Cyclical theories are popular precisely because they have some empirical backing in closely related fields. Consider the predator-prey model, for example: Some

Cyclical theories are popular precisely because they have some empirical backing in closely related fields. Consider the predator-prey model, for example: Some generations of predator will experience abundance, others will struggle to survive. The impact of this experience on future behavior is, most likely, non-zero. It doesn't determine everything, but neither is it a non-factor. The fallacy lies in overfitting the data towards the theory. At twenty years old, a human generation is defined by its parenting. By sixty, it's peaked in influence and started on its way out. It's relatively hard to say anything definite until late in the cycle. As well, people in the cohort are all dying along the way, year by year, and they largely don't get represented in "what the generation is." It's the people who make it near to retirement, and have the power to call the shots, who get in the final word.