6 ms·

According to the author, humans need fiction to unite, and therefore persuasive fiction is far more powerful and successful than truth. So far so good. But the

by _cs2017_ 8y ago

According to the author, humans need fiction to unite, and therefore persuasive fiction is far more powerful and successful than truth. So far so good. But then the author makes one mistake after another. First, he conflates the use of currency with fiction. Currency doesn't need fiction to function, it can be survive even if every human was completely rational and couldn't be tricked with fiction. That's because the mechanism that gives currency its value is game theoretic equilibrium / focal point. Then he starts complaining that bad guys use fiction. Come on man, you just explained that humans are inherently wired to follow fiction, so why are you blaming people for using it? The author also goes into political and moral arguments and starts taking sides. Given that both sides of any conflict use fiction, this seems out of place. Finally the author encourages people to read scientific literature, without explaining how to identify the rare thoughtful writing among the tons of fiction that academics write. Academics, after all, aren't stupid, and also follow the approach of writing fiction into their papers to make their work more impressive to the outside world and more appealing to journal editors. Overall, I'm very disappointed since the topic is important and deserves a better treatment.

rpm33 8y ago
> First, he conflates the use of currency with fiction. Currency doesn't need fiction to function, it can be survive even if every human was completely rational and couldn't be tricked with fiction. That's because the mechanism that gives currency its value is game theoretic equilibrium / focal point. Disagree. Currency exists because humans cooperate on a common medium of transaction. If cooperation didn't exist (via fiction), then the equilibrium wouldn't exist.
- _cs2017_ 8y ago
  The author uses the word fiction in the strict meaning of untruth. There is no untruth required for humans to engage in cooperation. Even a very rational person, who doesn't believe in any untruth, may engage in cooperation if it is more likely to benefit him than hurt him. The author seems to not understand that there are reasons beyond untruth that can make this situation possible. crazygringo reply to my comment gives a specific example of this gap in the author's knowledge.
  - tim333 8y ago
    His wording is > ...conventions such as the dollar? > Such conventions, however, are not clearly distinct from fiction... Not clearly distinct seems kind of ok. While you might have dollars in a completely rational society in practice people have funny ideas about currencies especially when you get on to the crypto ones.
  - fsloth 8y ago
    Fiction is not untruth. It is a belief that is not provable, or has not been proven. Most humans accept our current model of the universe as plausible fiction, since they cannot themselves perform the experiments, or do the math, or construct the mental models necessary. Our civilization idolizes the human expert, like they were possession of some magical unquestionable truth. But to general human interaction, no such truths are available. To the mass of humanity, all they have is their experience of the world, and belief in the foundational institutions of their culture. One such institution is belief to a better tomorrow, and that it's worthwhile to improve oneself. I think it is a wonderful institution - but image of the self or the child in the future, educated and improved, is whisful fiction until it becomes actualized through years of work - or does not become actualized if tragedy, trauma or change of life's priorities occurs. We are not creatures of knowledge. We are a creatures of fiction. Some of us can grasp at - perhaps glimpses - of true knowledge in the strict mathematical sense - but that is a rare and wonderful aberration to typical way humans live.
crazygringo 8y ago
The author is disappointing, particularly given his recent extreme popularity. His entire book Sapiens basically harps on the theme that human institutions are all "shared fictions", completely ignoring any kind of structural/economic reasons for existing. It's as if he thinks that how supply/demand affect prices is a "fiction" we invented and are free to un-invent if we so chose, rather than a reliable explanation of human behavior. I just can't seem to find any real analytical or explanatory value in anything he's written thus far.
- _cs2017_ 8y ago
  Precisely. It puzzles me how an educated person from the late 20th - early 21st century, who spends all his time learning and writing, can utterly fail to understand the structural and economic mechanisms of the modern world.
  - loa-in-backup 8y ago
    I am keen to treat this the same as ommiting technical details of trebuchets in a book about some Lord siegeing another Lord's castle - it's not the point, and if one really gets inspired to know, he must search on his own.
- sievebrain 8y ago
  I'm reading the sequel now (Homo Deus) and I agree that so far I'm disappointed in his output. It starts by arguing that humanity has essentially conquered famine, disease and war. The first two are arguable but they are technical issues that can be overcome with technology. War isn't. It goes downhill from there. Still he has a way with words and it's an enjoyable read so far even if large parts are academic humanities nonsense.
- mark212 8y ago
  I don't think you're using "fiction" in the same way that Harari is. He absolutely does _not_ mean that human "are free to un-invent if we so chose." Many of our myths / fictions / metaphors are deeply embedded, to the extent that we simply aren't free to un-invent them because they're so fundamentally human. At the same time, though, because they are fictions they can be changed over time. It took several thousand years for a significant number of humans to free themselves from religion. The analytical value he has is that fictions change, and his point in the second book is that the pace of that change is accelerating rapidly. Fifty years from now may not look anything like the present, in very serious ways.
totalperspectiv 8y ago
