Notes on historical cycles

Current cycle (1946-present):

Post-war high (1946-1966)
- Peace and prosperity resonate ("middle class paradise")
- GIs and Silents benefit a great deal from this era (longest lived generations)
- Individualism is low and cultural stability is high (low rates of crime, mental illness, and drug use)

Civil Rights and New Age awakening (1967-1981)
- Silents and esp. Boomers attack the cultural conformity and aspiritual nature of the Post-war high.
- Individual rights and creativity surge, but so does crime, violence, sex, and ill-tempered passion.
- "counter-cultural" ideas and movements surge in popularity, which causes a rapidly shifting sense of what's acceptable and what isn't. Unusual or revived from the past forms of religion, sexual behavior, and personal expression bemuse GI Generation adults, tantalize Silents, and excite Boomers.....But they also unsettle young Gen X-ers.

Junk Culture and Neo-liberal unraveling (1982-2000)
- Silents and Boomers began to regret the excesses of the awakening, and also began to point their fingers at whoever is deemed to be responsible for the crumbling of morality
- Crime, drugs, and promiscuity are attacked with moralistic fervor, as older adults criticize Gen X youth for their flippant and nihilistic culture of "death". Sanguine city streets, nightclubs, and gambling dens are called home by wayward aging Boomers and street-wise young X-ers. Simultaneously, all generations become committed to a "family friendly" restoration of the church and the home, to protect Millennials from the shattering upbringing experienced by awakening era Gen X kids.
- Economic and political corruption rapidly grows, creating a growing division between the haves and have-nots, and making the public increasingly cynical about the integrity of the system.

Post September 11 Crisis (2001-Present)
- Behavior among all generations improves greatly (after the awakening and unraveling produced over 30 years of reduced self-control), with spirited Millennials leading the way as they demonstrate far lower rates of violence, drug use, and sex than Gen X-ers.
- Individualism, which soared from the beginning of the awakening to the last gasp of the unraveling, finally begins to decline.
- It becomes apparent that society must exert great effort to pass successfully through the current crisis; in the unraveling, many people looked for excuses to not "get involved.
- Outbreaks of team oriented violence and unrest become more common, after being nearly unheard of in the 1980's and 1990's.
- Sustained moods of large-scale hostility between different economic classes, regional groups, and ethnic groups become more likely, both within the nation and between different nations
- Great changes will be made to society and culture that render it practically alien to what it once was during the unraveling.

Notes on generations: Gen X

Type: Nomad/Reactive
Birth years: approx. 1965-1981
Youth (1-17): Civil Rights and New Age awakening of 1967-1981
Parenting received: set loose by self-indulgent adults
Parental attachment: none

Path to maturity (18-39): Junk culture and neo-liberal unravelling of 1982-2000
Lifestyle: "Street" culture, becoming tough and self-reliant
Reputation: Alienated, nihilistic, dangerous

Middle Age (40-59): Post-September 11 crisis (2001-present)
Lifestyle: Big winners and big losers, absorbing the many duties and stresses of caretaking during a crisis period
Reputation: Resilient, pragmatic, under-rated

Elder leadership (60-79): ?

Withdrawal (80+):?

Parenting style:
Suffocatingly protective, vigilant

Presidents:
None

Notes on generations: Boomer

Type: Missionary/Idealist
Birth years: approx. 1946-1964
Youth (1-17): Mid-twentieth century high of 1946-1966
Parenting received: Encouraged by confident adults
Parental attachment: Wise mother

Path to maturity (18-39): Civil Rights and New Age awakening of 1967-1981
Lifestyle: Hedonism, protests, riots, quarrels, and dreams and "visions" of cultural and spiritual purification
Reputation: Volatile, brash

Middle Age (40-59): Junk culture and neo-liberal unravelling of 1982-2000
Lifestyle: Materialism, moralistic lecturing, injecting and debating religion in the public sphere, crusading to protect children
Reputation: Judgemental, severe, conscientious

Elder leadership (60-79): post September 11 crisis (2001-present)
Lifestyle: Guiding us through urgent matters of foreign policy, politics, and economics.
Reputation: Uncompromising focus on results and accountability

Withdrawal (80+):?

