I have really enjoyed and used The Fourth Turning: An American Prophesy by William Strauss and Howe.  I have many notes in the book and even loose papers that I have added over time.  I was looking forward to reading the update in The Fourth Turing is Here.  I am sadly disappointed.  Much of the book is rehashing the old material with more of the author's opinion compared to the first book.  I can’t say more than his opinion because he does not source everything in a way to verify his words. For example, on p. 239, he states, “Overall, America’s blue zone is wealthier, healthier, more educated, more professional, more mobile, more economically unequal, and more ethnically diverse.  America’s red zone is more churchingoing, more neighborly, more charitable, more family oriented, more rooted, more violent, less bureaucratic, and less taxed”.
He sourced:  America’s blue zones are wealthier and healthier, more economically unequal, [Red zones are] more neighborly, more charitable, more entertaining, more affordable.   I am curious about his sources for the other claims.
The book also goes on and on trying to prove his cycles theory, but it focuses on the events that prove his point, and history is way more complicated.  His repetitious rabbit trails are exhausting, so it is easy to skim without thinking.   For this reason, I prefer The Fourth Turning: An American Prophesy.  It has fewer history lessons, so I can go out on my own and learn the history instead of depending on the author’s point of view. 
There are several parts of this book that are updated or newer.  1. There is a section on what the rising generation, named the Homelanders, may look like.  This section was interesting.  Reading this section, I think, will help you decide if you need to adjust what you are doing as a family and may change how you mentor youth who were born 2006 and after.  2.  The crisis predictions have adjusted based on the current situations we are in. These seem very plausible, which has led me to read a couple of other books:  Red-Handed:  How American Elites Get Rich Helping China Win by Peter Schweizer and When China Attacks: A Warning to America by Grant Newsham.   Unfortunately, I was not surprised by the information in Red-Handed.  I am still working on When China Attacks.  So I guess it was worth the cost of the book if it motivated me to learn more about the world events. 

At the end of Book 3, I had this note: Everyone is miserable. Look at the Elites - they are miserable too because they know someone else will conspire to take all that they gained away from them. Every level suffers.

Over and over again I see only miserable people when it comes to socialistic governments. On the sides of many pages I have written the name of many dystopias. It is like the are all trying to show us that any form of government besides a enlightened, extended, commercial, limited, representative, federal, democratic republic (The U.S. Constitution and the 196 Indispensable Principles of Freedom by O. DeMille p. 100) will not work the way people hope it will. It took a lot of experience and trial and error to get to creating what the US Founders did.

In Book 9 (around lines 585) we are asked what are we filling our selves and our society with? Are we focusing on only of the parts of man (desire, action, reason)? and society?

I feel that as a society we are only focusing on the 'desire' of things or some would say equity for all but overall we have missed the boat because that is only one part of our being. To be balanced and whole we need all 3 parts combined. Trying to separate things out into castes and pretending to call it balanced is not right any more than only focusing on 1 or 2 of the traits that make us a human or a community. Until we unify the 3 traits as best as possible as an individual and a society we will be miserable in the end because we are incomplete. There will not be justice in the state if there are caste systems. Justice will occur when all the people are able to live their mission. When everyone is equal before the law and do not and can not infringe on the rights of others. Any other state is a shadow or an illusion. 

The author talks about the changes since the smartphone was released.   Think about the changes for a second of life before the smartphone and after.   I remember the day when I was working in the military and had a dial-up internet system that we used.   I remember advancement from floppy drives to hard drive discs to thumb drives.  I have lived through the time when you did all your work and then signed on to the internet, then sent your data, and then got off the internet.   Today, I am connected all the time; I don’t even have to do anything to connect to the internet.  All I do is click a button, and the system does the work.  Easy.   In fact, I will complain if the connection is not immediate.  There are so many things that I use the internet for.   However, I didn’t grow up with this.  I barely use social media now, and as a teenager, the "social media" was the gossip at school.  Not a large group, yet that was bad enough.  Now you can surround yourself with social media groups.  I don’t even know how many social media groups there are.
 
The research shows that most people spend around 16 hours per day that they are not fully present.  WOW.  Think about that, every time we look at our phone, we are not fully present in the moment. 
 
Mr. Haidt states there are several effects we are not thinking about and each of them is harmful to us.

