6 ms·

As I was reading it I was thinking "is it even legal to have this many misconceptions about human history?"

by ulises314 7y ago

mfoy_ 7y ago
Gross generalizations aside, do you have any examples of things he gets really wrong?
- justin66 7y ago
  "All humanists worship humanity..."
  - mfoy_ 7y ago
    I mean, that's obviously a "gross generalization".
    - justin66 7y ago
      Ah, I might have misunderstood your question! I didn't realize we were giving Hariri a pass for gross generalizations. Although it's a serious enough error that it might be more than just a "gross generalization." I certainly think it is.
      - mfoy_ 7y ago
        The nature of the book necessitates gross generalizations. It literally could not be anything else. It's like saying you don't like Expanse because you don't like sci-fi... Okay, but why did you read it if you know you hate sci-fi?
        justin66 7y ago
        > The nature of the book necessitates gross generalizations. It literally could not be anything else. If you say so. I don't think that's a shield against criticism. His treatment of humanism is asinine. In addition to engaging in gross generalizations on the topic, he is - to use your words - "really wrong." Getting the history of modern ideas right seems like it ought to be the easy part with a book like this, particularly if you're content with generalizations.
    - justin66 7y ago
      This particular critique of Hariri - that his characterization of humanism is stupid - is apparently rather unpopular here. It'd be interesting to understand why.
- entee 7y ago
  As just one example of very poor reasoning, I found his treatment of how/why patriarchy is so common to be rather poorly reasoned. He basically says: "It can't be strength because the strongest person doesn't usually rule societies." Then moves on to, "men are more violent and therefore may make better soldiers, but fighting doesn't mean you'll be successful at leadership." Finally he says, "maybe there are evolutionary pressures that would make men more competitive and ambitious and make women more subservient, but women could gain power by cooperating amongst themselves and we see matriarchal societies among animals so that can't be it." The first 2 are basically restatements of themselves, and he completely ignores how strength or violence can establish conditions where the stronger party would gain power without the strongest individual within that party necessarily leading the whole group. In essence, strength contributes to patriarchy, which then is self-reinforcing and within the group of strong people there are many qualities that can bring out a leader. He glosses over the volumes of examples from history of military leaders taking over societies. Those leaders had to be good fighters to rise through the ranks and earn their soldier's respect. Then they had the army to impose their will. Seems plausible, fairly obvious, but he doesn't address it. The 3rd is really oddly toxic because it suggests maybe a genetic subservience. I personally find that hard to square with the people I know and what I understand about genetics, particularly that very complex traits such as social behavior are extremely unlikely to have strong genetic ties at a population level. So much gets influenced by culture. See for example the tribe of baboons that went from patriarchal to matriarchal [1]. It's good that he dismisses it, but he should have emphasized culture more. Essentially he doesn't consider that reasons 1+2 could predispose to one type of dynamic (stronger people have more power) which will then tip over into patriarchy, and once a social system is established it takes a lot to change that system. Many arguments in the book could have been made in 1/3 the amount of text, and could have been made better. Small other annoyance: at one point he says that until modern times nobody wanted to travel, that the desire to travel is a consumerist urge and a demonstration of wealth. Nevermind that for most of human history it would have been insane to even think of traveling more than a few dozen miles from home and BTW that would have taken months/years, and anyway you probably wouldn't have known that things like the pyramids (picking a random example) existed at all. So how exactly does he conclude people didn't want to travel for leisure because they weren't poisoned by consumer culture? [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/13/science/no-time-for-bullies-baboons-retool-their-culture.html https://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/13/science/no-time-for-bulli...
- bacon_waffle 7y ago
  After reading Debt by David Graeber, I felt like the treatment of early economics in Sapiens was a bit superficial. This isn't to say that I think one is "wrong", and I'm certainly no expert in the area. Debt made me think in ways that those parts of Sapiens didn't.

As I was reading it I was thinking "is it even legal to have this many misconceptions about human history?"

mfoy_ 7y ago

Gross generalizations aside, do you have any examples of things he gets really wrong?

justin66 7y ago
"All humanists worship humanity..."
- mfoy_ 7y ago
  I mean, that's obviously a "gross generalization".
  - justin66 7y ago
    Ah, I might have misunderstood your question! I didn't realize we were giving Hariri a pass for gross generalizations. Although it's a serious enough error that it might be more than just a "gross generalization." I certainly think it is.
    - mfoy_ 7y ago
      The nature of the book necessitates gross generalizations. It literally could not be anything else. It's like saying you don't like Expanse because you don't like sci-fi... Okay, but why did you read it if you know you hate sci-fi?
      - justin66 7y ago
        > The nature of the book necessitates gross generalizations. It literally could not be anything else. If you say so. I don't think that's a shield against criticism. His treatment of humanism is asinine. In addition to engaging in gross generalizations on the topic, he is - to use your words - "really wrong." Getting the history of modern ideas right seems like it ought to be the easy part with a book like this, particularly if you're content with generalizations.
  - justin66 7y ago
    This particular critique of Hariri - that his characterization of humanism is stupid - is apparently rather unpopular here. It'd be interesting to understand why.
entee 7y ago
As just one example of very poor reasoning, I found his treatment of how/why patriarchy is so common to be rather poorly reasoned. He basically says: "It can't be strength because the strongest person doesn't usually rule societies." Then moves on to, "men are more violent and therefore may make better soldiers, but fighting doesn't mean you'll be successful at leadership." Finally he says, "maybe there are evolutionary pressures that would make men more competitive and ambitious and make women more subservient, but women could gain power by cooperating amongst themselves and we see matriarchal societies among animals so that can't be it." The first 2 are basically restatements of themselves, and he completely ignores how strength or violence can establish conditions where the stronger party would gain power without the strongest individual within that party necessarily leading the whole group. In essence, strength contributes to patriarchy, which then is self-reinforcing and within the group of strong people there are many qualities that can bring out a leader. He glosses over the volumes of examples from history of military leaders taking over societies. Those leaders had to be good fighters to rise through the ranks and earn their soldier's respect. Then they had the army to impose their will. Seems plausible, fairly obvious, but he doesn't address it. The 3rd is really oddly toxic because it suggests maybe a genetic subservience. I personally find that hard to square with the people I know and what I understand about genetics, particularly that very complex traits such as social behavior are extremely unlikely to have strong genetic ties at a population level. So much gets influenced by culture. See for example the tribe of baboons that went from patriarchal to matriarchal [1]. It's good that he dismisses it, but he should have emphasized culture more. Essentially he doesn't consider that reasons 1+2 could predispose to one type of dynamic (stronger people have more power) which will then tip over into patriarchy, and once a social system is established it takes a lot to change that system. Many arguments in the book could have been made in 1/3 the amount of text, and could have been made better. Small other annoyance: at one point he says that until modern times nobody wanted to travel, that the desire to travel is a consumerist urge and a demonstration of wealth. Nevermind that for most of human history it would have been insane to even think of traveling more than a few dozen miles from home and BTW that would have taken months/years, and anyway you probably wouldn't have known that things like the pyramids (picking a random example) existed at all. So how exactly does he conclude people didn't want to travel for leisure because they weren't poisoned by consumer culture? [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/13/science/no-time-for-bullies-baboons-retool-their-culture.html https://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/13/science/no-time-for-bulli...
bacon_waffle 7y ago
After reading Debt by David Graeber, I felt like the treatment of early economics in Sapiens was a bit superficial. This isn't to say that I think one is "wrong", and I'm certainly no expert in the area. Debt made me think in ways that those parts of Sapiens didn't.