Parenting style:
Demanding, hands on(kids must be guided)

Presidents:
Clinton (1993-2000)-Trump (2017-)

Notes on generations: Silent

Type: Artist/Adaptive
Birth years: approx. 1925-1945
Youth (1-17): Crisis of the 1930's Depression, World War 2 (1930-1945)
Parenting received: Sheltered by fearful adults
Parental attachment: both parents for their unconditional love

Path to maturity (18-39): Mid-twentieth century high of 1946-1966
Lifestyle: Studying, socializing, becoming the expert understudies of GIs
Reputation: Conformist, cautious, unhappy

Middle Age (40-59): Civil Rights and New Age awakening of 1967-1981
Lifestyle: Experimentation ("mid-life crisis"), mediating between passionate Boomers and stoic GIs, witty leaders and observers of emerging political and cultural movements
Reputation: Insecure, underappreciated

Elder leadership (60-79):Junk culture and neo-liberal unravelling of 1982-2000
Lifestyle: Caught in "no man's land" (still not recognized as GIs who are now fading, or Boomers who are now commanding the spotlight more than ever). Lamenting their inability to live up to the GIs powerful reputation, while also lacking the fervor of righteous Boomers.
Reputation: Faltering

Withdrawal (80+): post September 11 crisis (2001-present)
Lifestyle: family and community oriented, with no great professional obligations left. Still looking for another shot at excitement and fulfillment (lots of "adventures" still left to pursue).
Reputation: Respected

Parenting style:
"Free range" (let kids find their way)

No presidents

Notes on Generations - GI

Type: Hero/Civic
Birth years: approx. 1900-1924
Youth (1-17): Early 20th century unraveling of 1908-1929
Parenting received: protected by moralistic adults
Parental attachment: strong fathers

Path to maturity (18-39): Crisis of the 1930's Depression, World War 2 (1930-1945)
Lifestyle: accomplishing great things as team in a time of great need
Reputation: brave and virtuous

Middle Age (40-59): Mid-twentieth century high of 1946-1966
Lifestyle: building ambitious and powerful institutions as a team, enjoying their power
Reputation: confident and energetic

Elder leadership (60-79): Civil Rights and New Age awakening of 1967-1981
Lifestyle: defending their institutions from the attacks of younger generations
Reputation: powerful to a hubristic fault

Withdrawal (80+): Junk culture and neo-liberal unravelling of 1982-2000
Lifestyle: graceful passage into retirement from politics and culture.
Reputation: beloved 

Parenting style:
Encouraging creativity and independent thinking

First president: JFK (1961-1963)
Last President: George HW Bush (1989-1992)

High Ed follow-up

The 2004-2016 stats show that over 30% of white guys now report getting a Bachelor's or Graduate degree.

Prior to 1984, in no year did more than 20% of whites report having a degree. 30 years after 1984, are white guys 10% smarter than they used to be? Of course not.

According to Murray and Hernstein, around 25% of the US population has an IQ over 110. This suggest that a fair number of smarties did not reach for credentials prior to the mid-80's, perhaps because they felt as if they could make a comfortable living without the hassle of spending years in college. On the other hand, the steep rise in degree attainment after the mid-80's suggests a lot of people who are slightly above average intellectually are now attempting to stay "competitive" with people who are well, just plain smarter.

And mind you, this picture gets even more grim when you factor into the massive rise of women credentialism seen since the 80's. Women are far less likely then men to have IQs well above 110.

High Ed inflation

Amusingly, the more educated Americans get the worse off we seem to be. In the modest 1950's-1970's, college was intended for the cognitive elite, who by default will never exceed more than a certain percentage of the population (WRT ethnic differences, in say Japan, people with an IQ of 105 usually won't be able to compete with the mental heavy hitters in their ethnic group, so you might as well relax and accept a career as a line-worker at Honda, rather than waste your time and money at building credentials in a (futile) attempt to compete with engineers, doctors, and lawyers. In a time of low status anxiety and quality leadership, everyone seems to understand this.

College ought to be reserved for those whose elite status comes easy (via high intelligence), rather than be a daycare for poor kids with middling IQs who were told that not going to college makes you a loser.  In point of fact, occupations which used to pay lower class (lower IQ) people well either no longer exist in this country (off-shoring, or foreigners doing this work on our shores), or pay such miserable wages that people feel as if they must try and go to college to "earn" a degree to enable them access to a better job. Said degrees are now effectively worthless for much of the population because they are now given out so indiscriminately, and by default things that are more common must lower in value.

The hard truth of the "service economy" is that jobs for low and average IQ people are now non-existent or have terrible wages, while more elite level IQ people have the smarts and social skills to make a living in occupations insulated from dumber people and/or foreign competition (such as Law and the Media). Lots of hapless lower IQ people are being given worthless diplomas for their futile attempt to compete with the cognitive elite, whose inherent advantages will never diminish, no matter how hard we try and promote STEM education for the intellectual lower and middle class.

