3 ms·

>I don't really understand the obsession with Gibbon. Gibbon is a pretty famous example which most readers would be familiar with. His Catholic counterparts we

• whakim 5y ago
  > Gibbon is a pretty famous example which most readers would be familiar with. His Catholic counterparts were less famous but not better... But when people criticize bad psychology research, they don't mention Freud or Jung (even though they're famous) because obviously their methods have little to do with how psychology is conducted today. The same goes for the history of late antiquity; I think it's better to point out more recent (and better regarded) research before making the bold claim that a long line of scholars impute today's hot-button issues as the cause of the fall of Rome. > The issue isn't so much evidence but ignoring the obvious counterpoints possibly due to the prevailing trends of the time, and in case of Rome's history this keeps happening over the centuries. I just don't think Gibbon (and late 18th century history scholarship in general) is remotely comparable to modern history scholarship. > When people talk about 'failures of multiculturalism' they usually either blame the 'locales' for being too discriminatory or the 'foreigners' for 'not really wanting to assimilate'. 'It didn't work out because rulers kept being assassinated and overthrown' usually points to an entirely different kind of failure. I would love to read some of this research. Most of the scholarship that I've encountered speaks of these so-called "failures of multiculturalism" as an effect of the empire's decline, not a cause. For example, take the Visigothic kingdom (generally considered the earliest of the successor states): the reason why the Visigoths were to some degree able to maintain their own identity was the weak negotiating position of the Western empire, which allowed them to operate with more independence than previous settlements of barbarians.
  • yyyk 5y ago
    >But when people criticize bad psychology research, they don't mention Freud or Jung. But they might start with Freud and end up at the replication crisis, while pointing out there's too much focus on W.E.I.R.D people[0]. They could even point out some of the 60s research was obviously more meant to prove a point than be proper research (e.g. Zimbardo). It won't be a strike against psychology as a whole at all, just a warning to use caution and proper research methods. [0] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/non-weird-science/202004/psychologys-weird-problem https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/non-weird-science/20... > I think it's better to point out more recent (and better regarded) research before making the bold claim that a long line of scholars impute today's hot-button issues as the cause of the fall of Rome. Just read the linked article, which is actually quite good but a bit too busy stretching out arguments in order to argue against some imagined alt-right antagonist. It's trivial to show that Rome wasn't homogeneous ethnically, but he stretches some things more than they're worth (Rome treating its Italian subjects arguably better isn't 'diversity'. We don't really know how Carthago treated its subjects - Numidia jumped when Carthago was obvious losing, Greek polis citizenship isn't a good model for how the Hellenic Empires ran, etc.). >I would love to read some of this research. Most of the scholarship that I've encountered speaks of these so-called "failures of multiculturalism" as an effect of the empire's decline, not a cause. I was referring to the word's definition as used by ordinary people rather than research. My point was that the research you're describing doesn't really refer to so-called "failures of multiculturalism" as a cause, and you're confirming it.
    • whakim 5y ago
      > But they might start with Freud and end up at the replication crisis, while pointing out there's too much focus on W.E.I.R.D people[0]. They could even point out some of the 60s research was obviously more meant to prove a point than be proper research (e.g. Zimbardo). It won't be a strike against psychology as a whole at all, just a warning to use caution and proper research methods. [0] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/non-weird-science/20 https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/non-weird-science/20... I take your point fairly. I don't know nearly as much about psych as I do about history. > Just read the linked article, which is actually quite good but a bit too busy stretching out arguments in order to argue against some imagined alt-right antagonist. It's trivial to show that Rome wasn't homogeneous ethnically, but he stretches some things more than they're worth (Rome treating its Italian subjects arguably better isn't 'diversity'. We don't really know how Carthago treated its subjects - Numidia jumped when Carthago was obvious losing, Greek polis citizenship isn't a good model for how the Hellenic Empires ran, etc.). I read the linked post's point as more of a pushback against depictions of Rome in modern culture. And Rome's conceptualization of citizenship was radically expansionist compared to that of the Greek states which were flourishing at the same time. As for, say, the Hellenistic kingdoms, I think it's clear that the ability of the Romans to actually absorb those kingdoms and have them come to see themselves as "Romans" (a trick the Seleucids/Antigonids/etc. never pulled off) speaks to a real and meaningful difference here.