March 11 -- Revised Lecture Notes

My apologies to more structured types (Commanders and Systematizers!), but as the class progresses, I will probably find it desirable to modify some of the lecture notes to meet the emerging needs of the class.  Here, as promised, is a quick overview of the material we will be covering today.  Note, at the end, a revised set of writing assignments for today's class.

1.  De Bono's taxonomy of cognitive modes

People differ in terms of how they process and deal with information -- their so-called cognitive style.  An influential model of cognitive style differences is that of Edward de Bono, who uses the rubric of "six Thinking Hats".  A person who habitually relies on one or two of these cognitive modes ("Hats") has a different cognitive style from a person who relies on some other combination of modes.  The six Hats are as follows;  which ones do you wear most frequently and most comfortably?  Least?

1.  White Hat (objective/factual thinking) -- observationally based thinking;  a search for facts and specifics;  collecting data without making any attempt to filter, screen, or interpret it.

2.  Red Hat (emotional/subjective thinking) -- expressing  personal values or biases;  sharing "gut feelings";  venting.

3.  Green Hat (creative/lateral thinking) -- thinking outside the box; brainstorming; using humor to stimulate ideas.

4.  Yellow Hat (catalytic/positive thinking) -- using logic and rational thinking to identify what is good about an idea and to strengthen it further.

5.  Black Hat (analytic/negative thinking) -- using rational processes to engage in a logical critique or to find flaws or inconsistencies in an idea.

6.  Blue Hat (metacognition or mental control processes) -- strategizing, deciding how to tackle a problem or question, deciding which cognitive mode (or sequence of modes) best applies to a situation or task.

In class, we'll engage in an interactive exercise designed to demonstrate how the Hats can be used to enhance productivity, efficiency, rapport, and motivation in group decision making and problem solving contexts.

2.  The Johari Window:  Public versus private selves

If others don't perceive you "correctly", they can't possibly treat you as you want to be treated.  But often there is a mismatch between your private or inner self and your public or outer self (your so-called persona).  Worse, at times what others see or know about you is actually more accurate than your self-perceptions, as Robert Burns noted so long ago in his classic poem "To A Louse":

A, wa'd sume pow'r the giftie gie us, ta see oursel's as ithers see us!

Subtract the Scottish brogue and you'll end up with a thought-provoking remark.

Communication theorists often use the "Johari Window" to describe the contrast between private and public selves.  Simply put, you can imagine the totality of your self to be divided into four quadrants (or four panes of a "window").  The panes are not necessarily of equal size:

In class, we'll conduct an exercise to compare the public and private self -- where they overlap and where they don't.  Characteristics about which you and your partner in the exercise disagree are the controversial ones:  if you are seeing yourself accurately, the trait is part of your private self, but if your partner is the objective one, the trait is part of your blind self.  (Or could both, somehow, be true?)  It's often difficult to know when to accept the accuracy of what others perceive about you, and when to dismiss it as a bias.

3.  Generational differences (as time permits)

(If we don't have time to cover this material on March 11, it will be brought into a later section.  But I'll include it here now for the sake of completeness in case we get to it.)

William Strauss and Neil Howe (Generations, The Fourth Turning, Millennials Rising) begin with the observation that a wide range of sociological, psychological, and economic variables -- from crime rates to attitudes about gender to vocational patterns -- are well correlated and track in tandem, in a generally predictable, cyclic fashion (see the figure below):

They note that the length of a cycle (e.g., from trough to trough or peak to peak) is roughly fixed over the centuries, and corresponds roughly to the length of a long human life (80 to 100 years).  They call such a cycle a saeculum (the same root word from which we get our more familiar term "secular", meaning transient, changing, and referring to the world of empirical, everyday experience, as opposed to the eternal, constant, transcendent, and metaphysical or sacred).  A human being born at the start of one saeculum might, if he or she did not die prematurely, expect to die in old age at the start of the next one.

The correspondence between the length of a human life and the length of a cultural saeculum is, they say, no accident.  The saecular turnings occur because of specific generational influences as outlined below.

