It's literally only the tech community that thinks that "Progress itself is understudied". People who work in the humanities have been studying these topics sin

It's literally only the tech community that thinks that "Progress itself is understudied". People who work in the humanities have been studying these topics since antiquity, and they have been desperately trying to get people in the STEM fields to listen, only to be ignored. read the responses to The Atlantic tweeting this out. https://twitter.com/TheAtlantic/status/1156260396317253632 https://twitter.com/TheAtlantic/status/1156260396317253632 > there is no broad-based intellectual movement focused on understanding the dynamics of progress The major difference between what they're saying and existing fields (history, sociology, STS, economics, urbanism) is that the authors are only talking about looking at successes, not failures. That is juvenile at best, catastrophic at worst. Studying progress without studying failure is incredibly ill-defined, because you have to start by defining progress, and you can't actually guarantee progress without studying failure and studying how to avoid failure. I'm sure we can all come together and agree on a single definition of progress, right? Seems so straightforward. This article is embarrassingly dismissive of other fields.