Quote:
Originally Posted by johndallman
This would be a lot more convincing if they demonstrated similar cycles in other parts of the world, and proposed how they interact.
For example, WWI was unquestionably a large and nasty war for the UK, but doesn't appear to fit the cyclic pattern that the UK was running on when the colonies that later became the USA were part of it. Now, I could imagine that different parts of the world's cycle could interact, and force cycles to shift, but do S&H discuss this? Without a model for several sets of cycles, a model that fits the USA and ignores the rest of the world just looks like coincidence.
|
Yes, they do discuss it. IMO, they overstate their case somewhat, but also show a convincing reason why the pattern would be
expected to be easier to see in America and Britain. I personally think that what they've identified is a pattern that's weaker than a universal law, but strong enough to be more than chance. It's one set of trends among many that can sometimes reinforce it and sometimes swamp it.
But it's way too complicated for an easy summation. If you want to read the theory in the words of the authors, the book
Generations is their best exposition of it. The refined it a bit over time, but the original book explains their theory best.