They note that just as a human life traditionally has four "seasons" each lasting about 20-22 years -- the "spring" of childhood, the "summer" of young adulthood, the "autumn" of midlife, and the "winter" of elderhood -- so, too, can the cultural saeculum be divided in this way.  The parallel is that just as humans are born, live, and die, so eras or epochs in history (the saecula) have a natural life span:  they are bounded by (begin with, and end with) a time of crisis, chaos, external threat (such as a major war), or ekpyrosis.  At the end of each saeculum, the culture must, in a sense, die and be reborn -- or fail to be reborn, as when an entire civilization ceases to exist.  The transformation in a society engendered by moving from one saeculum to another is so dramatic, so radical, so much of a "quantum leap" change that one might say that the society is born into a "new world".  (Hence, Americans still use the phrase "postwar" to refer to the contemporary era or saeculum, even though World War II took place nearly sixty years ago.)  As a nation, America has experienced three such ekpyroses or saecular crises:  the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and the Great Depression and World War II.  If Strauss and Howe are right, we are due for yet another one -- the end of the current saeculum -- somewhere around the year 2025.  This is, of course, a testable hypothesis, so it will be interesting to see whether or not they are correct;  if alive, I will only be 70, and hopefully capable of reflecting on the concept.

Why does the saecular cycle occur?  According to Strauss and Howe, it has to do with the fact that each generation instinctively corrects for the excesses of the previous generation, and in so doing raises its own children in such a fashion that the cycle will continue to turn.  Let's take a look at how this works.

During a Crisis (ekpyrosis or saecular Winter), when the culture is faced with a catastrophic external threat of such proportions that the culture itself may not survive (e.g., World War II), those who are children during this era are understandably raised to be obedient, to be silent, to conform, to basically get out of the way and not impede their elders (young adults) as they tackle the job of saving civilization.  Assuming that the challenge is successfully met (the culture does not die, but is reborn into a new era or saeculum), the young adults who are seen as responsible for this epic victory take on a heroic persona (Tom Brokaw's "Greatest Generation").  But something quite different happens to their children.

Rising to adulthood in a post-crisis High or cultural Spring, this generation -- the so-called Adaptive or Artistic generation, the most recent example of which is the so-called Silent generation (born between 1927 and 1943) -- faces an intriguing paradox.  On the one hand, outwardly they experience a time of tremendous optimism about the social order:  likely a time of economic prosperity, social cooperation, and tremendous technological progress.  On the other hand, they often feel as if they were "born too late" to emulate the "great deeds" of their next-elders, and feel relegated to an "also-ran" role in which they can, at best, be maintainers of a social system they did not build.  In addition, as time goes by, the dark side of the saecular High begins to show itself, in the excessive conformism of the times, the stifling of autonomy and dissent (e.g., the McCarthy era), and in what increasingly begins to be seen as a spiritual or cultural sterility -- a society that is outwardly (technologically) sound but inwardly devoid of values and meaning.

In reaction to this, Adaptive/Artist parents raise their children (the generation that comes of age during the High or Spring of the culture) to be inward-looking, value-driven.  The children are usually overindulged, at a time when economic prosperity is such that concerns about survival seem remote and rising expectations for each succeeding generation a given.  Coming of age, these individuals then respond dramatically, even violently, to the perceived value sterility and mindless conformity of the culture (they never experienced the cultural Winter that made these traits once a necessity and a virtue, and now only see their outmoded excesses).  The result:  a sudden values transformation, often explosive, pervades the youth culture in a time of Awakening or Summer (the Consciousness Revolution, the Summer of Love -- in a word, the 60's).  This is an Idealist or Prophetic generation (most recently, the Boomer generation, born between 1943 and 1960):  intensely inner-directed, value-driven, autonomous, idealistic, otherworldly, and generally contemptuous of "the Establishment" erected half a saeculum ago by their grandparents and so assiduously tended by their parents.