I feel like you are willfully misunderstanding the article. To your first point, currency is a fiction, and any fiction can survive even if you are cognoscente of the fact that it is a fiction. To your second point regarding only the 'bad guys' using fiction. He give the example of the tribe rising up against the Germans as 'good guys' using fiction, as well as Churchill. To your third point regarding taking sides, how is discussing the sides of an argument taking sides? And even if sides are taken, how does that weaken the core argument being made? The suggestion to seek out scientific literature for topics that an individual cares about is not a bad suggestion by any means. You are correct that the literature isn't perfect. Buy you are more likely to start gaining a less biased, holistic view of a topic than you would by reading any other sources. The core argument suggests that people simply need to ingest 'facts' with due diligence and a healthy degree of skepticism. So, this is a good treatment of the topic that has been published in a place that hopefully many people will read and take away a better understanding of the flow of facts in the world today than if they had not read it.
- _cs2017_ 8y ago
  What does it even mean to willfully misunderstand?? On currency as fiction: the author uses a very precise meaning of fiction: "untruth". I don't think that currency fits that meaning. Can you explain? On bad guys using fiction: ignore the word "bad". Why does the author complain that people use fiction, if he just explained it? On taking sides: in several modern conflicts he mentioned, the author emphasizes the use of fiction by one side but not the other. It's pretty obvious which side of the conflict the author is on. I didn't feel his expression of personal political views improves the article.
  - totalperspectiv 8y ago
    After some reflection and a little trip down the existential rabbit hole, I think we both fell into the trap the author warns of (or at least I did) of viewing the article as wholely right or wholely wrong. I found the presentation of the fact that we as people tend to create fictions (which I would prefer to think of as narratives) in order to give ourselves some 'meaning' to latch onto a profound one. I also found it interesting to think of the current focus on fake news as a good thing.... In other words, we have become self aware enough to recognize what is happening at a macro level at least. Tl;dr: I think your points have merit, I was just reactionary because I saw something profound and wanted everyone to see it too, falling into the same trap as always.
jMyles 8y ago
> The author also goes into political and moral arguments and starts taking sides. Is this per se a cause for reduction in credibility? What's wrong with making political and moral arguments and taking sides?
- PunchTornado 8y ago
  per se, nothing is wrong, but, you are more inclined to disregard the other side. you're not presenting all the possible arguments for the other side. I find it less trustworthy if someone is taking sides..
  - jMyles 8y ago
    If someone is taking the position that the sky is blue, arguing against the position that the sky is orange, does that make them less trustworthy? How about arguing against genocide? How about arguing that torture is morally indefensible? How about arguing that war is wrong and best avoided unless absolutely necessary? How about arguing that drug prohibition is an abhorrent policy that is rooted in racism and greed? Any one of these positions makes a presenter more credible, not less. These are all accurate, true positions; there is no trust deficit inherent in pointing that out.
    - PunchTornado 8y ago
      arguing those things is sort of useless. we are referring to more debatable aspects or society: left vs right, religion is fake news? etc.
mattmcknight 8y ago
I had to put down Harari's "Sapiens" because his equivocation between different uses of the word "myth", particularly around any medium of exchange, contracts, or law, is so infuriating. A myth implies something that is false. An agreement between people is not false like a myth describing why it rains. He uses myth to describe every abstract concept shared between people. This fallacy underlies the bulk of his arguments, and makes most of his writing worthless.
- jonnybgood 8y ago
  Myth doesn't imply something false. I think you are going by the common usage of the word myth. Myths have little to do with falsity. Wikipedia says it best: "Recent approaches often view myths as manifestations of psychological, cultural, or societal truths, rather than as inaccurate historical accounts." [0] Harari uses the word correctly. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology
- fsloth 8y ago
  Myths are not necessarily false. They are just things people believe. To a physicist there is nothing unmythical about a contract. It is based on the belief that the words on the paper will entice the other party - like some sort of golem that can be commanded with words - to act accordingly. It is one of the wonderful unbelievable symmetries of human behaviour that often the other party will belief likewise, and this common belief makes the contract actualized. Note - there may be several reasons why it is rational for the other party not to brake with the contract, but constructing the complete cost benefit scenario for the other party in ones head is quite labour intensive - this is not how fundamentally people in general approach things - but rather people follow accepted norms and believe they will work as expected. It is totally wonderfull and unexpected that this common web of belief and action makes the human civilization work. I think Harari's description of human interaction is philosophically deep and cuts to several points if one wants to create a "system theoretical" model within ones mind how and why humans can function as a coherent civilization.
- alexandercrohde 8y ago
  He just uses the word myth to mean "social construct," (which he explains in the book). Social constructs are those things we all pretend are real, but aren't objectively real in the scientific sense (e.g. a country). He probably chose to use "myth" instead of "social construct" because it sounds less pretentious.

