) generation in 1761 ceased "aid[ing] individuals through broad governmental power: promoting and preserving rights, freedoms, and protections."

  • This caused the "long train of abuses and usurpations" of the American Revolution which began in 1765; and

• The Parliamentary (Smooth) generation in 1648 ceased "aid[ing] individuals through broad governmental power: promoting and preserving rights, freedoms, and protections."

  • Offending those individuals who disliked military takeover of government, this caused the imprisonment of Charles I for trial, and Pride's Purge which created the Rump Parliament, both in 1648.

The Authentic generation type's abandon-business events are of crucial importance:

        1943 = 1882 + 61 – abandon business – Missionary generation – (Authentic)
        1882 = 1821 + 61 – abandon business – Transcendental generation – (Authentic)
        1784 = 1723 + 61 – abandon business – Awakening generation – (Authentic)
        1678 = 1617 + 61 – abandon business – Puritan generation – (Authentic)
        1572 = 1511 + 61 – abandon business – Reformation generation – (Authentic)

Again, social change is often caused by the withdrawal of a force. Thus:

• For the Missionary (Authentic) generation—see above;

• The Transcendental (Authentic) generation abandoned business in 1882, thus lessening idealism; this caused the disenfranchisement of blacks after the Reconstruction era;

• The Awakening (Authentic) generation abandoned business in 1784, thus lessening selfishness; this caused the U.S. Constitutional Convention in 1787;

• The Puritan (Authentic) generation abandoned business in 1678, thus lessening idealism; this caused Britain's Glorious Revolution of 1688; and

• The Reformation (Authentic) generation abandoned business in 1572, thus lessening idealism; this caused the first successful Elizabethan London theaters to open in 1576.

Note that each such tipping point—when an Authentic generation abandons business—completes a period of great conflict.

PREDICTION

Finally, most important is the next such tipping point. It will be:

        2021 = 1960 + 61 – abandon business – Baby Boom generation – (Authentic)

Therefore, next year, in 2021, the world will change, in a major way—regardless of whoever wins the U.S. presidential election.

At that upcoming tipping point, the world's craziness—its idealism and selfishness—will slowly cease. Our large corporate businesses will be helmed by enough members of the Gen-X (Damaged) generation for the world to grow sensible and safe again.

Consider all of the Gen-X directed projects, cultural and otherwise, that we've seen recently. These foreshadow the nature, of course, of the upcoming Gen-X order.

Copyright (c) 2020 Mark D. Blackwell.

User-story presence flags ease split-test metrics for lean startups, howto

This morning I read 'Measure', a chapter of the book, The Lean Startup. It discusses cohort analysis, split-testing, and the triple-A of metrics: Actionable, Accessible and Auditable.

Then I got an idea regarding split-testing the user-story stream in website development.

For split-testing newly deployed stories it's easy to include (in the logs) a (growing) bitstring of indicators for each user story, which indicate their presence (with/without or after/before), and the ordinal number (implicitly) of the story (perhaps from PivotalTracker). All are kept in the same central place (in the source code) usually used for configuration.

Packed together by story number (using standard Base64 encoding), each log line includes them as a short string. (They take up only a single character for each 64 stories, of course.)

With current aggregated logging, remembering which log records came from which active set of stories might be difficult. But at the first level this method eases split-testing (for the impact of) each newly-deployed story.

Going deeper, the flags in the logs categorize the comparison data cleanly and safely, especially if we ever want something more complex (in the current context)—such as to reassess an old story. To disable an earlier story, some special programming is required, but our log data will indicate clearly which stories are active.

For split-testing, we can filter the log data by these story-presence strings. We can split-test for various configurations (of user stories), new-user activation (or usage rates or whatever we desire).

Perhaps we might want to remove an old feature, and split-test that, before we expend the effort to develop an incompatible new feature—good idea? And arbitrary configurations of features can be split-tested.

Copyright (c) 2012 Mark D. Blackwell.