GSS Variables: DEGREE, RACE(1), SEX(1)

Friday the 13th Part 5 (1985) review

With Part 4 representing a peak in the series' overall pop culture presence, but the producers not quite realizing it, they pushed another entry into production. Using left-over ideas from a early Part 3 script, they set the new movie in a half-way house with killer of Jason Tommy Jarvis as the main character. Presumably set some years into "the future", what with Tommy Jarvis now being played by an actor in his early 20's, Crystal Lake has now moved on from the Jason murders and is home to half-way house for, apparently, troubled teenagers. Besides Tommy Jarvis (who doesn't talk and has angry outbursts), there's a "slow" fat kid, a stutterer, a nymphomaniac couple, a goth, a sullen skinhead, and uhh, a rude redhead girl (other than doing some mean things, it's hard to figure out what she's doing here. To add to the festivities, there's also a redneck woman and her adult son, who are tired of the teenagers causing trouble, and also the child grandson of the place's cook (is this the best place to send your child out to for a "family" vacation?). The half-way house is run by a new-agey guy and a women who appears to be only about 8-10 years older than the "teenagers".

Tommy finds this place to be of little use in helping with his demons, as he frequently day-dreams about Jason and pops pills. Actor John Sheperd does a good job; too bad the same can't be said about most of the other actors. The acting is all over the place, with some actors being quite earnest (like the half-way house owner and Sheperd), and others being very wooden (like the Sherrif), or very campy (like the redneck family).

After the skinhead guy murders the fat kid, when the proprietors let skinhead guy handle an axe (!), another series of murders commences...But skinhead guy got hauled off by the cops, so who's doing the killing this time? Damaged Tommy? "Cremated" Jason? Another of the weirdos who inhabit Crystal Lake?

Folks, this one is a bumpy ride. The dark atmosphere of the first 4 films is gone, replaced by a more quirky and seedy vibe. Much of the time it doesn't even seem as if the movie is trying to be scary, with little effort made to generate suspense or establish the presence of danger (90% of the time, the killer appears out of nowhere and quickly murders victims). The production values are strange; the photography is generally quite good, but the costumes and locations are generally very cheap looking, stock b-grade Cormanesque stuff. Part 3, 4, and 5 were all filmed in California, but 3 and esp. 5 chose some very dubious locations that don't resemble the first two movies at all (and Part 5 has no lake at all!).

The identity of the killer is a groaner, and the attempt made at a "gotcha" ending is probably the 2nd worst in the series (nothing could we worse than the half-assed cliff hanger of part 2). Probably due to the sheer number of victims, and the sleazy vibe of the movie, the MPAA cut the movie to ribbons, with only Part 7 being more censored. Not that many of the special FX are that great, anyway. Drugs were evidently all over the set, with the director being quite "wired" himself. This one would open well but it quickly fell off, indicating that viewers were put off by the movie.

Overall rating: 5/10

Friday the 13th Part 4 (1984) review.

With Part 3 being a major success, another movie was commissioned. Sensing the changing public tastes, with most 1982 and 1983 slasher movies being released to little financial success, and a growing moral backlash towards slasher movies, the producers figured that Part 4 might be the last. Thus, it's title: The Final Chapter. Naturally it made so much money that more films were made, but in a sense, it is the Final Chapter. How so? It's the last movie in the original run of F13 movies to feature a human Jason. It's the last movie to feature even the tiniest bit of Seventies influence (Part 4 was shot in late 1983). It's the last movie with FX by Tom Savini. It's the last movie to not bear any big influence from mainstream or MTV culture.

Not that we got that out of our system, onto the plot....Such as it is. Jason has been hauled away to the local morgue, apparently presumed dead. One crass morgue worker thinks there's no better time to make a pass at a nurse, who rejects his advances when the "corpse" of Jason lays a hand on the nurse. Several moments later, Jason butchers them both and hightails it out of the morgue (how he does this undetected is not revealed), from whence he decides to......Stalk ANOTHER group of teens, who happen to be near a single mom led family of three. You can imagine what happens next.....

With, AGAIN, practically the same plot as the earlier movies, how does this one fare? Pretty good, actually. It's shot in CA, again, but at least they chose better looking locations this time (plus they use an actual lake in this one). While I would argue that there's less suspense in this one than in the first three, Director Joe Zito still conjures a very dark mood and he got some very good performances from his actors. Among whom you have Corey Feldman and Crispin Glover, who are effortlessly watchable. The other actors aren't as notable, but they still do their jobs well. Due to the acting and writing, this entry has perhaps the best characterization of the original series. Really, think about it: it can't be easy to flesh out characters in a 90 minute movie where each character is usually going to be killed off at some point.

