I found their research to be broadly generalized if not inaccurate, especially the further their history goes back. They understand the Boomers marvelously, but everyone else is a caricature perversely molded to fit their hypothesis, or appropriately vague like a barely applicable horoscope. This especially includes Victorian generations and those before them,

I knew it was a poor sign when the authors' biographies included such tidbits as the number of volumes previous works had sold, rather than any worthwhile academic work.