6 ms·

A little too much hand waving here for my taste. The ambitions set out by the author are huge and underpinning the entire thing is an individuals reading of som

by smodo 3y ago

A little too much hand waving here for my taste. The ambitions set out by the author are huge and underpinning the entire thing is an individuals reading of some (Western) history books. Then there are a lot of personal inventions like ‘reach’ to describe corporate power. Surely there are well established academic concepts for this.

dmvdoug 3y ago
There are a lot of posts like this here on HN: history by lumpers. They try to discern large-scale patterns or one or two keys that unlock a coherent, consistent interpretation of history. I am a splitter. It turns out that every interpretation produced by lumpers depends on oversimplifying or flattening the past in ways that are demonstrably wrong. Lumpers say that that doesn’t invalidate their larger point. The details are just the decorative garnish, not the fundamental point. It is self-evident, to me, that that is wrong. But I’m a splitter, not a lumper. I didn’t choose to be a splitter after carefully considering the alternative(s: it’s a continuum, of course, more than a binary state). Splitting comes natural to me. The details really do matter. You can’t inductively build useful models of human being on top of incorrect or inaccurate observations of humans being in the world. How much lumping, or splitting, one can tolerate is one of those mysterious facts about yourself that are black boxed even to your inspection. De gustibus non est disputandum, I suppose.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  Have you read Peter Turchin? Maybe ultimate lumper, as he tries to find formulaic equations for rise and fall of societies? I would make one counter point to Lumpers/Splitters. If you have all the details, you can loose the ability to use that data. It is a problem in all fields, millions of data points can obfuscate what is happening, a nice trend line is over-simplified, but lets you make some judgments. Have you seen all of the books on WW2 or Civil War, do you need to read them all and know all details before you can make any judgments, or form any opinions. Or can you read an 'overview' that leaves out the details but gives the broad strokes. Guess I've seen too many people go down the 'details' rabbit whole, and in the end not produce anything but more details that aren't adding. But, have to caveat. I think it is very valuable that people are out there doing detailed research, so there are details available. Just think there is also a lot of value in finding patterns. And I'd disagree that history is too complex to find patterns. Same old problem. The more simplified the model, the more it could be inaccurate, but the more detailed the model, then it is overfit and not providing any information. Do you need to know what was going through the minds of every civil war solder at Gettysburg, every movement, to know who won?
  - dmvdoug 3y ago
    You have one main point that you are trying to argue for, it seems to me, and I understand what it is. In fact, our disagreement really narrows down to this: > And I'd disagree that history is too complex to find patterns. I think it depends on what you mean by “patterns.” if you mean patterns in the sense that physical theories detect patterns that observe formulaic relationships, then I strongly disagree. But of course human history involves human beings. We come with a fairly standard (in a statistical sense) set of equipment. Of course there will be similarities. Just not ones that can be used to generalize across all history. However, that aside, I wanted to point out that you were actually doing three different things“ below, though arguing for one position: > If you have all the details, you can loose the ability to use that data. > Have you seen all of the books on WW2 or Civil War, do you need to read them all and know all details before you can make any judgments, or form any opinions. > Do you need to know what was going through the minds of every civil war solder at Gettysburg, every movement, to know who won? First, it’s not really clear what it means to use “data” about history. If you mean make predictions, I think you’re doomed, but that’s because the predictive enterprise itself is doomed when it comes to historical understanding. Second, I would not consider forming a judgment or opinion about something in history to be in the same class as lumping. So that’s orthogonal to what we’re focused on here. Now, it is the case that, as you split more, dive more into details, your judgments may change. They become more refined and less certain. But part of learning history just is forming judgments about things that have happened and then refining them. The danger of lumping, of course is that you stop refining because you’re so focused on the abstract patterns you think you detect. And the real value of learning history is just in the refining! Third, who won is a data point itself, so no, you don’t even need to know how Gettysburg unfolded at all to know who won.
    - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
      Sorry. It seemed you were using Lumping as meaning combining data into larger summarizations, and are against that, or think it leads to errors. Maybe not. Sure, if there was time to study all of history, that would be great. But sometimes you need summaries to provide context around the subject being deep dived, or more finely split. It isn't possible to split ad infinitum. In the end all history is summary and interpretations. Some people take it too far, which I think you said, it is a sliding scale. It goes back and forth doesn't it, some people split and split, and find a lot of details, and then wrap it up and write a summary. For formulas. I tend to think the understanding of the human animal will be cracked eventually. Being complex doesn't mean it cant be done. And we'll be able to find more 'formulaic' models of groups, and perhaps apply to history. But of course, it is speculation right now. Of course, this 'speculative' history has been going on for hundreds of years. Aren't there historians just to study past historians that themselves tried to find 'models' of history. I'd say lumping has been part of the process for a long time. But to come full circle, you need details from which to lump, so some groups go out finding details, and others try to put them back together again. It isn't all facts, it is to find out why things happened, and really that takes putting things back together. Of course we are talking about a couple made up words lump/split, and really each encompass entire fields. Perhaps it is bad example since the linked article lumps too much? So I'm in position of defending lumping, when it started with a not very good example.
- fritzo 3y ago
  Ah what a clarifying perspective: lumpers vs splitters /s
- nologic01 3y ago
  Every theory is in the end the discovery of an underlying pattern that can be verified, reproduced and cast our understandimg about something in terms of a reduced set of explanatory factors. The challenge with theories of human societies and economies is that their enormous complexity, constant flux and the inability of the observer to truly distance themselves from the object of study make any proposed explanatory frameworks very sketchy.
  - dmvdoug 3y ago
    Yes, which is why explanatory frameworks for history fall apart when put in contact with the details of history. The value in learning history comes not from the knowledge you acquire about humans, but from the wisdom you gain about human being.
    - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
      That is is some finely split hairs. What is knowledge versus wisdom, that debate has gone on for thousands of years. We keep chipping away at wisdom and it turns into knowledge. The wise used to think the sun revolved around the earth. Wisdom seems more like a veneer, or a feeling, that can be dissected until we uncover reality. There have been some some frameworks that were found to be wrong. That doesn't mean we don't continue to try to understand why something happened. And hopefully that helps us 'have wisdom' for the future. If I try to understand why something happened, I might call it a 'framework', and you might call it 'Wisdom'. I think this discussion has too many loosely defined terms that is leading to the confusion.
      - Nifty3929 3y ago
        "The wise used to think the sun revolved around the earth." Or, at least, the wise said they think the sun revolves around the Earth.
        FrustratedMonky 3y ago
        Touché, perhaps. On thinking about this more. I wonder what wisdom is. If it is something in the mind like a feeling that is difficult to express. Sometimes then it is expressed in some 'wu-wu' type terms. It seem ethereal. And what models, frameworks, etc... are doing, is to try and get wisdom out of the head and onto paper. And perhaps then it is easier to share the wisdom, if it can be boiled down to simpler terms. This boiling down of concepts, lumping, is done in all other fields, it is just very difficult in History so maybe there are far more misses, than hits.

