# How decadeology should be done. **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [December 10, 2016, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-decadeology-should-be-done/774387 "2016-12-10T22:24:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Panic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/don_t_panic/32/398_2.png) [@Don\_t\_Panic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Panic)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2016, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-decadeology-should-be-done/774387/41 "2016-12-14T21:14:48Z")
> [@Pork\_Rind](#): > > Astrologyology? Did you just say “astrogynecology”? Is that what Captain Kirk says he’s doing? Or, wait, I think I misheard. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2016, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-decadeology-should-be-done/774387/42 "2016-12-14T23:18:12Z")
> [@Martian Bigfoot](#): > > Did you just say “astrogynecology”? Is that what Captain Kirk says he’s doing? Or, wait, I think I misheard. [![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/5vrXKlO2Jbw/hqdefault.jpg?sqp=-oaymwEmCOADEOgC8quKqQMa8AEB-AH-A4ACgAOKAgwIABABGGUgUihdMA8=&rs=AOn4CLCk1LIFeJnWfp1EIMVhBYkVqJaWvQ "Spock's Eyebrow Rise - Star Trek") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vrXKlO2Jbw) ---
**Author:** ![igor\_frankensteen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/839c29/32.png) [@igor\_frankensteen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/igor_frankensteen)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2016, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-decadeology-should-be-done/774387/43 "2016-12-15T03:03:48Z")
A couple of things to consider: - the psychological influence/effect of the numbers of the years, probably goes both ways. That is, the fact that something happened in the fifties, can cause people to think of the event differently than if the exact same thing happened in another decade; and in the other direction, the change of the year from one decade to the next, can directly cause people to think and act differently, because they _expect_ their lives to change. - the reason why there is so much contention about what a given decade does or doesn’t “mean,” is often the result of some kind of transference, or even of a direct effort to manipulate others. Some people want to establish that such-and-such a decade was a time of whatever (wantonness, selfishness, dedication, greatness, etc), and then using that concept, proceed to insist that anything ELSE which happened at that time, was obviously also [whatever]. Guilt or veneration by association. This second may have something to do with why the thread starter came to be so intent on formulating a “right” way to categorize years, as he did. - ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Panic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/don_t_panic/32/398_2.png) [@Don\_t\_Panic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Panic)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2016, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-decadeology-should-be-done/774387/44 "2016-12-15T03:38:57Z")
So many questions to ponder. So many potentially interesting discussions to be had. So many fascinating places for the mind to go. However, I doubt that many of them count as “decadeological” by the OP’s definition, as I have now inferred it. Lo and behold, my friends, I have a theory. After looking through the links posted upthread, and reading the OP’s contribution here thus far, I think I’ve grokked what “decadeology” is about. It’s a particular comparative obsession with the decades 1950-present, usually with a focus on the period 1960-2000. The style and tone of it is basically a flavor of Standard Internet Stupid (SIS), only with a special decadeological twist. It asks questions such as: “Which year is most like the 80s, 1979 or 1990?” Someone will go: “Well, in 1979, people had hairdos that were really like in the 80s.” Someone else will reply: “But the sweaters people were wearing in 1990 look super 80s to me!” This will go on for a great many pages, with no definite conclusion being reached. Eventually, the conversation will fizzle out. Then, a few minutes after this, someone will start a new topic: “Which year is most the like 80s, 1978 or 1991?” Once in a while, someone will intrude into the conversation with questions such as: Just how meaningful is the use of the decade as an organizational principle for cultural-historical inquiry, really? Metaphysically speaking, just what is a “zeitgeist” anyway? Can this be applied outside of the narrow range of 1950-present, or outside of the particular geographical and cultural area loosely referred to as “the West”? Do you guys actually have a proper methodological approach at all, or are you just autistic? Is this going anywhere? Are you reaching any conclusions at all? What is the point of all this again? What, excactly, is wrong with you? The decadeologist will stare blankly at such questions, unable to parse them, since the syntax is not decadeological. Then, he’ll shrug (and I’m not being sexist, because it is a “he”, although don’t ask me why or how I know), and start a thread such as: “Is \*Seinfeld \*more like the 80s, or more like the 2000s?” Have I got that about right, **OP**? OP? Are you still here? Oh, dear. I’m already picturing the OP picking up his knapsack and heading down the road, looking like a sad-faced Bruce Banner, hoping that maybe the \*next \*board over won’t be so biased against decadeology. ---