The MPAA went pretty easy on the movie's FX, maybe because Tom Savini blackmailed them (Part 2, 5, 6, and 7 each got hit pretty hard by the censors).

Overall score: 9/10

Friday the 13th part 3 (1982) review

With box office for part 2 a bit of a let-down, Paramount figured that the time was right to use the 3D gimmick for...Part 3, fittingly enough. Technically speaking, Paramount used a 3D system that was the precursor for modern3D, at great expense (Paramount spent lots of money outfitting theaters and maintaining the novel equipment..I believe the theaters themselves did pay the bills for much of this, though). To cut costs, the movie was shot in California, on a very not East Coast looking location. Oh well.

Steve Miner returns to direct, and while he still a has a good grasp of suspense, the technical issues with using novel 3D cameras did interfere with things. The actors complained of not getting much feedback about their performances, because Miner was busy with the technical issues.

Plot-wise, Jason is revealed to have crawled away at the end of Part 2, and then grabbed another set of clothes shortly thereafter. Thus the movie is an immediate continuation of part 2...Even though Jason's actor, and the film locations, are quite different.  Jason, with essentially no explanation, decides to stalk and then murder a group of young friends, and also a biker gang out to mess with the kids.

It's definitely weaker than Part 2, but still a pretty decent romp. It's still pretty spooky, and as usual the end of the movie is the highlight...The showdown between the last survivor and Jason.

Overall rating: 8/10

Friday the 13th part 2 (1981) review

The producers immediately got cracking on a sequel after the first movie was a hit. In fact, one of the producers decided to direct the sequel himself. Steve Miner proves to be a good director, luckily.

With the killer of the first movie dead, where do you go next? Why, just say that the child at the end of the first movie.....Didn't drown, or something. Well, point being, he did grow up to be a big guy out in the woods. Just try not to think too much about how he ended up that way. After a vague passage of time from the first movie, a new set of counselors is prepping for camp season on Crystal Lake. But Flannel and denim clad, and facially deformed, psycho killer Jason Vorhees won't let THIS camp open up, in keeping with family tradition.

Basically a re-make of the first movie, but without the whodunit element and with a faster pace. And better acting, writing, and editing, to boot. Although a weird cliffhanger type ending is a bit of a bummer, that leaves viewers more confused than frightened. For the gore seekers, it's a mixed bag: there are more on screen deaths this time, but most have been censored to some degree. It's clear that the director had to compromise his work, although he does his best to save the kill scenes even after the censorship. Thankfully the atmosphere is menacing enough that gobs of gore weren't necessary to sell the movie.

Rating: 9/10

Friday the 13th review

With Halloween coming up, here's my rundown of the greatest slasher series of all time:

Friday the 13th (1980)

Intended to ride the success of Halloween, Friday part one itself ended up inspiring dozens of rip-offs in it's own right. The movie out-grossed The Shining! Oddly, for self-described rip-off Friday part one has several distinguishing features:

1) An out-door setting that recalls other "backwoods" movies of the 70's (Deliverance etc.), as opposed to the sterile suburbia of Halloween.
2) A whodunit plot, more in line with 70's giallo films than Halloween.
3) Several outbursts of gore, which Halloween didn't have.

Friday one has a laid-back 70's style pacing, that doesn't really pick up until the last 20 or so minutes. Modern viewers might be a little put off. For more patient viewers, you'll enjoy the spooky and rustic atmosphere. The acting is adequate, with lead actress Adrienne King fortunately being the most personable actor and character. Though it developed a reputation as a crude gore-fest, suspense is crafted throughout the movie and some characters have off-screen deaths. For the low budget, the movie has pretty nice look. Some of the scenes will stick with you for a while, from a visual standpoint.

Overall rating: 8/10

Male Sex partners by generation

Silents

Boomers

Gen X

Millennials

Variables: NUMMEN, Race(1), Sex(1), Cohort(1925-2000)

Drinking over past year by generation (asked in 2004).