Committed to the values of individualism and inner-directedness, Idealist/Prophetic parents raise their children even more autonomously and permissively than they were raised, often to the point of neglect ("latchkey children"), partly because they are so preoccupied with the inner search for values and for social transformation of the value landscape of society that they can fail to be good parents, and because (raised in a time of economic prosperity when thrift and planning for the future begin to seem redundant and needless) they tend to focus on the now and/or the eternal, neglectful of the intermediate future of the next generation.  The result:  a time of increasing neglect of, if not outright hostility to, children (it is no accident that abortion became legal around this time), and as a result, a dramatic rise in social pathologies -- a time of cultural Unraveling or Autumn.  This generation of "neglected" or "abandoned" children, a Reactive or Nomadic generation (most recently, Gen X, born between 1961 and 1981), too young to remember the cultural sterility to which their parents were reacting, grow up in a world that seems to them an unsafe, amoral jungle in which only the strong and the pragmatic survive.  Certainly they feel that they receive little or no help, financial or otherwise, and have to learn to make it on their own.  Seeing the excesses of idealism, they often become tough, cynical, hard-bitten pragmatists and adventurers.

Naturally, having experienced a childhood of neglect, these individuals become determined to raise their children very differently, protectively and nurturantly -- at a time when their next-elders reinforce this trend because of alarmist concerns about the breakdown of society, as society's external structures appear to be splintering or falling apart.  As the trends started in the Awakening begin to "go too far" and begin to be perceived as rampant individualism, hedonism, and amoralism, society clamps down and begins to look for ways to protect children and to foster collectivism, cooperation, volunteerism and the like.  The result:  a generation of valued children (a Civic or Heroic generation) that grows up believing in the value of order, structure, teamwork, and responsibility in the face of a society that radically needs fixing.  Currently, the Millennial generation (born after 1981) is the current Civic generation, the first wave of whom are just beginning to reach young adulthood.  The last such generation was the generation (born between 1901 and 1927) who, as young adults, fought and won World War II:  Strauss and Howe note many similarities between the young people of the Great Depression and today's Millennials.

Why does the cycle keep turning?  Why another Crisis, Winter, or ekpyrosis?  In part because aging Idealists or Prophets -- intensely value-driven as ever, with the natural inflexibility of idealism, and prone to see the world in black/white uncompromising terms -- are likely to respond to the social Unraveling by means of one last-ditch effort to respond to external threats in terms of a catalysmic, even apocalyptic, moral struggle:  the North versus the South (the Civil War), the free world versus the totalitarian menace (World War II), or... just maybe... America versus the terrorist axis of evil (the pending Crisis of 2010)?  At some point, these trends take on a life of their own, reach a point of no return, and society has little choice but to mobilize in the face of another impending crisis that threatens to engulf the entire culture.  We aren't there yet;  current events, sad and sobering as they are, are a mere harbinger of the Winter to come, if Strauss and Howe's model is correct.  It is (as I write) still late Autumn, not Winter.  But Autumn is a time to prepare, for Winter may soon be here.

If the Heroic generation of that era can rise to the challenge, the cycle will turn yet again and another saeculum will be born.  If not (as has happened, of course, repeatedly throughout history), that particular culture will die.  Cultures almost always fall to ruin, Strauss and Howe argue, during a badly managed Winter or time of Crisis -- the ekpyrosis point of a saecular turning.  Again, stay tuned for the year 2025 (give or take a decade).

Note that once every four generations, the seasons of human life (one generation's youth or Spring, young adulthood or Summer, midlife or Autumn, and elderhood or Winter) match the seasons of the saeculum or wider culture (High or Spring, Awakening or Summer, Unraveling or Autumn, and Crisis/ekpyrosis or Winter).  For this generation -- always an Idealist or Prophetic generation -- old age coincides with the (potential) death and (hopeful) subsequent rebirth of the culture.  Is this poised to happen again within the lifetime of most who are reading these notes?  Time will tell.

Again, the heart of the model is represented by the four generational types. Which are you?

Based on the above concepts, we can define the four generational types as follows.    