by smodo 3y ago

dmvdoug 3y ago

There are a lot of posts like this here on HN: history by lumpers. They try to discern large-scale patterns or one or two keys that unlock a coherent, consistent interpretation of history. I am a splitter. It turns out that every interpretation produced by lumpers depends on oversimplifying or flattening the past in ways that are demonstrably wrong. Lumpers say that that doesn’t invalidate their larger point. The details are just the decorative garnish, not the fundamental point. It is self-evident, to me, that that is wrong. But I’m a splitter, not a lumper. I didn’t choose to be a splitter after carefully considering the alternative(s: it’s a continuum, of course, more than a binary state). Splitting comes natural to me. The details really do matter. You can’t inductively build useful models of human being on top of incorrect or inaccurate observations of humans being in the world. How much lumping, or splitting, one can tolerate is one of those mysterious facts about yourself that are black boxed even to your inspection. De gustibus non est disputandum, I suppose.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
Have you read Peter Turchin? Maybe ultimate lumper, as he tries to find formulaic equations for rise and fall of societies? I would make one counter point to Lumpers/Splitters. If you have all the details, you can loose the ability to use that data. It is a problem in all fields, millions of data points can obfuscate what is happening, a nice trend line is over-simplified, but lets you make some judgments. Have you seen all of the books on WW2 or Civil War, do you need to read them all and know all details before you can make any judgments, or form any opinions. Or can you read an 'overview' that leaves out the details but gives the broad strokes. Guess I've seen too many people go down the 'details' rabbit whole, and in the end not produce anything but more details that aren't adding. But, have to caveat. I think it is very valuable that people are out there doing detailed research, so there are details available. Just think there is also a lot of value in finding patterns. And I'd disagree that history is too complex to find patterns. Same old problem. The more simplified the model, the more it could be inaccurate, but the more detailed the model, then it is overfit and not providing any information. Do you need to know what was going through the minds of every civil war solder at Gettysburg, every movement, to know who won?
- dmvdoug 3y ago
  You have one main point that you are trying to argue for, it seems to me, and I understand what it is. In fact, our disagreement really narrows down to this: > And I'd disagree that history is too complex to find patterns. I think it depends on what you mean by “patterns.” if you mean patterns in the sense that physical theories detect patterns that observe formulaic relationships, then I strongly disagree. But of course human history involves human beings. We come with a fairly standard (in a statistical sense) set of equipment. Of course there will be similarities. Just not ones that can be used to generalize across all history. However, that aside, I wanted to point out that you were actually doing three different things“ below, though arguing for one position: > If you have all the details, you can loose the ability to use that data. > Have you seen all of the books on WW2 or Civil War, do you need to read them all and know all details before you can make any judgments, or form any opinions. > Do you need to know what was going through the minds of every civil war solder at Gettysburg, every movement, to know who won? First, it’s not really clear what it means to use “data” about history. If you mean make predictions, I think you’re doomed, but that’s because the predictive enterprise itself is doomed when it comes to historical understanding. Second, I would not consider forming a judgment or opinion about something in history to be in the same class as lumping. So that’s orthogonal to what we’re focused on here. Now, it is the case that, as you split more, dive more into details, your judgments may change. They become more refined and less certain. But part of learning history just is forming judgments about things that have happened and then refining them. The danger of lumping, of course is that you stop refining because you’re so focused on the abstract patterns you think you detect. And the real value of learning history is just in the refining! Third, who won is a data point itself, so no, you don’t even need to know how Gettysburg unfolded at all to know who won.
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    Sorry. It seemed you were using Lumping as meaning combining data into larger summarizations, and are against that, or think it leads to errors. Maybe not. Sure, if there was time to study all of history, that would be great. But sometimes you need summaries to provide context around the subject being deep dived, or more finely split. It isn't possible to split ad infinitum. In the end all history is summary and interpretations. Some people take it too far, which I think you said, it is a sliding scale. It goes back and forth doesn't it, some people split and split, and find a lot of details, and then wrap it up and write a summary. For formulas. I tend to think the understanding of the human animal will be cracked eventually. Being complex doesn't mean it cant be done. And we'll be able to find more 'formulaic' models of groups, and perhaps apply to history. But of course, it is speculation right now. Of course, this 'speculative' history has been going on for hundreds of years. Aren't there historians just to study past historians that themselves tried to find 'models' of history. I'd say lumping has been part of the process for a long time. But to come full circle, you need details from which to lump, so some groups go out finding details, and others try to put them back together again. It isn't all facts, it is to find out why things happened, and really that takes putting things back together. Of course we are talking about a couple made up words lump/split, and really each encompass entire fields. Perhaps it is bad example since the linked article lumps too much? So I'm in position of defending lumping, when it started with a not very good example.
fritzo 3y ago
Ah what a clarifying perspective: lumpers vs splitters /s
nologic01 3y ago
Every theory is in the end the discovery of an underlying pattern that can be verified, reproduced and cast our understandimg about something in terms of a reduced set of explanatory factors. The challenge with theories of human societies and economies is that their enormous complexity, constant flux and the inability of the observer to truly distance themselves from the object of study make any proposed explanatory frameworks very sketchy.
- dmvdoug 3y ago
  Yes, which is why explanatory frameworks for history fall apart when put in contact with the details of history. The value in learning history comes not from the knowledge you acquire about humans, but from the wisdom you gain about human being.
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    That is is some finely split hairs. What is knowledge versus wisdom, that debate has gone on for thousands of years. We keep chipping away at wisdom and it turns into knowledge. The wise used to think the sun revolved around the earth. Wisdom seems more like a veneer, or a feeling, that can be dissected until we uncover reality. There have been some some frameworks that were found to be wrong. That doesn't mean we don't continue to try to understand why something happened. And hopefully that helps us 'have wisdom' for the future. If I try to understand why something happened, I might call it a 'framework', and you might call it 'Wisdom'. I think this discussion has too many loosely defined terms that is leading to the confusion.
    - Nifty3929 3y ago
      "The wise used to think the sun revolved around the earth." Or, at least, the wise said they think the sun revolves around the Earth.
      - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
        Touché, perhaps. On thinking about this more. I wonder what wisdom is. If it is something in the mind like a feeling that is difficult to express. Sometimes then it is expressed in some 'wu-wu' type terms. It seem ethereal. And what models, frameworks, etc... are doing, is to try and get wisdom out of the head and onto paper. And perhaps then it is easier to share the wisdom, if it can be boiled down to simpler terms. This boiling down of concepts, lumping, is done in all other fields, it is just very difficult in History so maybe there are far more misses, than hits.