5 ms·

An interesting Reddit r/AskHistorians thread on the question """Does the aphorism "Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create

An interesting Reddit r/AskHistorians thread on the question """Does the aphorism "Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. Weak men create hard times", accurately reflect the evolution of civilizations through history and across different cultures?""" copying only the conclusion for a tl;dr: "The only way that the aphorism explains history is by reinforcing confirmation bias - by seeming to confirm what we already believe about the state of the world and the causes behind it. Only those worried about a perceived crisis in masculinity are likely to care about the notion of "weak men" and what trouble they might cause. Only those who wish to see themselves or specific others as "strong men" are likely to believe that the mere existence of such men will bring about a better world. This has nothing to do with history and everything with stereotypes, prejudice and bias. It started as a baseless morality tale, and that is what it still is." https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/hd78tv/does_the_aphorism_hard_times_create_strong_men/ https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/hd78tv/does_...

frumplestlatz 11mo ago
Ironic given how strongly Reddit, r/AskHistorians, and the humanities in general bring their own biased lens to bear. Just like everyone else.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- tarsinge 11mo ago
  I’m not sure what you mean. I don’t see a bias here, the point is plainly stated: the notion of weak men is dubious. You might not agree, but then engage with something substantial.
  - frumplestlatz 11mo ago
    If you don’t see a bias in political communication (and that is what all of this is), then chances are very high you share the bias. Abundance allows comfort, comfort enables complacency, and complacency can weaken the social fabric by encouraging short-term gratification over long-term maintenance. People worry about masculinity because masculinity requires structured, pro-social outlets to not be toxic. A aimless or misdirected male population is an incredibly corrosive and/or dangerous thing. It can rot out a society from within, or make a society susceptible to subversion from without. Societies use rhetoric about strength because if a society does not maintain systems that cultivate competence, responsibility, purpose, and pro-social ambition (especially in its most impulsive members), it becomes brittle.
    - jodrellblank 11mo ago
      You're doing the same assuming "good times = comfort = weakness" as a thing you already think, which is what the long reply I linked is debunking. What you said implies an opposite, something like: scarcity and famine strengthens the social fabric by encouraging long-term thinking over short-term maintenance. Actually it doesn't, scarcity leads to dog-eat-dog short-term survival tactics anything from stealing from neighbours, eating next year's seeds, up to eating the farm dog or selling the farm machinery or cannibalism, and leads to squalor, disease, and fire risks because nobody has time or energy or resources to spare on anything but the most urgent survival. Abundance, by contrast, allows seed saving, food storage for winter, spare resources to use on washing and hygiene and medicine and recovering from illness, rule of law and enforcement, time away from subsistence farming and scavenging for food to enable things like developing metalworking skills, inventing, practicing archery, spending time on other society-building rituals like building churches and going to church. > "A aimless or misdirected male population is an incredibly corrosive and/or dangerous thing" If they are "incredibly dangerous" does that not make them "strong"? These are supposed to be the "weak men" created by "good times", aren't they? Are they strong men created by weak times who are themselves creating weak times by rotting society? Or are they strong because they are men, independent of the times? Does this fit into the saying at all?
      - frumplestlatz 11mo ago
        > scarcity and famine strengthens the social fabric by encouraging long-term thinking over short-term maintenance Famine is not isomorphic to “hard times”, and particularly not what the aphorism is referring to: self-created hard times, wherein a society’s ability to self-sustain and compete externally is needlessly curtailed. > If they are "incredibly dangerous" does that not make them "strong"? I said corrosive and/or dangerous, and weakness can be both corrosive and dangerous. What you linked to was not a debunking. It was a political viewpoint. Reasonable arguments exist for a different one.
        jodrellblank 11mo ago
        > "Famine is not isomorphic to hard times" Nobody claimed it was > "particularly not what the aphorism is referring to" The aphorism does not say what it is referring to, you are making this up so it says what you want it to say (which is bias). This wouldn't be a problem if you used that to make a point and argue your point, but it is a problem when you just go "I imagine that it means something else, so you're wrong". Self-created hard times such as ... what? If laziness in farming doesn't create famine in winter... what hard times are more relevant than that for a society in 0 AD? "Needlessly curtailed" by who or what effect? > "I said corrosive and/or dangerous, and weakness can be both corrosive and dangerous." Can it. Is there any way to measure this weakness? Is it actually a thing?
- lucianbr 11mo ago
  "Strongly" and "just like everyone else" are contradictory, no? Assuming "strongly" is somehow relative. If you have an absolute measuring scale for bias-bringing-to-bear, I would love to hear about it.
  - frumplestlatz 11mo ago
    It’s relative to no bias at all, and I was trying to be gracious.
titzer 11mo ago
Just because it says "men" doesn't mean it's about masculinity. Rather, my reading of "strong men" is closer to "people with a strong work ethic, integrity, and zero tolerance for corrupt grifters," and my reading of "weak men" is "people with zero work ethic who are in fact, corrupt grifters."
_yb2s 11mo ago
That reply completely misunderstands the quote. It is about how people with integrity, who are willing and able to put out effort and endure difficulties to build a better future, do usually manage to make things better than those who do not. It’s essentially a truism warning people that problems you ignore don’t fix themselves, and has nothing to do with gender or gender stereotypes, that’s a linguistic misunderstanding. In this context, “men” is gender neutral and means “people.” In old english, the word “men” is explicitly gender neutral and there was a different word, “wēr” for male people, which is still used in some contexts, e.g. “werewolf” means wolf man.
- dingnuts 11mo ago
  [dead]

frumplestlatz 11mo ago

Ironic given how strongly Reddit, r/AskHistorians, and the humanities in general bring their own biased lens to bear. Just like everyone else.

deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
tarsinge 11mo ago
I’m not sure what you mean. I don’t see a bias here, the point is plainly stated: the notion of weak men is dubious. You might not agree, but then engage with something substantial.
- frumplestlatz 11mo ago
  If you don’t see a bias in political communication (and that is what all of this is), then chances are very high you share the bias. Abundance allows comfort, comfort enables complacency, and complacency can weaken the social fabric by encouraging short-term gratification over long-term maintenance. People worry about masculinity because masculinity requires structured, pro-social outlets to not be toxic. A aimless or misdirected male population is an incredibly corrosive and/or dangerous thing. It can rot out a society from within, or make a society susceptible to subversion from without. Societies use rhetoric about strength because if a society does not maintain systems that cultivate competence, responsibility, purpose, and pro-social ambition (especially in its most impulsive members), it becomes brittle.
  - jodrellblank 11mo ago
    You're doing the same assuming "good times = comfort = weakness" as a thing you already think, which is what the long reply I linked is debunking. What you said implies an opposite, something like: scarcity and famine strengthens the social fabric by encouraging long-term thinking over short-term maintenance. Actually it doesn't, scarcity leads to dog-eat-dog short-term survival tactics anything from stealing from neighbours, eating next year's seeds, up to eating the farm dog or selling the farm machinery or cannibalism, and leads to squalor, disease, and fire risks because nobody has time or energy or resources to spare on anything but the most urgent survival. Abundance, by contrast, allows seed saving, food storage for winter, spare resources to use on washing and hygiene and medicine and recovering from illness, rule of law and enforcement, time away from subsistence farming and scavenging for food to enable things like developing metalworking skills, inventing, practicing archery, spending time on other society-building rituals like building churches and going to church. > "A aimless or misdirected male population is an incredibly corrosive and/or dangerous thing" If they are "incredibly dangerous" does that not make them "strong"? These are supposed to be the "weak men" created by "good times", aren't they? Are they strong men created by weak times who are themselves creating weak times by rotting society? Or are they strong because they are men, independent of the times? Does this fit into the saying at all?
    - frumplestlatz 11mo ago
      > scarcity and famine strengthens the social fabric by encouraging long-term thinking over short-term maintenance Famine is not isomorphic to “hard times”, and particularly not what the aphorism is referring to: self-created hard times, wherein a society’s ability to self-sustain and compete externally is needlessly curtailed. > If they are "incredibly dangerous" does that not make them "strong"? I said corrosive and/or dangerous, and weakness can be both corrosive and dangerous. What you linked to was not a debunking. It was a political viewpoint. Reasonable arguments exist for a different one.
      - jodrellblank 11mo ago
        > "Famine is not isomorphic to hard times" Nobody claimed it was > "particularly not what the aphorism is referring to" The aphorism does not say what it is referring to, you are making this up so it says what you want it to say (which is bias). This wouldn't be a problem if you used that to make a point and argue your point, but it is a problem when you just go "I imagine that it means something else, so you're wrong". Self-created hard times such as ... what? If laziness in farming doesn't create famine in winter... what hard times are more relevant than that for a society in 0 AD? "Needlessly curtailed" by who or what effect? > "I said corrosive and/or dangerous, and weakness can be both corrosive and dangerous." Can it. Is there any way to measure this weakness? Is it actually a thing?
lucianbr 11mo ago
"Strongly" and "just like everyone else" are contradictory, no? Assuming "strongly" is somehow relative. If you have an absolute measuring scale for bias-bringing-to-bear, I would love to hear about it.
- frumplestlatz 11mo ago
  It’s relative to no bias at all, and I was trying to be gracious.

titzer 11mo ago

Just because it says "men" doesn't mean it's about masculinity. Rather, my reading of "strong men" is closer to "people with a strong work ethic, integrity, and zero tolerance for corrupt grifters," and my reading of "weak men" is "people with zero work ethic who are in fact, corrupt grifters."

_yb2s 11mo ago

That reply completely misunderstands the quote. It is about how people with integrity, who are willing and able to put out effort and endure difficulties to build a better future, do usually manage to make things better than those who do not. It’s essentially a truism warning people that problems you ignore don’t fix themselves, and has nothing to do with gender or gender stereotypes, that’s a linguistic misunderstanding. In this context, “men” is gender neutral and means “people.” In old english, the word “men” is explicitly gender neutral and there was a different word, “wēr” for male people, which is still used in some contexts, e.g. “werewolf” means wolf man.

dingnuts 11mo ago
[dead]