**Author:** ![Nadnerb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ee7513/32.png) [@Nadnerb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nadnerb)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2016, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-decadeology-should-be-done/774387/45 "2016-12-15T04:33:02Z")
> [@Martian Bigfoot](#): > > So many questions to ponder. So many potentially interesting discussions to be had. So many fascinating places for the mind to go. However, I doubt that many of them count as “decadeological” by the OP’s definition, as I have now inferred it. Lo and behold, my friends, I have a theory. After looking through the links posted upthread, and reading the OP’s contribution here thus far, I think I’ve grokked what “decadeology” is about. > > It’s a particular comparative obsession with the decades 1950-present, usually with a focus on the period 1960-2000. The style and tone of it is basically a flavor of Standard Internet Stupid (SIS), only with a special decadeological twist. It asks questions such as: “Which year is most like the 80s, 1979 or 1990?” Someone will go: “Well, in 1979, people had hairdos that were really like in the 80s.” Someone else will reply: “But the sweaters people were wearing in 1990 look super 80s to me!” This will go on for a great many pages, with no definite conclusion being reached. Eventually, the conversation will fizzle out. Then, a few minutes after this, someone will start a new topic: “Which year is most the like 80s, 1978 or 1991?” > > Once in a while, someone will intrude into the conversation with questions such as: > > Just how meaningful is the use of the decade as an organizational principle for cultural-historical inquiry, really? > Metaphysically speaking, just what is a “zeitgeist” anyway? > Can this be applied outside of the narrow range of 1950-present, or outside of the particular geographical and cultural area loosely referred to as “the West”? > Do you guys actually have a proper methodological approach at all, or are you just autistic? > Is this going anywhere? Are you reaching any conclusions at all? > What is the point of all this again? > What, excactly, is wrong with you? > > The decadeologist will stare blankly at such questions, unable to parse them, since the syntax is not decadeological. Then, he’ll shrug (and I’m not being sexist, because it is a “he”, although don’t ask me why or how I know), and start a thread such as: “Is \*Seinfeld \*more like the 80s, or more like the 2000s?” > > Have I got that about right, **OP**? OP? Are you still here? > > Oh, dear. I’m already picturing the OP picking up his knapsack and heading down the road, looking like a sad-faced Bruce Banner, hoping that maybe the \*next \*board over won’t be so biased against decadeology. I’m still here and I will say that you did point out some interesting questions, for example, which year is more like the 80s? 1979 or 1990? ---
**Author:** ![Walken\_After\_Midnight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b487fb/32.png) [@Walken\_After\_Midnight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walken_After_Midnight)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2016, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-decadeology-should-be-done/774387/46 "2016-12-15T04:45:14Z")
> [@Nadnerb](#): > > I’m still here and I will say that you did point out some interesting questions, for example, which year is more like the 80s? 1979 or 1990? That surely leads to the question, what about 1978 and 1991? ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2016, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-decadeology-should-be-done/774387/47 "2016-12-15T14:28:49Z")
> [@Martian Bigfoot](#): > > … > (and I’m not being sexist, because it is a “he”, although don’t ask me why or how I know) > … That **Nadnerb** is “Brendan” spelled backwards is some evidence for the same conclusion. But I agree your other unstated clues are far more suggestive and relevant to the larger picture. > [@Martian Bigfoot](#): > > … > The decadeologist will stare blankly at such questions, unable to parse them, since the syntax is not decadeological. Then, he’ll shrug […] and start a thread such as: “Is \*Seinfeld \*more like the 80s, or more like the 2000s?” > … > [@Nadnerb](#): > > I’m still here and I will say that you did point out some interesting questions, for example, which year is more like the 80s? 1979 or 1990? QE Friggin’ D. **Martian Bigfoot** for the win! Not many folks can call their shot like he can. ---
**Author:** ![Nadnerb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ee7513/32.png) [@Nadnerb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nadnerb)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2016, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-decadeology-should-be-done/774387/48 "2016-12-15T15:02:25Z")
> [@Walken\_After\_Midnight](#): > > That surely leads to the question, what about 1978 and 1991? What about 1978? Will, in actuality, 1978 is part of the 70s. However it could also be part of the 70s-80s transition period, from a cultural standpoint. Listen to “Just What I Need” by the Cars. It’s from '78 but it sounds very 80s. And about 1991. It’s part of the 90s in actuality, but it would also be a part of the 80s-90s transition period from a cultural standpoint. With all that being said, 1978 is with the echo of the 70s and prelude of the 80s, and 1991 is with the echo of the 80s and prelude of the 90s. And remember the preludes and echos I’ve named are cultural periods and not actual decades. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-decadeology-should-be-done/774387/49 "2016-12-16T22:08:53Z")
