3 ms·

The fact that it is fiction does not mean the insights it provides are also false. Instead, insights are often easiest to glean and clearer when presented as a

The fact that it is fiction does not mean the insights it provides are also false. Instead, insights are often easiest to glean and clearer when presented as an analogy or when separated by renaming from real-world organizations where yo have preconceived ideas about how the world works. One might look at real-world international politics and wonder why the UN seems toothless. Dune explains how an organization with similar dynamics in a fictional world came to be, and explains the forces that keep it there. You obviously can't find-replace Padishah Emperor<->UN, Landsraad<->Sovereign Nations, and Great Convention<->International Law. But you can think about the incentives and goals that are present for each organization in Dune, and start to imagine what forces are present in the real world. The basics of international politics are mathematical concepts like game theory and power dynamics. These are true whether they're observed in history, read in a polisci textbook, or adhered to in a fictional textbook. True, some fiction is less consistent with its political worldbuilding (Star Wars and Game of Thrones are particularly absurd) and you do have to remember to account for the fictional aspects of a setting in "the real world, X years in the future/past, but with magic _____". Once you account for that, fiction like Dune can be rational and therefore educational.

watwut 6y ago
> One might look at real-world international politics and wonder why the UN seems toothless. Dune explains how an organization with similar dynamics in a fictional world came to be, and explains the forces that keep it there. It does not and is not trying to do that. The author never studied politics or history of UN. Dune creates fictional system that on some superficial level ressembles UN from taking point superficial point of view. This is literally what is dangerous. > The basics of international politics are mathematical concepts like game theory and power dynamics. These are true whether they're observed in history, read in a polisci textbook, or adhered to in a fictional textbook Strongly disagree. To large part because I used to read a lot of fiction and then I read a lot of detailed history in some selected periods. The two were very very far from each other. They were not similar in mechanisms at all.
- LeifCarrotson 6y ago
  There's a huge variety of fiction - some books have cultures, individuals, politics, economics, warfare, etc. based entirely on what's most interesting for the plot and communicates the message the author wants to tell. Others have more rational, cohesive structures that make sense and communicate lessons that are useful in the real world. There's also significant variability in history texts, too - historians are humans with biases and preconceptions, just like authors, their source text (if there is text) was written by humans with their own opinions and their own cultural viewpoints. For example, we have detailed memoirs of the battles fought by conquistador noblemen, but an accurate understanding of the events they wrote about includes the many natives they 'conquered' dying of dysentery. Regardless of your source, you need to apply your own critical thinking.

watwut 6y ago

> One might look at real-world international politics and wonder why the UN seems toothless. Dune explains how an organization with similar dynamics in a fictional world came to be, and explains the forces that keep it there. It does not and is not trying to do that. The author never studied politics or history of UN. Dune creates fictional system that on some superficial level ressembles UN from taking point superficial point of view. This is literally what is dangerous. > The basics of international politics are mathematical concepts like game theory and power dynamics. These are true whether they're observed in history, read in a polisci textbook, or adhered to in a fictional textbook Strongly disagree. To large part because I used to read a lot of fiction and then I read a lot of detailed history in some selected periods. The two were very very far from each other. They were not similar in mechanisms at all.

LeifCarrotson 6y ago
There's a huge variety of fiction - some books have cultures, individuals, politics, economics, warfare, etc. based entirely on what's most interesting for the plot and communicates the message the author wants to tell. Others have more rational, cohesive structures that make sense and communicate lessons that are useful in the real world. There's also significant variability in history texts, too - historians are humans with biases and preconceptions, just like authors, their source text (if there is text) was written by humans with their own opinions and their own cultural viewpoints. For example, we have detailed memoirs of the battles fought by conquistador noblemen, but an accurate understanding of the events they wrote about includes the many natives they 'conquered' dying of dysentery. Regardless of your source, you need to apply your own critical thinking.