rpm33 8y ago

> First, he conflates the use of currency with fiction. Currency doesn't need fiction to function, it can be survive even if every human was completely rational and couldn't be tricked with fiction. That's because the mechanism that gives currency its value is game theoretic equilibrium / focal point. Disagree. Currency exists because humans cooperate on a common medium of transaction. If cooperation didn't exist (via fiction), then the equilibrium wouldn't exist.

_cs2017_ 8y ago
The author uses the word fiction in the strict meaning of untruth. There is no untruth required for humans to engage in cooperation. Even a very rational person, who doesn't believe in any untruth, may engage in cooperation if it is more likely to benefit him than hurt him. The author seems to not understand that there are reasons beyond untruth that can make this situation possible. crazygringo reply to my comment gives a specific example of this gap in the author's knowledge.
- tim333 8y ago
  His wording is > ...conventions such as the dollar? > Such conventions, however, are not clearly distinct from fiction... Not clearly distinct seems kind of ok. While you might have dollars in a completely rational society in practice people have funny ideas about currencies especially when you get on to the crypto ones.
- fsloth 8y ago
  Fiction is not untruth. It is a belief that is not provable, or has not been proven. Most humans accept our current model of the universe as plausible fiction, since they cannot themselves perform the experiments, or do the math, or construct the mental models necessary. Our civilization idolizes the human expert, like they were possession of some magical unquestionable truth. But to general human interaction, no such truths are available. To the mass of humanity, all they have is their experience of the world, and belief in the foundational institutions of their culture. One such institution is belief to a better tomorrow, and that it's worthwhile to improve oneself. I think it is a wonderful institution - but image of the self or the child in the future, educated and improved, is whisful fiction until it becomes actualized through years of work - or does not become actualized if tragedy, trauma or change of life's priorities occurs. We are not creatures of knowledge. We are a creatures of fiction. Some of us can grasp at - perhaps glimpses - of true knowledge in the strict mathematical sense - but that is a rare and wonderful aberration to typical way humans live.

crazygringo 8y ago

The author is disappointing, particularly given his recent extreme popularity. His entire book Sapiens basically harps on the theme that human institutions are all "shared fictions", completely ignoring any kind of structural/economic reasons for existing. It's as if he thinks that how supply/demand affect prices is a "fiction" we invented and are free to un-invent if we so chose, rather than a reliable explanation of human behavior. I just can't seem to find any real analytical or explanatory value in anything he's written thus far.

_cs2017_ 8y ago
Precisely. It puzzles me how an educated person from the late 20th - early 21st century, who spends all his time learning and writing, can utterly fail to understand the structural and economic mechanisms of the modern world.
- loa-in-backup 8y ago
  I am keen to treat this the same as ommiting technical details of trebuchets in a book about some Lord siegeing another Lord's castle - it's not the point, and if one really gets inspired to know, he must search on his own.
sievebrain 8y ago
I'm reading the sequel now (Homo Deus) and I agree that so far I'm disappointed in his output. It starts by arguing that humanity has essentially conquered famine, disease and war. The first two are arguable but they are technical issues that can be overcome with technology. War isn't. It goes downhill from there. Still he has a way with words and it's an enjoyable read so far even if large parts are academic humanities nonsense.
mark212 8y ago
I don't think you're using "fiction" in the same way that Harari is. He absolutely does _not_ mean that human "are free to un-invent if we so chose." Many of our myths / fictions / metaphors are deeply embedded, to the extent that we simply aren't free to un-invent them because they're so fundamentally human. At the same time, though, because they are fictions they can be changed over time. It took several thousand years for a significant number of humans to free themselves from religion. The analytical value he has is that fictions change, and his point in the second book is that the pace of that change is accelerating rapidly. Fifty years from now may not look anything like the present, in very serious ways.