1.  Social deprivation.  We are not playing or interacting with people face to face, including our children.
2. Sleep deprivation.  Heavy screen time is connected with shorter times in sleeping, and longer times in waking up.  Those who use the internet in bed have even more sleep problems.
3. Attention Fragmentation.  We just can’t focus.  We want a “constant stream of stimulation”.  It messes with our ability to think.
4. Addiction.  There are reinforced patterns that we are seeking for (like eating potato chips);  we keep looking for that dopamine hit.   Social media and gaming experts study this cycle, and it is working.  Think about the last time you kept scrolling on Facebook looking for something good, funny, or interesting instead of just turning it off and doing something good, funny, or interesting?  I am guilty of this one! 

For girls, the problem is usually social media, and for boys, it is gaming.  Girls show increased signs of depression as their hours on social media increase.  “There is a clear, consistent, and sizable link between heavy social media use and mental illness for girls, but that relationship gets buried or minimized in studies and literature reviews that look at all digital activities for all teens.”  One of the biggest side effects of more time on social media is the feeling of isolation that people have.  The book shares a lot of data and studies connected to these ideas.  For boys there is a “failure to launch” or they just don’t adult or join the adult world. Pornography and the virtual world consume boys.
Those working to raise teens during this time have a lot of challenges before them.  This is something that we need to keep talking about and sharing with others so we are more aware of the damage that is happening.  Being a parent has always been hard work; now it seems even harder because you are going to battle both sides, those that want your child to use their programs and your child (along with all their friends).  Tough crowd.
As I look at this, it really shows me how important it is to put the phones down and spend less time on social media and more time doing something productive with my life.  

"These people, who had experience on their own hides twenty-four years of Communist happiness, knew by 1941 what as yet on one else in the world knew: that nowhere on the planet, nowhere in history, was there a regime more vicious, more bloodthirsty, and at the same time more cunning and ingenious than the Bolshevik, the self-styled Soviet regime. That no other regime on earth could compare with it either in the number of those it had done to death, in hardiness, in the range of its ambitions, in its thoroughgoing and unmitigated totalitarianism-no, not even the regime of its pupil Hitler, which at that time blinded Western eyes to all else.....Even in 1943 tens of thousands of refugees from the Soviet provinces trailed along behind the retreating German army-anything was better than remaining under Communism" (p. 342)

I have read other books that support this idea: Mao, Wild Swans, and Red Scarf Girl.  I don't think this is a way to provide equality for all unless you mean that some of the elites will decide how much everyone else will suffer, so that we can all have the same amount of stuff (nothing) and not voice our complaints.   For communism and the gulags to continue, they just need other people's money. 

I really hope that it does not get to this point:
"All you freedom-loving "left-wing" thinkers in the West!  You left laborites! You progressive Americans, German, and French students! As far as you are concerned, none of this amounts to much.  As far as you are concerned, this whole book of mine is a waste of effort.  You may suddenly understand it all someday - but only when you yourselves hear "hands behind your backs there!" and step ashore on our Archipelago. (p. 468)"

Are we that stubborn that we will refuse to listen to the voices of those who have suffered from oppressive governments?  

Are we so willing to give away the freedoms we have so that government can decide what we can and can't do?

Are we afraid of liberty, freedom & choice just as George Bernard Shaw says: "Liberty means responsibility.  That is why most men dread it."

In the Essay A Dissertation on the Origin and Foundation of the Inequality of Mankind, Jean Rousseau was looking at all the wrongs of the feudal system.   He shares what he believes are the four inequalities between mankind. 

1.  Merit – individual differences
2. Power gained by those that use the individual differences
3. Rank gained because of the use of power
4. Wealth gained because of the use of rank and power.

 
We do have individual differences – that is so great!  Is not man amazing!  We see that we can progress and grow.  We have developed such a complex language to share our thoughts and communicate with each other.  We have developed so much good in the world, each in our own way.  I love my washing machine and refrigerator.  There are so many, many things that I am enjoying because many have individual differences and can progress!  With these same advancements, we see that bad things have occurred with them.  People have used their differences to gain power over others in good ways and in bad ways.  The good ways included having wonderful mentors, teachers, and leaders.  The bad ways are there also unfortunately, because we believe in choice.  We just have to look around us and see how people have used their individual differences incorrectly.  There is crime all around us, both at low levels and high levels of society.  So what do we do about it?  Rousseau suggests that if we take away property, we will not have as many problems.  If we return to the state of nature or what he calls the “savage” man.  Things will be better.  But will we? 

