4 ms·

He has sidelined the benefits of new media formats like podcasts and social media in democratizing access to history and also he should also probably mention th

He has sidelined the benefits of new media formats like podcasts and social media in democratizing access to history and also he should also probably mention that main stream historians can leverage these tools to reach and educate a wider audience without compromising on the quality of research they work on. For example, I personally am not a historian but I did learnt about quite a bunch of stuff through reading encyclopaedias a kid, and using YouTube/Spotify as a teenager/adult, which ranges from Egyptology to stuff on Troy to WWI/WWII to cold war stuff to stuff about my country etc which, though I would never claim to be an expert personally, but it used to help when I attended quizzes representing my school and now its at best a convo topic.

kragen 2y ago
The benefits of podcasts and social media in democratizing access to history? What might those possibly be? By comparison to the written word, podcasts and social media excel at sensationalism, emotional manipulation, and organizing mob violence. They sacrifice verifiability, corrigibility in response to criticism, and the ability to quote primary and secondary sources at sufficient length for the reader to evaluate them, as well as random access through indices and table of contents. Most of what you "did learnt" from "YouTube/Spotify" is almost certainly false. Any historian, not to mention any political scientist, would undoubtedly be staggered to gain your insight that the only benefit of historical perspective was as "a convo topic", fettered as they are by their illusion that the universal principles governing human events continue their operation today just as they have for millennia. What podcasts and social media provide access to may be democratic (though I seem to see a pretty egregious Gini coefficient in podcaster subscriber numbers and Twitter follower counts) but history it ain't.
- FrustratedMonky 2y ago
  I think the point of article wasn't that 'sensational' history is wrong, it was just that the sensational one gets the attention. Hard Core History is a podcast, and fairly accurate. Even HBO shows like The Pacific, while dramatized, didn't have anything obviously 'wrong'. While being dramatic can help people put themselves into the situation, and help understanding. It doesn't just have to be a book of figures. I think you are conflating that 'real' history books must be dry, with 'dry' being 'correct'. But other forms of media can also be used to present accurate information. Or to restate, accuracy isn't dependent on the form of media.
  - kragen 2y ago
    No. Real history books must present evidence for their conclusions, and that evidence must be honest, not faked. They do not need to be correct, only corrigible. Correct and accurate information about things that happened does not rise to the level of being real history when it does not include evidence. Evidence is dependent on the form of media. "Dramatized" is a euphemism for "faked". Once you've accepted "dramatized" evidence, accurate and correct information—though it can of course be illustrated in a "dramatized" way—inevitably get replaced by information that is completely false but more entertaining, such as ancient-aliens nonsense. Since the nature of the medium cuts viewers off from the evidence, they can't tell the difference between a narrative supported by evidence and a narrative completely contrary to all the evidence. "Dry" means "badly written". History does not need to be badly written to be correct or to be corrigible; the article points out that well-written history used to be common. But it does more or less need to be written.
    - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
      "Correct and accurate information about things that happened does not rise to the level of being real history when it does not include evidence" I'm missing something. How can 'Correct and Accurate' not be enough? I'm assuming there was 'evidence' in order to affirm the 'correctness' and 'accuracy'. History book with 'Evidence', I'm assuming Evidence is the thousands of citations, footnotes, appendix, etc... etc... Does that constitute 'Evidence'? I think even this could be picked apart if we wanted. And then, why can't other forms of media supply citations, and appendix, and evidence? The History Book can say "then the soldier fired at the enemy", and provide a citation. But a fictionalized account showing an actor on set doing "then the soldier fired at the enemy", that is false? You're bar for history is a lot higher than just 'ancient aliens'. Or you're just saying, it is a slippery slope, watch HBO's 'The Pacific', and pretty soon you'll be believing in Ancient Aliens?
      - drewcoo 2y ago
        Correctness may not exist even though evidence and falsifiability are present. Accuracy is meaningless without precision. For some precisions, it is entirely accurate to say that the earth is flat. Truth and Falsehood don't really exist in anything except math, philosophy, and theology. History, like sciences, deals with the real world, where there are no proofs but there is evidence and further investigation can improve our understanding.
- afpx 2y ago
  It seems like you're saying we should only read peer-reviewed journals. Could you recommend your favorites?
  - kragen 2y ago