totalperspectiv 8y ago

I feel like you are willfully misunderstanding the article. To your first point, currency is a fiction, and any fiction can survive even if you are cognoscente of the fact that it is a fiction. To your second point regarding only the 'bad guys' using fiction. He give the example of the tribe rising up against the Germans as 'good guys' using fiction, as well as Churchill. To your third point regarding taking sides, how is discussing the sides of an argument taking sides? And even if sides are taken, how does that weaken the core argument being made? The suggestion to seek out scientific literature for topics that an individual cares about is not a bad suggestion by any means. You are correct that the literature isn't perfect. Buy you are more likely to start gaining a less biased, holistic view of a topic than you would by reading any other sources. The core argument suggests that people simply need to ingest 'facts' with due diligence and a healthy degree of skepticism. So, this is a good treatment of the topic that has been published in a place that hopefully many people will read and take away a better understanding of the flow of facts in the world today than if they had not read it.

_cs2017_ 8y ago
What does it even mean to willfully misunderstand?? On currency as fiction: the author uses a very precise meaning of fiction: "untruth". I don't think that currency fits that meaning. Can you explain? On bad guys using fiction: ignore the word "bad". Why does the author complain that people use fiction, if he just explained it? On taking sides: in several modern conflicts he mentioned, the author emphasizes the use of fiction by one side but not the other. It's pretty obvious which side of the conflict the author is on. I didn't feel his expression of personal political views improves the article.
- totalperspectiv 8y ago
  After some reflection and a little trip down the existential rabbit hole, I think we both fell into the trap the author warns of (or at least I did) of viewing the article as wholely right or wholely wrong. I found the presentation of the fact that we as people tend to create fictions (which I would prefer to think of as narratives) in order to give ourselves some 'meaning' to latch onto a profound one. I also found it interesting to think of the current focus on fake news as a good thing.... In other words, we have become self aware enough to recognize what is happening at a macro level at least. Tl;dr: I think your points have merit, I was just reactionary because I saw something profound and wanted everyone to see it too, falling into the same trap as always.

jMyles 8y ago

> The author also goes into political and moral arguments and starts taking sides. Is this per se a cause for reduction in credibility? What's wrong with making political and moral arguments and taking sides?

PunchTornado 8y ago
per se, nothing is wrong, but, you are more inclined to disregard the other side. you're not presenting all the possible arguments for the other side. I find it less trustworthy if someone is taking sides..
- jMyles 8y ago
  If someone is taking the position that the sky is blue, arguing against the position that the sky is orange, does that make them less trustworthy? How about arguing against genocide? How about arguing that torture is morally indefensible? How about arguing that war is wrong and best avoided unless absolutely necessary? How about arguing that drug prohibition is an abhorrent policy that is rooted in racism and greed? Any one of these positions makes a presenter more credible, not less. These are all accurate, true positions; there is no trust deficit inherent in pointing that out.
  - PunchTornado 8y ago
    arguing those things is sort of useless. we are referring to more debatable aspects or society: left vs right, religion is fake news? etc.

mattmcknight 8y ago

I had to put down Harari's "Sapiens" because his equivocation between different uses of the word "myth", particularly around any medium of exchange, contracts, or law, is so infuriating. A myth implies something that is false. An agreement between people is not false like a myth describing why it rains. He uses myth to describe every abstract concept shared between people. This fallacy underlies the bulk of his arguments, and makes most of his writing worthless.

jonnybgood 8y ago
Myth doesn't imply something false. I think you are going by the common usage of the word myth. Myths have little to do with falsity. Wikipedia says it best: "Recent approaches often view myths as manifestations of psychological, cultural, or societal truths, rather than as inaccurate historical accounts." [0] Harari uses the word correctly. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology
fsloth 8y ago
Myths are not necessarily false. They are just things people believe. To a physicist there is nothing unmythical about a contract. It is based on the belief that the words on the paper will entice the other party - like some sort of golem that can be commanded with words - to act accordingly. It is one of the wonderful unbelievable symmetries of human behaviour that often the other party will belief likewise, and this common belief makes the contract actualized. Note - there may be several reasons why it is rational for the other party not to brake with the contract, but constructing the complete cost benefit scenario for the other party in ones head is quite labour intensive - this is not how fundamentally people in general approach things - but rather people follow accepted norms and believe they will work as expected. It is totally wonderfull and unexpected that this common web of belief and action makes the human civilization work. I think Harari's description of human interaction is philosophically deep and cuts to several points if one wants to create a "system theoretical" model within ones mind how and why humans can function as a coherent civilization.
alexandercrohde 8y ago
He just uses the word myth to mean "social construct," (which he explains in the book). Social constructs are those things we all pretend are real, but aren't objectively real in the scientific sense (e.g. a country). He probably chose to use "myth" instead of "social construct" because it sounds less pretentious.