Rousseau states:  It is in fact impossible to conceive why, in a state of nature, one man should stand more in need of the assistance of anther, than a monkey or a wolf of the assistance of another of its kind:  or, granting that he did, what motives could induce that other to assist him; or, even then, by what means they could agree about the conditions.”
 
He continues, “... it is easy to conceive how much less the difference between man and man must be in a state of nature than in a state of society, and how greatly the natural inequality of mankind must be increased by the inequalities of social institutions.”
And
“Without my expatiating those uselessly on these details, everyone must see that as the bonds of servitude are formed merely by the mutual dependence of men on one another and the reciprocal needs that unit them, it is impossible to make any man a slave, unless he be first reduced in a situation in which he cannot do without the help of others: and, since such a situation does not exist in a state of nature, every one is there his own master, and the law of the strongest is of no effect.
“Having proved that the inequality of man is hardly felt, and that its influence is next to nothing in a state of nature, …”
 
As much as he points out the abuses of power that are true, I do not want to return to a state of nature.  I don’t want to return to the law of the jungle, where only the fittest survive, and where we don’t have a society or community of other people around us.   Maybe it is because I am not the strongest and the fittest out there.  But I think it is more.  As I reflect on the influence my family and friends have had on me, I see how much progress I have made as a person.  I see the amazingness of family and friends.  The power of a great education.  I think I have the capacity to have more sympathy towards others and more kindness to all mankind because I love my family.  If I didn’t have other people around me who cared for me and helped me to develop, I would be more animalistic.  I would have fewer skills for helping others, and I would have less empathy and compassion when I see those who suffer.  I don’t want to go back to the jungle; I want to march forward and keep progressing.  Revolution is not the answer, love is.  Rousseau will tell you we are worse off because of society, but I think we are better off.  We have so many, many amazing things in this world because of our metallurgy and agricultural advances.  True, we have used some of those advancements incorrectly and wrongly.  We have used power incorrectly and wrongly.  But we have also used it well and correctly.  We have raised the standard of living for so many people, and if we unite and work to lift others with us, imagine the world we can build. 

Paul Johnson in “A History of the American People” asks the readers this question, “[C]an a nation rise above the injustices of its origins, and, by its moral purpose and performance, atone for them?  All nations are born in war, conquest, and crime, usually concealed by the obscurity of a distant past.”

Yes!  I think we can.  Of course, it will be a lot of work – hard work.  But I think we can.  I think we can show the way that everyone can live a better way with freedom instead of with oppression.  The American Founders had so many things right when they set out to create a government where all men were equal before the law.  Yes, they had some things wrong and so do we.  Through a superb education, we can as families and communities, bring back all the great things of the Founding Fathers and work on fixing the wrongs.  It is up to us to gain the tools we need to fix our communities and nations so that we can all live better lives.  One of those inequalities is that man will use their wealth and power to legally plunder from others. Frederic Bastiat in his essay, The Law, shows us another alternative to Rousseau’s solution in how to deal with the inequalities in society.  Rousseau was correct in stating that institutions of religion and government support plundering people.  However, instead of revolution and the breakdown of societies back to a primitive state, I think we should consider Bastiat’s solutions of establishing or reestablishing a government where the laws are set up to guard against legalized plunder.   And to establish a family culture of education that the Founding Fathers had so that we can establish freedom and opportunity for more people to share their greatness with the world and help all mankind.  Imagine if we had an education like was described by Edmund Burke.

               "Burke told Parliament that nearly all Americans read the great classics on these topics, and then he said:                          This study renders men acute, inquisitive, dexterous, prompt in attack, ready in defense, full of resources. In
                other countries, the people, more simple, and of a less [brilliant] caste, judge of an ill principle in government
                only by an actual grievance; here they anticipate the evil, and judge of the pressure of the grievance by the
                badness of the principle. They [foresee] misgovernment at a distance; and snuff the approach of tyranny in
             every tainted breeze."  (Quoted in The US Constitution and the 196 Indispensable Principles of Freedom by Oliver DeMille, page 108)

After reading Volume 2, the biggest takeaway for me was that America is founded on the principles of religion and education. 