    I am not saying that, but my favorites are Communications of the ACM, NEJM, and PLoS One. If you do want to read peer-reviewed papers, probably reading them by journal is not among the most productive ways to read them (though in CS there are some conferences whose proceedings are worth perusing regularly, such as SIGGRAPH); instead, I recommend following particular authors and following bibliographic links. Often Wikipedia articles are the best starting point.
- trilbyglens 2y ago
  "The rest is history" is a fantastic show, and definitely not sensationalized. Also San Carlins show is great.
  - anshumankmr 2y ago
    *Dan Carlin I am a fan of his too but its been a while since I listened to his stuff
- pm3003 2y ago
  Vulgarization is a noble enterprise and craft. It's bound to be less rigourous than historians' work, erroneous, prone to cliches, but also much more palatable. I'd argue good vulgarisators are as important as good historians (though the author of the article makes a convincing point). Another approach is "making science accessible". Here in France we see this at the Collège de France, with short-tenured professors providing free high-level classes and ongoing scientific research. It can be more or less easy to follow depending on the subject and professor. The easier lectures are something like Timothy Snyder's widely broadcasted lecture on the history of Ukraine.
  - kragen 2y ago
    Popularization (the closest English equivalent word) does have to leave things out, of course. But when what it leaves out is all of the evidence, the thing that distinguishes history from mythology, it does not popularize history but debases it. (The same could be said of science popularization, which all too often amounts to science without the science.) This is not a necessary feature of popularization, but it is a necessary feature of the sensationalist, pathologically amnesic media we are discussing: podcasts and so-called "social media" like Twitter and Facebook.
- anshumankmr 2y ago
  While it’s true that not everything online is accurate, podcasts and social media offer incredible opportunities to learn about history in new and engaging ways. Will take a personal example, I learned about the Holocaust from books and movies, and this easily like 20 years back when I was like 7 or 8 or maybe even younger. Nowadays, there are entire series of interesting documentaries, podcasts that cover history in far more engaging ways. As for countering misinformation, parents should also teach their kids critical thinking so that they can think for themselves and find valuable sources, instead of dismissing these valuable tools. Plus, history being a topic of conversation, considering I am not a historian. Not sure where your obvious contempt for me is coming from. It's not like I will sit down and talk about the glory of Rome or Genghis Khan as a daily topic of conversation.
  - kragen 2y ago
    I don't have contempt for you. I have contempt for the charlatans who have tricked you by passing off entertainment as history. As for you, I merely disagree with you, which is to say, I believe you to be mistaken. Very mistaken. But if I had contempt for you I wouldn't bother to reply. Kids whose parents teach them critical thinking will be able to see that podcasts and social media are not valuable sources for history. But that's not because "not everything online is accurate"; I've already explained that it's because of the special advantages of podcasts and social media (sensationalism, emotional manipulation, and organizing mob violence) and their structural deficiencies in verifiability, corrigibility, etc. It's not about one or another piece of misinformation, but about destroying the intellectual fabric that makes it possible to distinguish misinformation from truth, which is difficult at the best of times. I am not a historian either, but I often find my perspective on current events is changed by what I know of Rome's empty glory and Genghis's historical impact.
forgetfreeman 2y ago
Nothing of value follows from opening the floor to input from broader sections of the populace on subjects that require expertise for all of the same reasons a treatise on plumbing is not meaningfully improved by adding a chapter on floral arrangement. What follows is a torrent of poorly informed takes and in-group mythology which in turn makes identifying high quality information on the subject increasingly difficult. In extreme cases the only individuals who can consistently and accurately identify valuable information in the resulting sea of dross are the very experts that should be the sole sources of information on the topic in question.
- pm3003 2y ago
  I feel you could copy-paste this into every thread out there. Eh, you probably do.
  - forgetfreeman 2y ago
    I don't and it should go without saying but here we are.
- drewcoo 2y ago
  > opening the floor to input from broader sections of the populace I'm not arguing with you, but I'd like to understand that lay interest better. Is it just people pissing everywhere to mark territory? Is it an expression of curiosity? A sign of some level of commitment to certain subjects? Something else?
  - forgetfreeman 2y ago
    Honestly I think it's just folks getting away with running their mouth. Looking someone in the eye and telling them they're full of shit fell out of fashion a few decades ago so there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of social pressure on bullshit in general. Add a multi-billion dollar industry that actively incentivizes broadcasting bullshit takes and in retrospect the outcome seems obvious.

