4 ms·

I’ve taken a few grad level history courses, enough where I feel “safe” reading primary sources, and assessing the relative quality of history-oriented literatu

by gen220 6y ago

I’ve taken a few grad level history courses, enough where I feel “safe” reading primary sources, and assessing the relative quality of history-oriented literature. I like to read “dull history”, especially social and economic histories with focuses on labor. I totally agree with your dad. The HN community likes to dis Malcolm Gladwell (for example) but reveres Harari and Diamond. They’re creative smart people, with interesting and sharp ideas. They like to lean on history or sociology to support their sharp instincts. Their books are good to get a sense for their instincts, and how they’ve occasionally played out through history. But you should never read them as an authoritative account of history or sociology, and you should not seriously consider their historical references to draw conclusions about the inevitability of the future. I‘ve recently been reading primary sources of intellectuals living in Russia in the immediate months and years before WW1. None of them saw the war coming. None of them saw the revolution. Each of them made bold, evidence-based predictions about the near future, and they were all wrong. Same with (brilliant) Soviet economists in the 80s. I recommend reading these books for fun if they please you, but please do not think that they’ve given you a comprehensive or correct view of history, even for the specific events they describe.

noir_lord 6y ago
I love history as a subject but it’s one of those fascinations where the more you dig in the more you learn that the picture is complex and nuanced, which shouldn’t be surprising society now is complex and nuanced why would the past be so different. As a subject though it was badly taught in my youth (no idea if it’s improved). We learnt about the Romans then basically nothing till the victorians and the WWII. Might have perhaps been worth mentioning oh the empire in a UK school you would think.
- gen220 6y ago
  Agreed on all points. For me, the value of history is how humblingly-nuanced it is. It’s kind of like Simpson’s Law: the more you see and the deeper you look, you learn more but you “know” less (because looking deeper merely exposes you to more nuance). The more widely you study history, the more you see this truth repeating itself. It’s value is an inoculation against black and white interpretations of anything. This is good for free thinking, but arguably bad for people who want to influence you to think in black and white terms. Maybe that’s why our study of history in secondary school is so superficial! :) (just kidding) In all seriousness, it’s really hard to cover history at the breadth of a primary and secondary school curriculum, and get to spend any time on depth. The curriculum seems more interested in arming us with superficial facts, than improving our way of thinking, but I’m sure it’s not the same everywhere. Also bit of a sidebar, but the saxonizing of England, and the whole story of Oliver Cromwell and Scotland is so damn fascinating! It’s a shame they didn’t teach that. So many lessons to learn and interesting counterfactual thought experiments that teenagers would eat up. Although, I guess talking about nationally divisive topics isn’t super palatable. American classrooms are still trying to figure out how to teach slavery in 2020, and it’s been 150 years since emancipation.

by gen220 6y ago

noir_lord 6y ago

I love history as a subject but it’s one of those fascinations where the more you dig in the more you learn that the picture is complex and nuanced, which shouldn’t be surprising society now is complex and nuanced why would the past be so different. As a subject though it was badly taught in my youth (no idea if it’s improved). We learnt about the Romans then basically nothing till the victorians and the WWII. Might have perhaps been worth mentioning oh the empire in a UK school you would think.

gen220 6y ago
Agreed on all points. For me, the value of history is how humblingly-nuanced it is. It’s kind of like Simpson’s Law: the more you see and the deeper you look, you learn more but you “know” less (because looking deeper merely exposes you to more nuance). The more widely you study history, the more you see this truth repeating itself. It’s value is an inoculation against black and white interpretations of anything. This is good for free thinking, but arguably bad for people who want to influence you to think in black and white terms. Maybe that’s why our study of history in secondary school is so superficial! :) (just kidding) In all seriousness, it’s really hard to cover history at the breadth of a primary and secondary school curriculum, and get to spend any time on depth. The curriculum seems more interested in arming us with superficial facts, than improving our way of thinking, but I’m sure it’s not the same everywhere. Also bit of a sidebar, but the saxonizing of England, and the whole story of Oliver Cromwell and Scotland is so damn fascinating! It’s a shame they didn’t teach that. So many lessons to learn and interesting counterfactual thought experiments that teenagers would eat up. Although, I guess talking about nationally divisive topics isn’t super palatable. American classrooms are still trying to figure out how to teach slavery in 2020, and it’s been 150 years since emancipation.