3 ms·
> The much more parsimonious explanation is that “great men” were in the right place at the right time to apply their (undisputed!) talents. But isn’t this par
by gniv 3y ago
> The much more parsimonious explanation is that “great men” were in the right place at the right time to apply their (undisputed!) talents.
But isn’t this part of the point? How many times did we not get the right person in the right place? How much further would we be if we had gotten, say, a Galileo during Rome’s heyday?
- woodruffw 3y ago> How much further would we be if we had gotten, say, a Galileo during Rome’s heyday? Who says we didn’t? There isn’t a single point in human history that wasn’t covered by exceptional intelligence; the observation is that this doesn’t make discoveries fungible over time. Discovery, innovation, invention, etc. are instead all compounding processes.
- gniv 3y agoYes, of course. What I meant was we could have had all the stuff that lead to Galileo before the great reset that was the fall of Rome, so maybe civilization would have been ahead a few hundred years.
- woodruffw 3y agoThis doesn’t require belief in the great man theory: progress can ebb and flow under any theory of history. Besides: there is no point in history that’s identifiable as “the fall of Rome.” The Western Empire declined over the course of three centuries; the Eastern Empire arguably never fell at all. The idea of the “fall” comes from the same period of historical theorization as the “great man” framework; it’s not widely accepted as a useful milestone today.
- gniv 3y agoWe’re splitting hairs now. Let me rephrase again. There was a period when Rome was ridiculously wealthy (gold from Spain etc). It was a time when science could have advanced rapidly but didn’t. My point was that a few “great men” there might have changed history.
- zanellato19 3y ago> It was a time when science could have advanced rapidly but didn’t. I don't think this is accepted anymore. The material conditions for the Industrial Revolution were pretty specific and didn't show up in the age of Rome, despite all their riches.
- mongol 3y agoA Galileo during Rome's heyday could not have taken advantage of the telescope, like Galileo Galilei could. It was not invented yet.
- lll-o-lll 3y ago> How many times did we not get the right person in the right place? How much further would we be if we had gotten, say, a Galileo during Rome’s heyday? As psychohistory rigorously proves; individuals are of no consequence to the thrusting arc of history. It is not Galileo that created history, but rather history that created Galileo.
- dmn322 3y agopsychohistory is from "the foundation" and last time I checked is fictional. If someone has a new theory of sociology which they've named after the field in the book, you might link it and introduce it as if it's a new unknown field, rather than some established thing that everyone should know about and agree with. If it were truly rigorously proved and were able to make quantitative predictions, it would have some pretty significant implications for policy, finance, politics, etc.. However if the creator was brash enough to name their pet theory after the theory in the book, I'm skeptical that they were careful enough to get it right.