I think the question a lot of us are trying to ask, or are curious about boils down to: “Why are calendar decades special, or what the hell do they have to do with anything?” That seems to be the fundamental flaw here- you’re trying to force amorphous pop/cultural history periods into the arbitrary construct of 10 year calendar periods, when they don’t work that way- sometimes they’re shorter, sometimes they’re longer, etc… ---
**Author:** ![Nadnerb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ee7513/32.png) [@Nadnerb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nadnerb)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2017, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-decadeology-should-be-done/774387/50 "2017-11-28T19:28:19Z")
> [@bump](#): > > I think the question a lot of us are trying to ask, or are curious about boils down to: > > “Why are calendar decades special, or what the hell do they have to do with anything?” > > That seems to be the fundamental flaw here- you’re trying to force amorphous pop/cultural history periods into the arbitrary construct of 10 year calendar periods, when they don’t work that way- sometimes they’re shorter, sometimes they’re longer, etc… I never implied that calendar decades are so special. I just pointed them out to eliminate some misleading information. For example I saw many message boards implying the 1990 is part of the 80s. But in actuality that’s not true. Now it true that 1990 may have some vestiges of the 80s, but you can’t just assume ‘90 is part of the 80s. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2017, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-decadeology-should-be-done/774387/51 "2017-11-28T20:00:14Z")
It hasn’t even been a year but it seems like we’ve all been waiting a decade for you to respond. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2017, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-decadeology-should-be-done/774387/52 "2017-11-28T22:21:07Z")
The problem is my interpretation of the events that define a decade may or may not coincide with your interpretation. The OP defines “1950s” as 1946-1963. Maybe that’s reasonable. But I could also argue that the 1950s started with the debut of network television in 1948, the election of Eisenhower in 1952, the release of _Rock Around the Clock_ in 1955 or pretty much any other event that enough people think is important. And that’s just the U.S. YMMV in Great Britain, France, India, Germany, etc. At least with calendar decades, when someone says “1950s” I’m pretty clear on the time frame. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2017, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-decadeology-should-be-done/774387/53 "2017-11-28T22:27:09Z")
Do \*not \*cross the zeitgeist streams. Bad stuff happens. ---
**Author:** ![Nadnerb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ee7513/32.png) [@Nadnerb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nadnerb)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2017, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-decadeology-should-be-done/774387/54 "2017-11-29T21:00:44Z")
> [@kunilou](#): > > The problem is my interpretation of the events that define a decade may or may not coincide with your interpretation. > > The OP defines “1950s” as 1946-1963. Maybe that’s reasonable. But I could also argue that the 1950s started with the debut of network television in 1948, the election of Eisenhower in 1952, the release of _Rock Around the Clock_ in 1955 or pretty much any other event that enough people think is important. > > And that’s just the U.S. YMMV in Great Britain, France, India, Germany, etc. > > At least with calendar decades, when someone says “1950s” I’m pretty clear on the time frame. At least somebody here seems to get it. ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2017, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-decadeology-should-be-done/774387/55 "2017-11-30T15:59:25Z")
If kunilou just got it, your OP would have greatly improved with an opening sentence of: _I think decadeology is a fun party game, and here is my version of it._ ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Bravo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_bravo/32/493_2.png) [@Johnny\_Bravo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Bravo)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2017, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-decadeology-should-be-done/774387/56 "2017-11-30T17:14:16Z")
This thread wasn’t supposed to be bumped until 2028, which is when I predict the 2010s will end. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2017, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-decadeology-should-be-done/774387/57 "2017-11-30T17:22:35Z")
Perhaps with a short side-trip into the 1860s. Unfortunately. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-decadeology-should-be-done/774387.md?page=2)