kragen 2y ago

The benefits of podcasts and social media in democratizing access to history? What might those possibly be? By comparison to the written word, podcasts and social media excel at sensationalism, emotional manipulation, and organizing mob violence. They sacrifice verifiability, corrigibility in response to criticism, and the ability to quote primary and secondary sources at sufficient length for the reader to evaluate them, as well as random access through indices and table of contents. Most of what you "did learnt" from "YouTube/Spotify" is almost certainly false. Any historian, not to mention any political scientist, would undoubtedly be staggered to gain your insight that the only benefit of historical perspective was as "a convo topic", fettered as they are by their illusion that the universal principles governing human events continue their operation today just as they have for millennia. What podcasts and social media provide access to may be democratic (though I seem to see a pretty egregious Gini coefficient in podcaster subscriber numbers and Twitter follower counts) but history it ain't.

FrustratedMonky 2y ago
I think the point of article wasn't that 'sensational' history is wrong, it was just that the sensational one gets the attention. Hard Core History is a podcast, and fairly accurate. Even HBO shows like The Pacific, while dramatized, didn't have anything obviously 'wrong'. While being dramatic can help people put themselves into the situation, and help understanding. It doesn't just have to be a book of figures. I think you are conflating that 'real' history books must be dry, with 'dry' being 'correct'. But other forms of media can also be used to present accurate information. Or to restate, accuracy isn't dependent on the form of media.
- kragen 2y ago
  No. Real history books must present evidence for their conclusions, and that evidence must be honest, not faked. They do not need to be correct, only corrigible. Correct and accurate information about things that happened does not rise to the level of being real history when it does not include evidence. Evidence is dependent on the form of media. "Dramatized" is a euphemism for "faked". Once you've accepted "dramatized" evidence, accurate and correct information—though it can of course be illustrated in a "dramatized" way—inevitably get replaced by information that is completely false but more entertaining, such as ancient-aliens nonsense. Since the nature of the medium cuts viewers off from the evidence, they can't tell the difference between a narrative supported by evidence and a narrative completely contrary to all the evidence. "Dry" means "badly written". History does not need to be badly written to be correct or to be corrigible; the article points out that well-written history used to be common. But it does more or less need to be written.
  - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
    "Correct and accurate information about things that happened does not rise to the level of being real history when it does not include evidence" I'm missing something. How can 'Correct and Accurate' not be enough? I'm assuming there was 'evidence' in order to affirm the 'correctness' and 'accuracy'. History book with 'Evidence', I'm assuming Evidence is the thousands of citations, footnotes, appendix, etc... etc... Does that constitute 'Evidence'? I think even this could be picked apart if we wanted. And then, why can't other forms of media supply citations, and appendix, and evidence? The History Book can say "then the soldier fired at the enemy", and provide a citation. But a fictionalized account showing an actor on set doing "then the soldier fired at the enemy", that is false? You're bar for history is a lot higher than just 'ancient aliens'. Or you're just saying, it is a slippery slope, watch HBO's 'The Pacific', and pretty soon you'll be believing in Ancient Aliens?
    - drewcoo 2y ago
      Correctness may not exist even though evidence and falsifiability are present. Accuracy is meaningless without precision. For some precisions, it is entirely accurate to say that the earth is flat. Truth and Falsehood don't really exist in anything except math, philosophy, and theology. History, like sciences, deals with the real world, where there are no proofs but there is evidence and further investigation can improve our understanding.
afpx 2y ago
It seems like you're saying we should only read peer-reviewed journals. Could you recommend your favorites?
- kragen 2y ago
  I am not saying that, but my favorites are Communications of the ACM, NEJM, and PLoS One. If you do want to read peer-reviewed papers, probably reading them by journal is not among the most productive ways to read them (though in CS there are some conferences whose proceedings are worth perusing regularly, such as SIGGRAPH); instead, I recommend following particular authors and following bibliographic links. Often Wikipedia articles are the best starting point.
trilbyglens 2y ago
"The rest is history" is a fantastic show, and definitely not sensationalized. Also San Carlins show is great.