“The Americans show, by their practice, that they feel the high necessity of imparting morality to democratic communities by means of religion”.
And
“I do not know whether all the Americans have a sincere faith in their religion, for who can search the human heart? But I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions.”
Yet according to Paul Johnson’s A History of the American People, we have allowed this foundation to disappear.  The “authority of the state, and notably the courts-and especially the Supreme Court-did everything in their power to reduce the role of religion in the affairs of the state, and particularly in the education of the young…”   In many cases, there is hostility to religion and morals, just as there is hostility by some towards those who see the education system as a harmful place to send their children. 
Democracy in America, published a long time ago, may be challenging to read, but I believe it can show us the way to reestablish a culture of freedom as we focus on building families and communities that adopt a different perspective on religion and education.  If we can look at the moral laws that Christianity teaches and bring them back into the home and community, it could change everything. 
The family is the foundation of a community; if we start fixing the family, we will fix the community around us.  Learning to build a family culture will take work and energy; that is true, but starting to educate ourselves in the great classics will help speed the process along.  In Volume 2 of Democracy in America, the author compares the European way (aristocracy) and the American way (democracy) of doing things.  Looking at each side and picking the best of both worlds will build incredibly strong families and communities.  Reading books that share the family culture will give us much to discuss and practice.  If we don’t focus on building a family culture that promotes freedom and education, we will find ourselves more and more enslaved to the culture around us that tells us that we need leaders to direct us.  That we need to go back to an aristocracy, or worse, a tyranny.  

Jim Hawkins has, for his example the following people:
           *His father an innkeeper,
           *Billy Bones, an old pirate,
           *Squire Trelawney, a magistrate,
           *Dr. Livesey, a doctor and constable,
           *Long John Silver, a charismatic pirate (the antagonist of the story), and
           *Captain Smollett, the captain of the Hispaniola
 
The character that is the most dynamic in the story is Long John Silver.  Long John has to charm his way into everyone’s graces and is kind, along with being corrupt.  When his kindness and charm don’t work, he is willing to use violence and force.  He appears to be the most thoughtful member of the group.  He has no moral compass and is loyal to himself only.  The other characters in the story are not as dynamic.  His father is afraid of Billy Bones and dies early in the story.  Squire Trelawney is foolish; Captain Smollett is knowledgeable, wise, and uncompromising. Dr. Livesey is an honest man who will help others and seems very gentle, yet is seeking to find the treasure suggested by the map.
Jim is young and looking for adventure.  He puts his faith in his own abilities and does not follow the captain's or doctor’s instructions; he does not join the pirates but is manipulated by others. However, he survives and returns with his share of the treasure.  The story does not really tell you what Jim does after, only that he continues to have nightmares about his experiences.  You are left wondering what type of person Jim becomes and what he does with his share of the treasure.  You are also left wondering which character Jim chooses to follow and why. 
The two characters most present in the story are Dr. Livesey and Long John Silver.  Of these two men, which is the one who will have the most impact on Jim, and why? Jim starts out as a very timid boy, but by the end, he outwits the pirates and rescues the ship.  He has shown more courage, charisma, and independence than the captain, squire, or doctor.  It seems he has learned much from Long John Silver.  How will these events shape him and his decision-making in the future?  Will he develop the characteristics of an English gentleman, a pirate, or a bit of both?

Great introduction video by Janet!

The information-packed book explores human nature and how our ideas of human nature have changed over time.   Steven Pinker challenges the blank slate philosophy and proposes that we have innate genetic traits, shaped through evolutionary processes, that influence our lives more than we think.
Two competing ideas about human nature are the  “blank slate “  and  Pinker’s “innate mind”.   I reject both of these extremes.
If I were to diagram the argument this is the way I picture it: 

Both feel like they have an underlying foundation of dependency.  That man depends either on society (the blank slate philosophy) or nature (innate philosophy).  I have a different view of the world and human nature.  I believe that we are created by God and have the ability to progress to become more like God if we choose to do so.  We can also, through our choices, become less like God.  But that divineness is there, and it is what we do with our choices that decides who and what we become.  I think we can change our personality.  I don’t think it’s easy at all, but I think it is possible.  I believe that we are affected by society and nature, and independent from them, not dependent on them.  They can influence us, especially if we allow them to, but we can rise above our genes and our environment.