 Silents

 Boomers

Gen X-ers

Variables: DRINKYR, Race(1), Sex(1)

Inequality follow up

 Do something = Chose option 1 and 2, the most supportive of redistribution
Do Nothing = Chose option 6 and 7, the least supportive
Tweener = Chose 3-5

Gis :   Do Something - 27%
          Do Nothing - 25%
          Tweener -48%
Silent: Do Something - 24%
           Do Nothing - 32%
           Tweener - 44%
Boomer Do Something - 24%
              Do Nothing - 28%
              Tweener - 48%
Gen X    Do Something - 26%
              Do Nothing - 23%
              Tweener - 51%
Millennial Do Something - 32%
                Do Nothing -  20%
                Tweener - 48%

It's basically a template to which generations are most privileged. Support for the government doing nothing rapidly declines with people born after 1964. Obviously, younger generations have reservations about being too supportive of government actions, but they aren't rigidly opposed to it on ideological grounds like many Silents and Boomers tend to be. And GIs never took what they got for granted, never expected things to magically work out and "be fair", unlike Silents and Boomers who delude themselves into believing that "hard work" alone explains their good fortune. This narcissism and destructive drive to "work" results in the mentality of thinking that no-body, including the government, has the right to take your precious money and spread it to someone else. God forbid. Because I'm sure they didn't work "as hard" as you, right? News flash: people who started working in the 1940's-1970's had much higher wages, benefits, etc. than those who started later. Furthermore, one's dollar went A LOT further back then; working class people in the 1950's-1970's could generally count being able to easily afford a car (or two), a home (or the rent) in a decent area, go to entertainment events (including sports) cheaply, and college was cheap. Silents and Boomers benefited from private sector elites not succumbing to greedy excesses, which helped everyone out. The GIs understood that it was government intervention in the 1930's, in concert with noblesse oblige growing, that gave us a middle class paradise. But Silents and Boomers are adamant that the private sector should be left alone, no matter how much noblesse oblige in the corporate world has dwindled over the last 30-40 years. Wouldn't want to disincentivize "hard work", huh? Well gosh, it looks like the government's constant propping up of corrupt private sector activity, and the non-stop growth in millionaire greed, has routed the financial status of younger generations, who have steadfastly refused to buy into the neo-liberal dream promoted by older generations......Who of course benefited from the mid-century's <i>lack</i> of neo-liberalism.

The audacity these spoiled generations had, and still have.

And X-ers and Millennials have thus far been denied what even GIs got WRT wages, housing affordability, benefits, etc. So younger generations have no reason to be terrified of a government that, GASP!, attempts to strengthen the middle class and bring greater dignity to the underclass.

Reducing inequality by generation

 GIs

Silents

Boomers

Gen X

Millennial

Variables: EQWLTH, COHORT (1900-2000), RACE (1), Sex (1)

Close to America by generation

Variables: CLSEUSA, COHORT (1925-2000), RACE (1), Sex (1)

Trust GIs

Variables: TRUST, COHORT (1900-1924), RACE (1), SEX (1)

Trust - Silents

Variables: TRUST, COHORT (1925-1945), RACE (1), SEX (1)

Trust - Boomers

Variables: Cohort (1946-1964), TRUST, RACE (1), Sex (1)

Trust - Gen X

Variables: TRUST, COHORT (1965-1980), RACE (1), SEX (1)

Trust - Millennials

Variables: TRUST, COHORT (1981-2000), RACE(1), Sex(1)

COURTS (treatment of criminals) by generation

Variables: COURTS, RACE(1), Sex(1), COHORT(1900-2000)

Gun Ownership Millennials 1973-2016

Varibles: OWNGUN, COHORT (1981-2000)

Gun Ownership Gen X white males 1973-2016

Variables: OWNGUN, COHORT (1965-1980)

Gun Ownership Boomer white males 1973-2016

Variables: OWNGUN, COHORT (1946-1964)

Gun Ownership Silent white men 1973-2016

Variables: OWNGUN, COHORT (1925-1945)

Gun Ownership GI white males 1973-2016

Variables: OWNGUN, COHORT (1900-1924)

FEAR Follow up

Everyone appears to agree that the 1970's and early-mid 1990's were dangerous. Youngsters seem to agree that the mid-late 80's and early 2000's were eras of "good feeling" (note that pop culture became much more colorful and unpretentious in these eras in comparison to the 1970's and 1990's). But outside of those periods, youngsters tend to feel threatened no matter what crime stats indicate (crime was terrible in the 70's, diminished in the early-mid 80's, rose to record levels around 1990, then has gradually declined since 1993).

FEAR for all ages/races:

FEAR Whites Age (45-65)

FEAR whites age (30-44) 1973-2016

FEAR, whites age (18-29) from 1973-2016

1980 Presidential vote by generation

Race (1), Sex (1), COHORT (1900-1964), PRES80

1976 Presidential vote by generation

GSS Variables: Race (1), Sex (1), COHORT (1900-1964), PRES76

1972 Presidential vote by generations

GSS Variables: Race (1), Sex (1), COHORT (1900-1964), PRES72

GSS Presidential vote 1968 by generation

GSS Variables: Race(1), Sex(1), COHORT (1900-1964), Pres68

Note that the then younger generations have a smaller sample size.