- anshumankmr 2y ago
  *Dan Carlin I am a fan of his too but its been a while since I listened to his stuff
pm3003 2y ago
Vulgarization is a noble enterprise and craft. It's bound to be less rigourous than historians' work, erroneous, prone to cliches, but also much more palatable. I'd argue good vulgarisators are as important as good historians (though the author of the article makes a convincing point). Another approach is "making science accessible". Here in France we see this at the Collège de France, with short-tenured professors providing free high-level classes and ongoing scientific research. It can be more or less easy to follow depending on the subject and professor. The easier lectures are something like Timothy Snyder's widely broadcasted lecture on the history of Ukraine.
- kragen 2y ago
  Popularization (the closest English equivalent word) does have to leave things out, of course. But when what it leaves out is all of the evidence, the thing that distinguishes history from mythology, it does not popularize history but debases it. (The same could be said of science popularization, which all too often amounts to science without the science.) This is not a necessary feature of popularization, but it is a necessary feature of the sensationalist, pathologically amnesic media we are discussing: podcasts and so-called "social media" like Twitter and Facebook.
anshumankmr 2y ago
While it’s true that not everything online is accurate, podcasts and social media offer incredible opportunities to learn about history in new and engaging ways. Will take a personal example, I learned about the Holocaust from books and movies, and this easily like 20 years back when I was like 7 or 8 or maybe even younger. Nowadays, there are entire series of interesting documentaries, podcasts that cover history in far more engaging ways. As for countering misinformation, parents should also teach their kids critical thinking so that they can think for themselves and find valuable sources, instead of dismissing these valuable tools. Plus, history being a topic of conversation, considering I am not a historian. Not sure where your obvious contempt for me is coming from. It's not like I will sit down and talk about the glory of Rome or Genghis Khan as a daily topic of conversation.
- kragen 2y ago
  I don't have contempt for you. I have contempt for the charlatans who have tricked you by passing off entertainment as history. As for you, I merely disagree with you, which is to say, I believe you to be mistaken. Very mistaken. But if I had contempt for you I wouldn't bother to reply. Kids whose parents teach them critical thinking will be able to see that podcasts and social media are not valuable sources for history. But that's not because "not everything online is accurate"; I've already explained that it's because of the special advantages of podcasts and social media (sensationalism, emotional manipulation, and organizing mob violence) and their structural deficiencies in verifiability, corrigibility, etc. It's not about one or another piece of misinformation, but about destroying the intellectual fabric that makes it possible to distinguish misinformation from truth, which is difficult at the best of times. I am not a historian either, but I often find my perspective on current events is changed by what I know of Rome's empty glory and Genghis's historical impact.

forgetfreeman 2y ago

Nothing of value follows from opening the floor to input from broader sections of the populace on subjects that require expertise for all of the same reasons a treatise on plumbing is not meaningfully improved by adding a chapter on floral arrangement. What follows is a torrent of poorly informed takes and in-group mythology which in turn makes identifying high quality information on the subject increasingly difficult. In extreme cases the only individuals who can consistently and accurately identify valuable information in the resulting sea of dross are the very experts that should be the sole sources of information on the topic in question.

pm3003 2y ago
I feel you could copy-paste this into every thread out there. Eh, you probably do.
- forgetfreeman 2y ago
  I don't and it should go without saying but here we are.
drewcoo 2y ago
> opening the floor to input from broader sections of the populace I'm not arguing with you, but I'd like to understand that lay interest better. Is it just people pissing everywhere to mark territory? Is it an expression of curiosity? A sign of some level of commitment to certain subjects? Something else?
- forgetfreeman 2y ago
  Honestly I think it's just folks getting away with running their mouth. Looking someone in the eye and telling them they're full of shit fell out of fashion a few decades ago so there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of social pressure on bullshit in general. Add a multi-billion dollar industry that actively incentivizes broadcasting bullshit takes and in retrospect the outcome seems obvious.