• Idealist or Prophetic generations come of age (adolescence or early adulthood) in a time of spiritual awakening (Summer), and reach elderhood in a time of secular crisis (Winter).  The most recent Idealist generation was the Boom generation (born 1943-1960).  The oldest member of the previous Idealist generation, the Missionary generation (born 1860-1882), died in 1994 at the age of 112.

• Reactive or Nomadic generations are children during a time of spiritual awakening (Summer), and reach midlife in a time of secular crisis (Winter).  The most recent Reactive generation was Gen X (born 1961-1980). A very few, very old members of the Lost generation (born 1883-1900), also a Reactive generation, are still alive.

• Civic or Heroic generations come of age (adolescence or early adulthood) in a time of secular crisis (Winter), and reach elderhood in a time of spiritual awakening (Summer).  The most recent Civic generation was the Millennial generation (born 1981 or later).  The G.I. generation that fought World War II (born 1901-1924), a great many of whom are still alive today, was also a Civic generation.

• Adaptive or Artistic generations are children during a time of secular crisis (Winter), and reach midlife in a time of spiritual awakening (Summer).  The most recent Adaptive generation was the Silent generation (born 1925-1942).  The first new Adaptive generation should (if current cycles hold) start being born around 2004 or 2005.

Because of the influence of social moments as mediated by the age (phase or stage of life) during which they are experienced by the different cohort generations, the four generational types tend to take on different personalities or values.  Of course, these are generalizations that apply only to the “group persona”, not universally to every member within a given cohort generation:   

• Idealists/Prophets are visionary, individualistic, and spiritual.  Core values include principle, religion, education.  A typical weakness (as least as perceived by others) might be dogmatism (principles taken to excess).

• Reactives/Nomads are rebellious, pragmatic, and materialistic.  Core values include liberty, practicality, survival.  A typical weakness (as least as perceived by others) might be amoralism (pragmatism taken to excess).

• Civics/Heroes are heroic, collegial, and rationalistic.  Core values include community, technology, affluence.  A typical weakness (as least as perceived by others) might be insensitivity (rationalism taken to excess).

• Adaptives/Artists are conformist, sensitive, and cultured.  Core values include pluralism, expertise, and social justice.  A typical weakness (as least as perceived by others) might be superficiality (adaptability taken to excess).  

What fuels the generational cycle is a tendency for each cohort generation to react to the excesses of the previous generation.   Since we tend to form our sense of personal identity primarily during the ages 15-25, cultural events that occur during that time frame tend to be central to our sense of self.  Thus,  

• Idealists/Prophets see themselves as shaped by the spiritual awakening, thus prophetic and spiritual (contra mundum or “principled rebels” as youth, “Grey Champions” as elders),

• Reactives/Nomads see themselves as “abandoned” by a culture that has left them to “raise themselves” (hence they must become hard-headed realists focused on material survival),

• Civics/Heroes see themselves as shaped by the secular crisis, thus heroic and rationalistic (world-saving combatants and builders as youth, busy “doers” as elders),

• Adaptives/Artists see themselves as having been “born too late” to do the great deeds their parents did (hence they must become sensitive, outer-driven, egalitarian negotiators).

These trends are strongest if a person also has the personality type that would reinforce the generational trends (that is, Harmonizer-Prophets, Adventurer-Nomads, Commander-Heroes, Systematizer-Artists).

Want a quick shorthand overview of all this to help keep it straight?  Here goes...

Revised Writing Assignment for March 11:

1.  Which of the De Bono's six Hats do you wear most fluently?  Least?  Which are valued most by the organization for which you work?  Least?  What strategies might you use to bring cognitive balance to yourself and to your organization?

2.  What did you learn from the Johari Window exercise about the distinction between your public and private self?  How might you use this information to become a more effective communicator in the future?

3.  (if covered in class on March 11) To what extent has your career path been shaped by generational issues of the type discussed by Strauss and Howe (and outlined in class)?  Explain.  How might you begin to prepare for the next "saecular turning" (due, if Strauss and Howe are right, sometime between the years 2006 and 2011)?

Back to Course Outline

Back to Home Page