4 ms·

> breadth and depth of understanding about psychology have improved dramatically Provide one tiny bit of evidence for this. Do you seriously think that Shakes

> breadth and depth of understanding about psychology have improved dramatically Provide one tiny bit of evidence for this. Do you seriously think that Shakespeare (for e.g.) did not have a profound understanding of human psychology?

KaoruAoiShiho 1y ago
If he did it's not shown in his writing, or really any pre-20th century writers really.
- daseiner1 1y ago
  this is bait
- zabzonk 1y ago
  have you read any pre-20th C writers? Or any novels or plays at all?
  - KaoruAoiShiho 1y ago
    The conflicts in his plays just aren't that profound, you know? Compared to modern "psychological turmoil" it's relatively simplistic, something like Macbeth's "ambition vs morality". Modern writers pull in more layers of depth, explain the ebbs and flows of motivations and identities through social forces and work more with complex ideas like self-deception and rationalization. Shakespeare's characters are generally reliable narrators in a way that later lit tends not to be.
daseiner1 1y ago
there's a reason Harold Bloom titled his book about Shakespeare The Invention of the Human
altruios 1y ago
not who you are replying to - but: Shakespeare was limited by the number of interactions he had with humans. He did not have the internet. We also have neurology as a science now. So that's one bit of evidence for the claim. Of course Shakespeare had a profound understanding of human nature. And of course he did not have the working vocabulary and knowledge base of modern psychology which has been built up over time by many humans working together. Two things can be true.
- kstrauser 1y ago
  Hard disagree. I made an analogy in another reply to Monet not knowing quantum physics. Lacking that information didn’t deter his famous explorations of light effects. Humans are great at figuring out how things behave before we have a great model of why they do it. And by Shakespeare’s time, we had a pretty good grasp on practical human psychology, even if we had less understanding of the mechanisms behind it.
  - altruios 1y ago
    We are excellent at figuring things out. We get better at it over time, as we grow our collective knowledge base. I agree that we are great at figuring out things before we have a model of why things work. And we have a mountain of context to work from already. Shakespeare wasn't an idiot, and he wasn't in a vacuum but his 'context window' was 'smaller' than a lot of people today(quotes because dubious terminology). Art is improving. Science is improving. human understanding, and communication of that understanding is improving too. That is my point.
    - kstrauser 1y ago
      I won't argue against that at all. Someday we're going to have someone with Shakespeare's brilliance and modern foundations, and I can't wait to see what that looks like. (And maybe we already do have that person. I'm shamefully out of date with modern literature.)
- KineticLensman 1y ago
  > Of course Shakespeare had a profound understanding of human nature. And of course he did not have the working vocabulary and knowledge base of modern psychology which has been built up over time by many humans working together. Two things can be true. Yes, but this doesn't prove that a modern author could produce a better text than a historically great author, which was the original line of thought. Or is there a specific modern text that you have in mind that proves the point?
  - 1y ago

KaoruAoiShiho 1y ago

If he did it's not shown in his writing, or really any pre-20th century writers really.

daseiner1 1y ago
this is bait
zabzonk 1y ago
have you read any pre-20th C writers? Or any novels or plays at all?
- KaoruAoiShiho 1y ago
  The conflicts in his plays just aren't that profound, you know? Compared to modern "psychological turmoil" it's relatively simplistic, something like Macbeth's "ambition vs morality". Modern writers pull in more layers of depth, explain the ebbs and flows of motivations and identities through social forces and work more with complex ideas like self-deception and rationalization. Shakespeare's characters are generally reliable narrators in a way that later lit tends not to be.

daseiner1 1y ago

there's a reason Harold Bloom titled his book about Shakespeare The Invention of the Human

altruios 1y ago

not who you are replying to - but: Shakespeare was limited by the number of interactions he had with humans. He did not have the internet. We also have neurology as a science now. So that's one bit of evidence for the claim. Of course Shakespeare had a profound understanding of human nature. And of course he did not have the working vocabulary and knowledge base of modern psychology which has been built up over time by many humans working together. Two things can be true.

kstrauser 1y ago
Hard disagree. I made an analogy in another reply to Monet not knowing quantum physics. Lacking that information didn’t deter his famous explorations of light effects. Humans are great at figuring out how things behave before we have a great model of why they do it. And by Shakespeare’s time, we had a pretty good grasp on practical human psychology, even if we had less understanding of the mechanisms behind it.
- altruios 1y ago
  We are excellent at figuring things out. We get better at it over time, as we grow our collective knowledge base. I agree that we are great at figuring out things before we have a model of why things work. And we have a mountain of context to work from already. Shakespeare wasn't an idiot, and he wasn't in a vacuum but his 'context window' was 'smaller' than a lot of people today(quotes because dubious terminology). Art is improving. Science is improving. human understanding, and communication of that understanding is improving too. That is my point.
  - kstrauser 1y ago
    I won't argue against that at all. Someday we're going to have someone with Shakespeare's brilliance and modern foundations, and I can't wait to see what that looks like. (And maybe we already do have that person. I'm shamefully out of date with modern literature.)
KineticLensman 1y ago
> Of course Shakespeare had a profound understanding of human nature. And of course he did not have the working vocabulary and knowledge base of modern psychology which has been built up over time by many humans working together. Two things can be true. Yes, but this doesn't prove that a modern author could produce a better text than a historically great author, which was the original line of thought. Or is there a specific modern text that you have in mind that proves the point?
- 1y ago